Ontario Violates Constitution and Human Decency in the Name of Fear

I have a lot of stress in my life right now, and so I've been trying to avoid reading the news too much.  Alas, the Ontario Courts have decided that I need a double-dose of outrage to get my day going.  In a recent decision, one of the Appellate Courts decided that a Muslim woman testifying against her accused molesters had the "right" to wear her Niqab while giving testimony.

I cannot even begin to describe my feelings- but I can tell you why this is insane.
Firstly, let's talk practicality.  The Court decided that her "strong beliefs" made it acceptable that she wear this Niqab.  Gee, I guess the next time I testify in Court, my "strong belief" that the Canadian legal system is becoming a giant joke will compel me to wear a Halloween mask.  I'll be sure to cry and find a sympathetic psychologist to point out that without some levity I'll be unable to focus, or some such garbage.  Furthermore, how can we be sure it's actually her? I guess we'll have to hire some more women, so she can lift the veil before testifying.  Of course, these new hires will need expensive training to ensure they are sensitive and not overly interrogative when comparing the face to the ID.

Now let's talk ideology, and the hideously thorny issue of rights.  Apparently, this woman has a "right" to practice her religion in a court where the Ten Commandments and Crucifixes are no longer permitted to be displayed.   I personally don't care if she walks around all day veiled- she can if she wants. It'll be like January in Québec, but all the time.  However, her "right" to be veiled doesn't override the man's (one of her relatives, in an irrelevant but disgusting twist) right to a fair trial.  You see, when cross-examining the witness, defence lawyers often point out facial tics and the inability to make eye contact as indications that a witness is not credible.  A defence lawyer will watch if they begin to sweat- it means the questions are getting difficult.  All of these things serve to ensure that the defendant gets "his day in court".  Of course, if the woman speaks in a quiet and steady monotone, while veiled, and refuses to make eye contact as "a modest Muslim woman", then none of this is relevant.  Why have her testify at all? Why not just have a computer read out a signed affidavit?  Because in our system, we give defendants the right to face their accuser.

The real issue here is that Islam, and particularly those sects of Islam that insist of putting women in various forms of potato-transportation-device (burlap sacks for those of us less fluent in Progressive Inverted Tongue), maintains that the legitimacy of its laws comes from Allah and therefore supersedes all other rules.  This woman is in effect saying "I can't show my face in court because Allah says so".  Yet, in Canada, every other religious group has and continues to make concessions to secular laws and regulations.  Sikhs cannot carry kirpans into designated no-weapons zones (schools yes, airplanes not so much). Hasidic Jews are still required to comply with safety regulations as concerning their long hair, which is probably why you don't see them working on oil rigs and the like.  Mennonites when driving their buggies still comply with the Traffic Act: they yield for all higher-speed vehicles and don't try to use the 401.

The list goes on.  The difference is that we aren't in a global conflict with radical Mennonites, and though the Hasidim sometimes try to get women's gyms to use frosted glass (denying me my constitutional right to leer at fit women), they don't try to do an end-run around established norms.

It's simple: one set of rules applies to everyone.  If Allah doesn't like it, pray harder for forgiveness.