When is it right to ban the niqab?

A recent Ontario court case pitted the right of Muslim women to veil their faces against the right of citizens to confront their accusers in plain sight.

An Ontario court ruled Wednesday that a woman known as N.S. who claims to be the victim of sexual assault doesn’t necessarily have to remove her niqab while testifying. The decision stated that only in cases “where the accused's right to make full answer and defence would be infringed” by witnesses wearing a veil must a woman remove it, and that decision should be made on a case-by-case basis.

This is a “controversial but sound judgment,” says a Toronto Star editorial. “Canadians have a constitutional right to a fair trial. But not to expect that Muslim women must invariably take off their niqabs.” In cases where the witness is central to the case or her credibility is suspect, it may be found absolutely necessary that she do so. But thanks to this ruling “at least the witness will know that the court took her religious scruples seriously.”

A Globe and Mail editorial disagrees, saying “When rights collide, the Canadian way is to seek compromise and accommodation. But sometimes a choice has to be made” The ruling acknowledged that it is often necessary to see a witness’s face so that judge, jury and counsel can evaluate visual cues and assess credibility, and “once the court acknowledged that … it should have stated unequivocally its expectation that in such cases to the niqab be removed” rather than leaving it up to a case by case basis.

Not only should veils be banned in courtrooms, argues the National Post’s Barbara Kay, but in society in general. “Veiling is gender apartheid … Our responsibility to make sure no woman is subjugated to the will of others trumps religious tolerance.” Kay’s argument is defensible, but is complicated by cases like that of N.S., who says she does not want to remove her veil. If we want to force her to uncover herself so that she’s not “subjugated to the will of others” we’d have to prove that her desire to remain veiled is actually not her own, but that of her male oppressors. Otherwise we’d be subjugating her to the will of the state.