The recent uproar over whether a witness testifying must do so after removing her burqa seems to have focused on the question whether wearing a burqa is a religious matter.
Newspaper commentary has questioned the matter (as did the judge) by making a religion/culture distinction.
The trouble is that such distinction has, within it, an implied sub text -- that religion is a separate part of life quite distinct from culture. That is, to use a Christian analogy, religion is something you do on Sunday morning.
If course, for a committed believer, especially in a faith like Islam, all aspects of life are imbued with religious meaning. And clearly wearing a burqa is based on a life in which faith is paramount.
It doesn't matter if I believe in that faith or think G-d wants women's faces to be hidden from view (actually, I believe quite the contrary) -- the issue is what the witness believes -- and to my mind there can be no doubt she wears the burqa to serve her faith.
That, of course, does not end the issue. Religion does not trump all other interests. A religion that, say, believes in slavery would not be given a free pass to owns slaves in Canada. Religions that refuse blood transfusions are commonly over ruled where children's lives are at risk.
But the issue is balancing religious freedom and other interests. To suggest, in the burqa case, that religion isn't involved is disingenuous.
Newspaper commentary has questioned the matter (as did the judge) by making a religion/culture distinction.
The trouble is that such distinction has, within it, an implied sub text -- that religion is a separate part of life quite distinct from culture. That is, to use a Christian analogy, religion is something you do on Sunday morning.
If course, for a committed believer, especially in a faith like Islam, all aspects of life are imbued with religious meaning. And clearly wearing a burqa is based on a life in which faith is paramount.
It doesn't matter if I believe in that faith or think G-d wants women's faces to be hidden from view (actually, I believe quite the contrary) -- the issue is what the witness believes -- and to my mind there can be no doubt she wears the burqa to serve her faith.
That, of course, does not end the issue. Religion does not trump all other interests. A religion that, say, believes in slavery would not be given a free pass to owns slaves in Canada. Religions that refuse blood transfusions are commonly over ruled where children's lives are at risk.
But the issue is balancing religious freedom and other interests. To suggest, in the burqa case, that religion isn't involved is disingenuous.
In this I agree with a Montreal Rabbi, whose letter to the National Post see below:
Re: Veil Of Ignorance, Tarek Fatah, Feb. 5.
I found myself surprisingly offended by Tarek Fatah's column, in which he claims that since "there is no requirement in Islam for Muslim women to cover their face," there is justification for a judge to order its removal.
As a religious Jew, I know there are a number of customs that have minimal textual basis but have nonetheless become part of our practice. The donning of a kipah (skullcap) is just one example.
Furthermore, there are many customs of dress and practice that have been accepted as the norm in sects of Hasidic Judaism. It is not my place to judge whether they should or should not be donning these clothes, nor should it be Mr. Fatah's. And I object to a Toronto judge ordering the removal of a burqa, just as I would object of a similar order for the removal to a streimel (hassidic hat). I would expect both Mr. Fatah and the judge to recognize this issue for what it's truly about: religious intolerance.
Rabbi Ira Ebbin, Beth Zion Congregation, Cote St-Luc, Que
3 comments:
Agreed. Presuming there is no question of identity, wearing a burqa when testifying should be no more controversial than wearing a wedding ring, a cross, or a skullcap.
So the defendant's right to face his accused, to have his lawyer use his skills in defense by reading the body language and facial expressions of the witness are a lesser concern than the witness's religious belief? I have to think that the right to a fair trial, which could well result in a very real removal of human rights from the defendant, have to outweigh the religious rights of the witness, whose breach of rights would lead to discomfort, at worst. There must be a hierarchy of rights, and religious rights must take a back seat when their practice can meaningfully impact the rights, and in this case more important rights, of others.
For example, police, psychiatrists, and people in general can pick up on visual cues to truthfulness, whether it's looking one way or another, blushing, grimacing, forced smiling and so on. Those cues can very much change the believability of a witness. If it didn't we would simply submit questions and await written answers. Hiding behind a veil or wearing sunglasses, or other means of hiding the face are generally not allowed for a reason and that reason is the defendant's right to a fair trial.
If a religion dictates that a woman be hidden behind a facemask, then yes, I am intolerant of that religion. The fact is that Islam does nothing of that sort.
If a religion requires widows to jump into the fires of her husband's funeral pyre, then yes, I would be intolerant of such a religion.
It is downright silly to compare a face mask in a trial top the wearing of a wedding ring or a skull cap or turban or a hijab, none of which do what the Niqab/Burqa does--allow one party to see the other, while not permitting the other the same right. If everyone in the court wore the burqa, then I would have no problem with such a farce.
Post a Comment