Western journos who go to Islamic countries and cover up their faces are being respectful to local customs. They are not living there – they are simply there temporarily to get the story and leave.

Islamic women who demand that we accept their customs (in certain focused environments like courtrooms) when they choose to live here are arguably being disrespectful to our customs.

I have no problem with Islamic women covering up their faces partially or wholly if they so desire when out in the streets and engaging in everyday life. But in the eyes of the state and the law, we must all be equal. Thus I believe that no religious belief should enable a woman to hide her face when applying for a passport or drivers license, and equally, should a judge decide that it is proper and right for her to remove her facial covering in the courtroom, then we must respect the judgement and demand that she do so.

Western journalists may find it an inconvenience to cover-up in a muslim country. They may even find it culturally offensive – but that’s all. They don’t find it personally degrading or feel violated as they would if required to appear in public naked.

The woman, in this case, states that she has a personal conviction that she cannot remove her burqah in public at least as strong as a Western woman’s objection to testifying naked. It is for the judge to assess the sincerity and strength of this conviction and to try and find the best balance between protecting the respective rights of the witness and the defendant.

This thing about men getting aroused by seeing the eyes/nose lips of a women is ridiculous. The case is being heard in Auckland, far more flesh is available in any cafe. The women know they attract much more attention with a burqa ( by the way i was passing 2 women in burqa, the foul language they spouting, made me wonder if they were a rugby league team.
The women merely has to reveal her face, to the judge and lawyers if she cant handle that, life in Afganistan may be her option.
Often western women journalist have to cover their arms ,hair etc when interviewing muslim politicians. Nobody has the slightest worry about following cultural norms when in Muslim countries, its an inconvienece but no big deal. If this women wasnt being force to testify against a family member she would drop the veil quick as flash

(1) We find nakedness erotic (and embarassing) only because it’s abnormal. Naturists do not (I am reliably informed) sport permanent erections. Men in cultures which require women to wear the burqah experience sexual arousal at the sight of an uncovered female face similar to that experienced by western men at a quick flash of nipple or beaver.

(2) Some western women (and maybe more men) might quite enjoy testifying naked but most would find it embarrassing and many would be acutely distressed. Particularly if their naked bits were subject to close scrutiny by cross-examining counsel

(3) Whether this woman would, in fact, commit suicide if forced to remove the burqah is not the point. Causing unnecessary distress is wrong even if the victim survives it.

(4) The ability of counsel, judge or jury to assess a witness’s truthfulness from their facial expression (demeanour and body language are equally visible with or without the burqah) is greatly overrated – particularly with a subject from a different culture. It is also arguable that the witness’s distress at appearing unveiled would mask any useful signals that her facial expression might give. It is also at least as likely that the main motivation of defence is to intimdate the witness from testifying.

(5) Ultimately it is the judge’s decision to determine whether the advantage (if any) to justice of making the witness unveil overrides the distress that would cause the witness. That decision should (and will) be based on a fair judgement of the severity of that distress and the relevant extent of any problems in evaluating testimony with or without the veil. It should have nothing to do with any notion that immigrants must conform to the majority culture.

Sure most of us prefer not to walk around naked (to which those who know me let out a great sigh of relief) but most of us have been seen naked or near naked hundreds of times by strangers – at school, in changing rooms, sometimes in flats, on beaches, or by accident etc. We tend to be embarassed not suicidal.

Next you’ll claim Black Power or Mongrel Mob should be allowed to appear in court wearing balaclavas, as it is culturally offensive not to be able to do so.

The situation here seems to be the same except that it hinges on a minority cultural view. If the judge is satisfied that this is a genuine “conscientious objection” and not just a ruse to foil cross-examination it would be proper to exercise his (or her?) discretion and allow the witness to testify wearing her burkah. At a purely pragmatic level the witness’s “demeanour and body language” should she be forced to uncover her face are unlikely to signal anything other than acute distress at her exposure.

Things get more difficult when their children are involved, but letting the state choose what’s best is surely the worst outcome.

I don’t think blood transfusion and veil in courts are in any way comparable.

As far as I know, most varieties of Islam also allow exceptions to normal prohibitions in order to spare life. What we’re seeing here is the freaky end of Islam, comparable with those wacky Christians who don’t allow blood transfusions.

Surely she should feel much less than oppressed in a court, as it is a place for justice.