Michigan state courts are the last place you would expect this belief: Muslim women cannot act as competent witnesses in a court of law.
As of Sept. 1, Rule 611 of the Michigan Rules of Evidence read: “The court shall exercise reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses so as to (1) ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder, and (2) to ensure the accurate identification of such persons.”
The problem: The rule was amended in response to issues involving women wearing Muslim veils.
In one 2006 Michigan case, a woman wore a niqab, which covers the entire face and head except for the eyes. When the judge told the witness to remove her veil, she replied that she could only do so in front of a female judge.
The judge, who was male, said no such judge was available and advised the woman she could remove the veil or drop the case. She dropped the case.
In another case, the witness was wearing a hijab, which only covers the hair and is similar to the traditional veil worn by a Roman Catholic nun. In this instance, the woman was allegedly so intimidated by the judge that she removed the veil.
Asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil in mixed company – be it a niqab, hijab or full-body chador or burka – is problematic on two grounds. It violates her right to free exercise of her religion, something that is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
For many devout Muslims, wearing the veil is not a matter of choice – it is a mandatory religious obligation similar to the Judaic requirement that men wear yarmulkes or the Sikh precept that men wear turbans. Asking the devout person to remove the clothing is akin to asking him or her to renounce God – something that we in the United States have never required anyone to do as precursor to participation in civil society.
It also violates deeply ingrained religious and social concepts regarding female modesty. Asking a Muslim woman to unveil is similar to asking a Western woman to bare her breasts when testifying in court.
It also violates deeply ingrained religious and social concepts regarding female modesty. Asking a Muslim woman to unveil is similar to asking a Western woman to bare her breasts when testifying in court.
While modesty may not be a constitutionally protected right, it is unclear how an unimpeded view of a woman’s hair contributes to a jury’s understanding of her testimony. Furthermore, any nervous discomfort at being unveiled in public could easily be misinterpreted by the jury as evasiveness or lying, thus diminishing the woman’s credibility as a witness.
Canada recently debated whether Muslim women should have to unveil to cast their vote in federal or provincial elections, deciding only this past June to drop federal legislation that would have required unveiling. In May 2008, France considered whether a Moroccan woman who had adopted the niqab could be granted French nationality. They concluded that she had demonstrated “insufficient assimilation” in light of “a radical religious practice” incompatible with their aggressive secularism.
Rule 611 might be salvaged by adding the phrase: “No person shall be precluded from testifying on the basis of clothing worn because of a sincerely held belief.” In a pluralistic society that values religious freedoms as much as the United States does, that seems a reasonable solution. It avoids the uncomfortable conclusion that Michigan state courts are not enlightened when it comes to women’s rights.
Counterpoint: In many non-Muslim countries, the government and the people are willing to accommodate the needs of the Muslims. When Muslims demand to be accommodated by non-Muslim countries under circumstances which Islamic Law itself deems exceptional and where Islamic Law makes concessions, this leads to unnecessary tensions between the communities which might lead to a souring of relations between them.” -Sheikh Sami al-Majid, professor at al-Imam Islamic University, Riyadh
