I saw an interesting story about a woman in Australia that got out of a 6 month jail sentence because she was not required to show her face.
Legally, a person cannot be convicted of a crime no matter how big or small if that person cannot be identified by their accuser. My brother once got out of a pretty serious traffic ticket for just this reason. His accuser misidentified me as the driver, but when I told the cop that I wasn't driving (and my brother was) he gave my brother the ticket. In court we asked that his accuser identify the driver out of a lineup. Since I was wearing his uniform shirt, she looked at the nametag and pointed me out. Case dismissed.
So if police are not allowed to see the face of women in burquas how are they to ever get a conviction that sticks?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. John USYacht 27 "Cora Lee"
Actually, she was acquitted because someone in a hijab & veil made a false complaint to the police about a police officer's conduct. The court ruled, correctly, that it was not beyond a reasonable doubt the person making the complaint was someone different than the accused as the only evidence of her identity was video evidence.
The law currently provides the ability for a woman to be finger-printed for purposes of identification, with the ability to have the fingerprints destroyed upon request once the complaint/case has been dealt with. This is both a legally recognised form of identification which also allows for the person in question to maintain their religious tradition.
You probably want to cast a critical eye over the news from Channel 9 here as well, they aren't the most reliable source of context or facts here. Whilst the opinion commentary on SKY & ABC are at skewed at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their news programs are the best at separating the bulldust from the facts. The "violence" outside the court is an example of this. There was indeed a phalanx of family & friends protecting a 46 year old woman from the overly pushy media. How would you react if someone was shoving you around in an attempt to hassle your mother?
In terms of culture vs law, I'd say that culture should be respected up until the point it conflicts with the law. The law requires, for example, that a Muslim woman desiring a drivers license needs to have a photo of her face on the license. They cannot get the license using a shot of them in their hijab, regardless of how offensive they might think that. A bank is within their rights to have them leave the premises (this has been tested) if they do not uncover their face for the cameras in exactly the same fashion as motorcycle helment wearers. Etc.
Actually, she was acquitted because someone in a hijab & veil made a false complaint to the police about a police officer's conduct. The court ruled, correctly, that it was not beyond a reasonable doubt the person making the complaint was someone different than the accused as the only evidence of her identity was video evidence.
I'm sure you're right about this, which is just one more reason to go the way of the french and ban them, especially when dealing with the police in any way. I'm sure the person taking the complaint was more than hesitant to request that a woman remove her veil while taking a complaint about an officer requesting that she remove her veil.
Quote:
The law currently provides the ability for a woman to be finger-printed for purposes of identification, with the ability to have the fingerprints destroyed upon request once the complaint/case has been dealt with. This is both a legally recognised form of identification which also allows for the person in question to maintain their religious tradition.
And who pays the extra expense involved with maintaining their religious tradition? Should you charge a fee for every person who elects to keep the veil on and use fingerprints as ID?
Quote:
You probably want to cast a critical eye over the news from Channel 9 here as well, they aren't the most reliable source of context or facts here. Whilst the opinion commentary on SKY & ABC are at skewed at opposite ends of the political spectrum, their news programs are the best at separating the bulldust from the facts. The "violence" outside the court is an example of this. There was indeed a phalanx of family & friends protecting a 46 year old woman from the overly pushy media. How would you react if someone was shoving you around in an attempt to hassle your mother?
Obviously I didn't see the whole incident, just what was on the news clip. It looked to me that the "phalanx" chose a path, and push and shoved their way through the crowd, even going after cameramen to keep them from filming.
Quote:
In terms of culture vs law, I'd say that culture should be respected up until the point it conflicts with the law. The law requires, for example, that a Muslim woman desiring a drivers license needs to have a photo of her face on the license. They cannot get the license using a shot of them in their hijab, regardless of how offensive they might think that. A bank is within their rights to have them leave the premises (this has been tested) if they do not uncover their face for the cameras in exactly the same fashion as motorcycle helment wearers. Etc.
I'm by no means an expert on Aussie law (or US law for that matter, that's what lawyers are for) but I think it would be good policy to require the veil to be removed for any legal or financial transaction. Personally I don't like them in any case. Like I stated in the OP, if a person can't ID someone who breaks the law, then the criminal can't be convicted. So unless we all carry a pocket fingerprint kit with us and can get someone to stop in mid crime (hit and run for instance) and let us fingerprint them, then how are they to be brought to justice?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. John USYacht 27 "Cora Lee"
I'm sure you're right about this, which is just one more reason to go the way of the french and ban them, especially when dealing with the police in any way. I'm sure the person taking the complaint was more than hesitant to request that a woman remove her veil while taking a complaint about an officer requesting that she remove her veil.
True, but there are other legal ways of ensuring the identity of an individual. Police are put into uncomfortable situations day-in & day-out. No-one likes to be called up breaking the law or having to justify themselves to law enforcement. My brother-in-law is a police officer and some of the things he gets called just for a random breath testing stop are just foul.
Facial hair also makes identification harder. Let's ban that as well shall we? I don't disagree that a line needs to be drawn somewhere, but in this case it does not need to be at banning an element of religious attire. There is a perfectly legal and available alternative.
Quote:
And who pays the extra expense involved with maintaining their religious tradition? Should you charge a fee for every person who elects to keep the veil on and use fingerprints as ID?
Same person that pays for translators when the person making a complaint does not speak English. Are we going to to require all citizens speak English by law as well?
Quote:
Obviously I didn't see the whole incident, just what was on the news clip. It looked to me that the "phalanx" chose a path, and push and shoved their way through the crowd, even going after cameramen to keep them from filming.
You've obviously not seen the outside of our courts before & after a high profile case. It is an embarrassment that the media treat people like they do, especially given the guilty ones are generally taken out a separate exit (flanked by police as opposed to family).
Quote:
I'm by no means an expert on Aussie law (or US law for that matter, that's what lawyers are for) but I think it would be good policy to require the veil to be removed for any legal or financial transaction. Personally I don't like them in any case. Like I stated in the OP, if a person can't ID someone who breaks the law, then the criminal can't be convicted. So unless we all carry a pocket fingerprint kit with us and can get someone to stop in mid crime (hit and run for instance) and let us fingerprint them, then how are they to be brought to justice?
And yet it is perfectly lawful to wear a motorcycle helmet, a bandana & sunglasses, etc. One can request they come off as a requirement of entering private property (how banks are legally allowed to make their requirement), but as a matter of public policy? I think it goes a step too far unless you ban all facial coverings to avoid the obvious discrimination. And if I can see the problems with such laws, you can bet the usual "individual rights" crowd will go mental
I can't believe I'm saying this but I completely agree with the French position. Our (developed Western) society has got to get some backbone when dealing with these medieval cultural issues cloaked in the guise of "religion" (not a bad pun actually)
Dennis Miller had it right when he said (paraphrase) "we aren't just different, we're BETTER". In the same show he mentioned a friend in the Real Estate business in Iran - he worked for "Century 4".
If these people want to maintain a set of 10th century social customs then they can go back to whatever hellhole they escaped from.
If they want the benefits of a modern, civilized society then they can follow OUR rules.
In the general area I live (the North Shore) there is a very large Persian community. No chadors or whatever other names the garments carry, quite a number of women wearing headscarves though. These people have had a VERY positive influence. I believe they were generally the merchant and educated classes so we skimmed the cream of Persian society to some extent.
In spite of their numbers they have assimilated well, very well run businesses, no calls for Sharia law etc. but that did happen in Ontario where some limp intellectuals actually supported it for family law. The proposal was laughed out of existence when it hit the media.
__________________
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats". The Water Rat from The Wind In The Willows
Sailing for 40 years in the Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean but mostly Georgia Straight.
Currently own a Columbia 43.
If they want the benefits of a modern, civilized society then they can follow OUR rules.
"OUR rules" are mostly objective. Presenting and defending them in that way makes for a far, far easier sell than making them a function of any one culture.
Quote:
In the general area I live (the North Shore) there is a very large Persian community. No chadors or whatever other names the garments carry, quite a number of women wearing headscarves though. These people have had a VERY positive influence. I believe they were generally the merchant and educated classes so we skimmed the cream of Persian society to some extent.
Often, the better element flees totalitarianism ASAP. If there's an irreplaceable [EDIT: RESOURCE] on this planet it's people like this. (The US saw a massive influx of Germans during the 1890 "revolution". A huge chunk of them were intellectuals, businessmen, high-skilled professionals and tradesmen. Same happened before and after each of the WWs, from Germany and elsewhere. It take generations to replace these people.)
__________________ Our fellow citizens have been led hoodwinked from their principles by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances. But the band is removed, and they now see for themselves. --Thomas Jefferson
You either have the rule of law, or the rule of culture. You can't have both in any multicultural society. It's no more complicated than that, unless you try to hybridize it.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - Website & Blog
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You either have the rule of law, or the rule of culture. You can't have both in any multicultural society. It's no more complicated than that, unless you try to hybridize it.
PB, you are absolutely right. The problem arises when cultural "law" such as Sharia rears its' ugly head. That's when the societal backbone is needed to reject it.
__________________
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats". The Water Rat from The Wind In The Willows
Sailing for 40 years in the Pacific, Atlantic, Caribbean but mostly Georgia Straight.
Currently own a Columbia 43.
Agree, though I can't articulate exactly *why* it is clear to me that this veil is different in kind from accepting the religious freedom to worship on Saturday instead of Sunday, for example, or in the forest instead of in a church building. Immigrants (legal ones!) are invited here to join us, not to change us.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Cinderella, CSY 33, Photo by Joe McCary
Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable. - Sidney J. Harris
Shameless self-promotion - my blog for the Annapolis Capital newspaper is moving to a new location: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. but there are still some glitches to be worked out. Until then, I'm posting at: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and like To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !
Connect with Facebook
