Adam Weisberg, attorney for the men, threatened to have the charges dropped and the case thrown out, claiming unreasonable delay, saying the woman's request to wear the veil should be dismissed immediately.

   A relative of the woman said, "It is distressing, the judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and ventured into the interpretation of religious laws concerning the veil, not to mention the fact that ... she has worn the veil for many years in accordance with her beliefs" . .  "This case is primarily an issue of protection the court offers to victims of sexual assault – especially those from minority communities, who experience the added stigma of bringing these deeply personal issues into open court", he said.

   Has everyone lost sight of the fact that this woman is a victim, and is in danger of being victimized twice over? Who is the criminal here? The woman trying to cover herself in public? Or the men who uncovered her and did who-knows-what to her? Or the court itself? Why are these Canadian men so hopped up to get Muslim women to "take it off"?

   It is not right for the media to focus on the veil and not the crime. Is this about RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT or a Muslim woman following her religion?

  Strange as it may be, these men are using the very thing that is intended to protect women, in order to get away with their sexual crime.

The issue has landed in the lap of Ontario Superior Court Justice Frank Marrocco, who yesterday decided he will deal with the potentially precedent-setting matter on March 13. Before agreeing to hear the matter next Friday, Marrocco waded through the history of the case, which began in June 2007 when Toronto police arrested the men and charged them with sexual assault.

Last September, during a preliminary hearing in the Ontario Court of Justice, the woman told Justice Norris Weisman she did not want to remove her niqab when testifying. Defence lawyers for the accused men objected, saying they would be unable to assess her "demeanour" (basically, they want to all look at her face).

After hearing her explanation, Weisman ruled he did not find her "religious belief that strong" and ordered her to remove the veil when she's in the witness box. The woman retained a lawyer who filed an application seeking to overturn Weisman's decision. Her identity and any evidence in the case are subject to a publication ban.

Before yesterday's arguments, the Ontario Human Rights Commission took the rare step of trying to intervene in a criminal proceeding, arguing the lower court ruling was "inconsistent" with the law with respect to accommodating religious beliefs.

Hanging over the preliminary hearing, set to resume Monday, is the spectre of the charges being dismissed if a judge decides there was unreasonable delay.

Judge Morocco will hear arguments on March 13 on three points:
1. Whether an Ontario Court justice has the jurisdiction to consider such an issue
2. Whether to grant the Ontario Human Rights Commission standing in the matter
3. The issue of whether the woman can wear her niqab 

The Crown is taking no position on the issue of the niqab, said prosecutor Laurie Gonet. But Gonet echoed Weisberg's concerns and urged Marrocco to resolve the issue quickly.