Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
 
1Lori Beaman (for Amicus)In chief on qualifications by Ms. Herbst1 December 13, 20102 Vancouver, B.C.34 (DAY 12)5 (PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 10:00 A.M.)67 THE CLERK: Order in court. In the Supreme Court of8 British Columbia at Vancouver, this 13th day of9 December 2010, calling the matter concerning the10 constitutionality of section 293 of the Criminal11 Code, My Lord.12 THE COURT: Ms. Herbst.13 MS. HERBST: Thank you, My Lord. And today's witness14 is Professor Lori Beaman who has filed two15 affidavits on behalf of amicus and will be16 affirming.1718 LORI BEAMAN, a witness19 called by the Amicus,20 affirmed.2122 THE CLERK: Please state your full name and spell your23 last name for the record.24 THE WITNESS: Lori Gail Beaman B-e-a-m-a-n.25 MS. HERBST: And Your Lordship may be ahead of me, but26 I'll be turning to the two Professor Beaman27 affidavits which are found in two binders, just to28 make things more gymnastically difficult.29 Professor Beaman's first affidavit from June 7th30 of 2010 is Exhibit 62, and that's in volume 2 tab31 4 of the June evidence binder, the amicus's file.32 THE COURT: Thank you.33 MS. HERBST: And in that affidavit I'll have particular34 reference to Exhibit A which is a CV.35 THE COURT: Thank you.36 MS. HERBST: And the second of the places that I'll be37 going is Professor Beaman's second affidavit from38 October 13th of 2010. That's Exhibit 73, and just39 in terms of its placement within the materials40 it's volume 3, tab 11 of the October evidence41 binders.42 THE COURT: Correct.4344 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF ON QUALIFICATIONS BY MS. HERBST:45 Q And Professor Beaman, you've sworn two affidavits46 then in this proceeding. One sworn on June 7th,47 2010 and the second sworn on October 13th, 2010?
 
2Lori Beaman (for Amicus)In chief on qualifications by Ms. Herbst1 A Yes.2 MS. HERBST: All right. And My Lord, Professor Beaman3 was asked to attend here for cross-examination,4 but in accordance with the practice we've adopted5 I'm going to run through some of Professor6 Beaman's background and then touch on some7 elements of her affidavit number two in particular8 before turning over the floor.9 Q And Professor Beaman, you've got both affidavits10 in front of you?11 A I do.12 Q And I would like to start by turning to your CV13 which is Exhibit A to your first affidavit. Thank14 you. And Professor Beaman, you're a full15 professor in the department of classics and16 religious studies at the University of Ottawa?17 A I am. I'm in the religious studies sector.18 Q And could you explain a bit about the religious19 studies sector of that department.20 A The religious studies sector is made up of a group21 of scholars who come from a variety of22 backgrounds. We're a multidisciplinary group.23 Religious studies is kind of an interesting field24 in that it doesn't have a core textual position,25 if I might say. So for example, we have26 anthropologists, sociologists, some theologians, a27 variety -- a historian, a variety of people whose28 central focus is religion.29 Q And your own PhD is in sociology?30 A It is.31 Q And you obtained that from the University of New32 Brunswick in 1996?33 A I did.34 Q And did among your other degrees you have a law35 degree from the University of New Brunswick?36 A I do.37 Q And that's from 1987?38 A Yes.39 Q And you practised law as well for some period of40 time?41 A I did, for almost five years in Sussex, New42 Brunswick. Mostly family law, but because it was43 a very small place and a very small practice I did44 the usual variety of things that one does in that45 context.46 Q And have you had any involvement in law since that47 time?
 
3Lori Beaman (for Amicus)In chief on qualifications by Ms. Herbst1 A Essentially my scholarly work focuses a bit on law2 but I no longer practice.3 Q All right. And have you done any work for the4 Women's Legal Education and Action Fund?5 A I have. I did while I was doing my PhD work and6 then most recently I've been a member of the7 sub-committee on the N.S. case. We've submitted a8 factum, a brief on the N.S. case to the Ontario9 court of appeal.10 Q What is the N.S. case?11 A The N.S. case is briefly the case of a woman who12 wants to wear her niqab while presenting evidence13 in -- or giving evidence in criminal court.14 Q Okay. And what position did your factum take on15 that?16 A LEAF takes the position that she should be allowed17 to wear her niqab.18 Q Okay. Now, I would like to turn for a few minutes19 a bit more in depth into your background in20 sociology, and that's the field in which you21 obtained your PhD. Can you explain to the court22 what sociology is.23 A Sociology is essentially the study of human24 society and it's -- it can be both the individual,25 the group or the societal or institutional level.26 Sociology aims to bring a critical consciousness27 to the examination of the interplay between28 individuals, groups, social institutions. It29 can -- it has a wide range of methodological30 approaches from phenomenological approaches which31 essentially sample size can be one. Just to give32 you a quick example, one of my professors when I33 was doing my graduate work studied his bodily34 experience of earthquakes. So that would be a35 very small phenomenological study.36 It can also study social phenomenon at the37 group level. So for example one of my colleagues38 at Concordia University studies suicide in the39 Abitibi region of Quebec, worried that the rates40 of suicide there seemed to be higher. And then41 some people study at an institutional level. So42 my own work, for example, I have looked at the43 Bouchard Taylor commission report, their44 suggestion that when people are looking at issues45 of religious diversity or have disputes about46 religious diversity a citizen approach should be47 taken, and my counterargument is that in fact
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
  • More From This User

    Notes
    Load more