Medieval Theocracy

One can only suppose that if women, through long enough exposure to a certain type of culture - think it is fine to shroud themselves in public lest the sight of their scowling visage occasioned by sighting other women who don't feel like submitting to oppression - feel it's just dandy to anonymously claim justice, we should accept this as their due.

There is full sympathy for any woman who claims to have been raped, entitled to see justice done her and her violators judged.

That she has allegedly been raped by members of her own family, within a culture that views rapes as the fault of the woman, because the man simply was unable to control his urges, is fairly miserable. That this same culture views women who have lost their virginity as even more worthless than those who still present as marriageable-intact, represents a double offence.

In fairness, justice should be done and the rapists held to account.

But in Canada, as it happens, the accused have a right in law to face their accusers. And a judge and jury are accustomed to viewing both the accuser and the accused, to read body language and facial expressions in an effort to determine whether there is verity in the claims, either of the accuser or the accused.

If a woman from that culture insists that it is her religious right to cover her face and this right must be respected, we have a problem.

It's a problem that an Ontario court of appeal made a tenuously timid judgement on. In the obvious interests of being seen as sensitive to the issue of religious freedoms, justice has been held hostage. There are some judicial forms that simply should not be tampered with, and this is one of them. If the courage to stand up in court is present, it should be done bare-faced, without a face-covering.

Once outside the court, the woman can resume wearing her niqab. And/or her burqa. The choice, after all, is hers, and completely covering up on the streets of Canada is still legal, unlike some other countries of the world like Indonesia and France. But in a court of law? Uncover. Someone's perceived right represents someone else's rights being tampered with, and when that happens it's a no-go.

And here's the truly perplexing thing about the recent controversy in R. vs N.S. and the judgement of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The appellant had the support in her insistence that she must have her face covered while giving testimony in court, of LEAF, the women's Legal Education and Action Fund, a professional feminist group supporting the rights of women.

Puzzling, isn't it? Feminists finding common cause with a woman suffering the effects of a patriarchal society's culturally demeaning demands. If this were any other situation but one that pits Muslim women against democratic society's freedoms and mores, feminists would be front and centre decrying the imposition of a shroud on the dignity of a free female.

But women in fundamentalist Islam are not free in the carefree sense of the word. They must always be aware of who and where they are. They must not tantalize a strange male by the sight of their uncovered skin. To do so, as millions of women around the world do, is to invite untoward advances risking, even inviting rape.

But the woman in question came from a tradition in which women are thought to be irremediably soiled if she is no longer virginally intact. She was sexually assaulted by members of her own family, repeatedly, at a time when she was young and vulnerable. She has been wearing traditional Islamic garb for a mere five years.

Can it be so ingrained in her that were she to temporarily shed her face veil, that would be tantamount to blighting the quality of her faith in Islam?