Right to face accused challenged in Canada

There is a case being heard by the Ontario Court of Appeals (Canada, eh?) where the defendants are arguing that they are being denied their right to face their accuser because the plaintiff is a Muslim woman who wears a niqab (veil that covers the face with the slit for the eyes). There are all sorts of views as to why women should be allowed to continue to wear them in court - 1. women who wear them often do not do so freely; 2. requiring removal will deter Muslim women from seeking protection; and 3. requiring removal will deter women from coming forward as witnesses. The main argument against is that the defense has a right to cross-examine and subtle body language and facial expressions need to be seen as a part of the cross-examination.

So, we've got the rights of the accused to confront his accuser squaring off with the religious rights of the accuser. On an emotional level, it makes a difference to me that this is a sexual assault case, and I feel this is one more attempt by a sleazy lawyer to intimidate the victim. The woman did take off her veil when she applied for a Canadian driver's license so it isn't as if she has never made exceptions before. In the previous judge's ruling, the judge looked at the woman's removal of the veil in order to obtain a license and inferred that she wore the veil for "comfort" rather than because of any religious belief. I find this to be ludicrous.

I wasn't able - in the thirty second Google search I tried - to find Canadian's confrontation clause so I don't know what the language is or if they have one at all. And this is the first time this type of issue has been dealt with in Canadian case law so it'll be interesting to see where they fall. In the U.S. the confrontation clause (sixth amendment: "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be confronted with the witnesses against him") provides the right for the persons accused to cross-examine or look their accusers in the eye. Taken literally and applied to this case, the woman is both available for cross-examination - a blind lawyer with a blind defendant (surely) cannot argue (successfully) that because they are unable to see and review the subtle body language and facial expressions of the witnesses testifying against the defendant, they are being denied their right to confront the accuser - and because of the slit for eyes you can "look into the eyes of the accuser" (presumably to read their truthfulness).

I wonder if allowing the plaintiff to be cross-examined in the same manner as a minor would be a feasible resolution. I don't know Muslim culture well enough to know if even a taped view of a woman's face that is typically covered would be against the rules but the woman would be available for cross-examination and you would then have the ability to see body language and facial expressions. Hmmm...the law is some tricky shit, even in the land of our neighbor's to the north.

Hat tip: Religion Clause