No, this isn’t a “tricky ruling”. It’s an indignity that will have the effect of women who wear the niqab being intimidated into not testifying in court.

If the case rests on her facial expressions, there is no good case either way. The only reason to insist on her removing her niqab is to shut her up.

So, her family members who may very well have repeatedly sexual assaulted her while she was a child are being empowered by the state to force her to take her clothes off in public, in order for her to testify against them.

Sounds legit! /sarcasm

The fact that this case has come up surrounding sexual assault just makes the issue even more apparent – more clear.

It reminds me of the niqab bans in France that have the effect of putting women who wear the niqab under house arrest – and would have police accosting women in the streets for wearing a banned article of clothing.

How can anyone justify disallowing women wearing niqab to take their exams?  Are their instructors so dense they can’t identify them? As a teacher, I find this ridiculous.  So, apparently if your sect doesn’t stop you from getting an education, the “liberals” will!

I’m no fan of the niqab. It seem about as practical an article of clothing as high heels or sleeves that cover your hands or cinching corsetry.  I understand that there is a good argument to disallow it in some places (such as banks) and not allow the picture of a person wearing a veil to act as identification, and to request that a person remove the niqab if identification is ACTUALLY an issue – as is practically necessary.

However, what level of cruelty is too much? You can’t empower others by using force and coercion against them – and you certainly can’t do that by empowering the people who are actively oppressing them. Why the hell should her “personal preference and matter of comfort” be of no consequence? How messed up is that? – especially considering the nature of the case.