Thursday, December 20, 2012

Dressing up the truth

Today in Canadian news, there was a bit of a media frenzy surrounding women being able to wear the Niqab in court, or not.

There's an irony to this:
1.  The court system seems quite happy to have people swearing on Bibles, Koran's and other religious texts as part of the oath taking process.
2.  The courts rely on belief as part of the testimony process:
- I believe I heard/saw…
- I believe that if I didn't hit him over the head, he would try to attack me, your honour...

So, to distill this down:
  • Religion is belief
  • Belief can be used for oath and testimony
  • In court, not all beliefs are equal.

This is why this Niqab issue came up in the first place:  
Someone believed they should be allowed to wear it, and someone else believed that this belief was invalid and therefore they should not be allowed to wear it. 

One belief, therefore, trumped another.

Due to this irony, you have to question whether the same system that is supposed to be finding facts based on the belief's of witness testimonies, that willingly discounted one set of beliefs, is discounting other beliefs as part of the judicial process?

Maybe they should replace judges with scientists; that way, it wouldn't matter if the truth was dressed in a Niqab, Jeans, or a tutu - it'd still be inclusive to the process.