In Your Face

Abstract

This article examines three judicial decisions in three different jurisdictions involving niqab-wearing women in courtrooms. Particular emphasis is paid to the Canadian Supreme Court case of R v. NS in which a sexual assault complainant wanted to wear her niqab while testifying. The uniquely challenging context of sexual assault, which has garnered much feminist attention and reform internationally, is considered. It is argued that serious consideration must be given to the multiple rights of Muslim women by reassessing the traditional use of demeanor evidence. Some judges in these cases attempt to be inclusive of niqab-wearing women in accordance with policies of multiculturalism, yet they do not go far enough in protecting Muslim women's rights. Other judges refuse to accommodate the niqab entirely. This troubling analysis parallels attempts made to exclude niqab-wearing women from public spaces in Canada and permits dubious objections that certain requests for accommodation have gone too far.

Unveiling the truth: The effect of Muslim garments and face covering on the perceived credibility of a victim’s court testimony.

“…and other niqab-wearing complainants are arguably likely to be viewed as less credible than non-niqab wearing complainants because judgments of their credibility will be influenced by stereotypes pertaining to their religion (Qureshi, 2014). For instance, Bakht (2009Bakht ( , 2014 argued that niqab-wearing witnesses could be perceived as less credible because of the subconscious biases that jurors may hold against Muslims as out-group members. Niqab-wearing women are especially prone to marginalization because the niqab declares their religion and outgroup membership publicly (Chakraborti & Zempi, 2012).…”