The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

Judges, Veils and the Myth of a Guilty Expression

Why the Supreme Court was wrong to rule against a niqab-wearing sexual assault complainant.

By Kerri A. Froc 5 Jan 2013 |

Kerri A. Froc is a Trudeau and Vanier Scholar and Ph.D. student in the Faculty of Law at Queen's University.

image atom
In the case R. v. N.S., the court sided with defendants who said they needed to see their accuser's facial expressions during trial. Niqab photo via Shutterstock.

If a court were to apply a certain legal test that results in decisions being made in favour of the same party almost invariably every time it is employed, we would likely think it was fundamentally flawed. Legal tests are meant to be a neutral way of ascertaining appropriate outcomes that do not provide either party with undeserved advantage; they aren't meant to enable decision makers to simply "go through the motions" to achieve the same result, time after time. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has propounded a legal test that results in exactly this scenario in its decision, R. v. N.S., released on Dec. 20.

R. v. N.S. concerns a woman, N.S., who says she was sexually assaulted by her male relatives as a child. She initially made the complaint as a minor, but the police decided not to proceed with charges at that time, apparently at the request of her father. The case was reopened when N.S. approached the police again as an adult. At the preliminary inquiry, the accused men initially took no exception to N.S. wearing her niqab, a form of Muslim veiling covering a woman's face except the eyes, which had been part of her religious practice for the previous five years. However, they changed their mind on the second day. Then, they maintained that her veil interfered with their right to a fair trial as it would not permit them to judge her demeanour. The judge, after informally questioning N.S., found that her religious belief was "not that strong" and ordered her to unveil. A central focus in the judge's decision was the fact that she had permitted her driver's licence photo to be taken without the veil by a female photographer in the absence of men.

University of Ottawa law professor Natasha Bakht has analyzed the mounting body of social science that suggests that demeanour evidence is inherently unreliable. Further, cultural differences between witness and finder of fact only add to its unreliability. Most people, including most judges and lawyers, do not do much better than chance in deciding whether someone is lying through their facial expressions. However, the Supreme Court majority ducked this issue, saying that it could not take this evidence into account without an expert testifying to this effect at the hearing.

Any judge ordering a heavily bearded male witness to shave so everyone can see whether he is clenching his teeth when he answers difficult questions would be deemed incomprehensibly ridiculous. And indeed, it would be seen as an intolerable affront against said witness's basic dignity as a man. Yet, when women's religious garb is at issue, requiring removal of what N.S. sees as a "part of" her, does not engender the same visceral reaction. Instead, it is entertained as a legitimate question of procedural fairness.

What about women's equality rights?

The Supreme Court said that when a woman has a sincerely held religious belief requiring her to remain veiled in court, her right to religious freedom must be "reconciled" with the accused's fair trial rights. The Supreme Court goes on at length about how a court should seek accommodation of both rights (though it concedes that this may not be possible in N.S.). If no accommodation is possible, therefore, it should weigh whether the "salutary effects of requiring the witness to remove the niqab, including the effects on trial fairness, outweigh the deleterious effects of doing so, including the effects on freedom of religion."

The potentially chilling effect on reporting of sexual offences by niqab-wearing women is reduced to a paragraph, with women's equality rights receiving no mention by the Court.

Perhaps because this paradigm of religious freedom/fair trial conflict pushes equality rights to the periphery, the court is then able to add, "where the liberty of the accused is at stake, the witness's evidence is central to the case and her credibility is vital, the possibility of a wrongful conviction must weigh heavily in the balance, favouring removal of the niqab." It is extremely difficult to imagine any sexual assault case where the complainant's evidence is not "central" and her credibility not at issue. This raises the question, then -– is this "reconciliation" a neutral legal test, or is it a fig leaf? As Professor Beverley Baines recently opined in the Globe and Mail in relation to the case, "A compromised right is no right at all."

There is another right that the Supreme Court failed to mention, section 28, which guarantees rights "equally to male and female persons." Sexual assault complainants, including niqab-wearing ones, have an equal right to a fair trial. One can easily envision that defence tactics to force women to remove the niqab will become part of the standard repertoire, and unfortunately, the Supreme Court's framework will do little to deter them.

Will this process of "reconciliation" reflect women's equal right to a fair trial?

Or is it the equivalent of a thumb pressing on one side of the scales of justice -- just another twist in how the justice system fails sexually assaulted women?  [Tyee]

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll