Canada: British Columbia tribunal decides photos of Muslim woman without veil do not qualify as ‘intimate images’

Image: Jihad Watch

A British Columbia tribunal has ruled that photographs of a Muslim woman without her hijab cannot legally be classified as “intimate images” under the province’s Intimate Images Protection Act (IIPA).

The ruling was issued on Friday by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT), which dismissed the woman’s claim for compensation. The IIPA, introduced in B.C. to combat the non-consensual distribution of sensitive photos, allows individuals to seek damages of up to $5,000 if their intimate images are shared or threatened to be shared without consent.

The woman, whose name is protected by a publication ban, argued that her ex-husband violated the law by submitting photographs of her without a hijab to court officials—some of whom were male—as part of an ongoing family law dispute. She maintained that, in her faith, appearing unveiled before unrelated men is a deeply personal matter, comparable in seriousness to public nudity.

“The applicant says that because she is a Muslim woman, she does not appear unveiled, without her hijab, in front of unrelated men. She argues the involuntary exposure of her hair, arms, or body to unrelated men is equivalent to public nudity,” wrote tribunal vice-chair Andrea Ritchie in the decision.

The woman further claimed that her ex-husband, who also practices Islam, knowingly disregarded her religious values and privacy in order to humiliate and demean her by presenting the images in court.

After reviewing the material, Ritchie noted that 13 photos showed the applicant without her hijab. However, none of the photos met the statutory definition of an intimate image under the IIPA. The tribunal clarified that intimate images are legally defined as those depicting nudity, partial nudity approaching sexual exposure, or engagement in sexual acts.

“I found none of the images depicted the applicant nude, nearly nude, engaged in a sexual act, or exposing her genitals, anal region, or breasts,” Ritchie explained. “Although the applicant subjectively believes the images were ‘intimate’ as defined by the IIPA, I found the legislation’s intent was not to cover such a situation. I find the applicant’s images without her hijab do not depict her as ‘nearly nude.’”

The tribunal also addressed one photo in which the woman was seen kissing her ex-husband. While acknowledging that kissing may carry personal or cultural significance, Ritchie stressed that it does not, by definition, constitute a sexual act.

“Kissing, although it can be intimate, is not by definition a sexual act. Parents kiss their children, grandparents kiss grandchildren, friends may kiss in greeting, and people often kiss pets,” the decision stated.

In conclusion, the CRT found that while the woman’s distress was genuine and rooted in her religious beliefs, the IIPA did not apply to her case. As such, her claim for damages was dismissed.

(This Article was originally published by Jihad Watch)