Tunisia Bans Niqab In Government Buildings

Tunisia's Prime Minister yesterday signed a government circular banning the niqab, which covers the entire face except for the eyes, from government  offices.  As reported by  France24, this comes as part of efforts to heighten security after a double suicide bombing last month. The government fears that the niqab will be used as a disguises for terrorists.

UN Committee Says France's Anti-Niqab Law Violates Free Exercise Rights

The United Nations Human Rights Committee yesterday issued a press release on two decisions issued Oct. 22:

In two landmark decisions, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that France violated the human rights of two women by fining them for wearing the niqab, a full-body Islamic veil....

The Committee found that the general criminal ban on the wearing of the niqab in public introduced by the French law disproportionately harmed the petitioners’ right to manifest their religious beliefs, and that France had not adequately explained why it was necessary to prohibit this clothing. In particular, the Committee was not persuaded by France’s claim that a ban on face covering was necessary and proportionate from a security standpoint or for attaining the goal of “living together” in society. 

The decisions (available only in French) are Hebbadj v. France and Yaker v. France.

Australian Court Bans Niqab In Spectator's Gallery

In Australia, a judge in the Victoria Supreme Court has refused to allow the wife of a terrorism defendant to wear a niqab (a full-face veil) in the court's public spectator gallery during her husband's trial.  In The Queen v. Chaarani, (VSC, July 18, 2018), the court said in part:

... Australia is obviously a multicultural society and I agree that religious dress should be accommodated as much as possible, but the right of religious freedom and the right to participate in public life are not absolutes....

Criminal proceedings in the trial division of the Supreme Court are often highly stressful experiences, not only for the accused but for those close to the accused. Likewise for those close to any victims. As a consequence of that stress, incidents happen from time to time in court.... Spectators whose faces are uncovered are likely to appreciate that, if they misbehave, it will not be too difficult to establish their identity, even if they manage to get away from the court....

A requirement that spectators have their faces uncovered is not to force anyone to act immodestly.  First, the exposure of one’s face in a court room cannot reasonably be viewed as an immodest act: subjective views to the contrary cannot rule the day, or the management of a court room. Second, if someone feels strongly that it would be improper for them to uncover their face in court, they can choose not to attend. If that is Ms Al Qattan’s choice, arrangements will be made for live streaming of the proceedings to a remote facility within the court building so that she can still view the trial.

The Guardian reports on the decision.

Australian Appeals Court Upholds Refusal To Allow Testimony From Plaintiff Wearing Niqab

In the Australian state of New South Wales, the Court of Appeal in Elzahed v. State of New South Wales, (NWCA, May 18, 2018), rejected a Muslim woman's contention that she should have been permitted to testify in her civil suit against police officers while her face was fully covered by a niqab.  Plaintiff was suing for assault allegedly occurring during the execution of a search warrant. The court said in part:

There was no error in the primary judge’s ruling that the appellant could not give evidence with her face covered by a niqab. The appellant was a party in the case, not merely a witness. The appellant’s evidence was strongly contentious. The resolution of the case would require the primary judge to make findings about whether to accept the appellant’s evidence or the conflicting evidence of the NSW police officers. Viewing the appellant’s face while she was giving her evidence was capable of affecting the resolution of that conflict. The primary judge did not err in concluding that fairness to all parties required her to reject the appellant’s application.

The appeals court pointed out that plaintiff had not asked the trial judge for alternative arrangements such as testifying from behind a screen so that her face would be visible only to to some of the people in the courtroom. Reporting on the decision, Australian Associated Press  adds this background information:

Moutia Elzahed, who's married to jailed Islamic State extremist Hamdi Alqudsi, tried unsuccessfully to sue the state and federal governments over claims of police violence during a 2014 raid on their Sydney home....

Judge Audrey Balla in mid-2017 ordered Elzahed pay $250,000 in costs to the commonwealth and state governments responsible for the federal and state police officers involved in the 2014 raid.

In early May, Elzahed became the first person in NSW to be found guilty of refusing to stand for a judge in court after insisting she only stood for Allah when she appeared before Judge Balla.