Whoops!

[Me-Patch]

http://www.comcast.n..06/10/22/504614.html

HAMTRAMCK, Mich. - A judge dismissed a small-claims court case filed by a Muslim woman after she refused to remove her veil when she testified.

Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, wore a niqab _ a scarf and veil that cover her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible _ during a court hearing this month in Hamtramck, a city surrounded by Detroit. She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company.

District Judge Paul Paruk told her he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave her a choice: take off the veil while testifying or have the case dismissed. She kept it on.

Osama Parks?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

I think this is wrong…I do believe that the veil only adds to the Muslim community isolating itself…but also it’s well within Muslim women’s religions freedoms to wear one.

On a lighter note, my mate just sent me this joke: A Muslim woman came to my door today, I didn’t answer the door but spoke to her through the letter box to see how she liked it.

[Dragon-Smaug]

As if you can tell if someone is telling the truth normally. Even lie detectors--which are much more perceptive than a human--are not infallible. Liars can have straight faces and honest men and women can appear nervous just from being in court. A veil makes it harder to read a person, granted, but it is not the judge's job to figure out the veracity of a person's statements by their expressions, nor is it anyone's. The truthfulness of someone should be proved or disproved in cross-examination. Thus, I feel that that woman (by the way, the article link didn't work for me) should have been allowed to wear her veil and have her case heard.

[Magnum-X]

Ah, this case again. As you nkow, there has been a big case surrounding a teaching assisstant in Britain who has refused to remove her veil with the children. I believe this to be similar.
What I believe should be the law, is that Muslim women wearing veils should HAVE to remove it if a figure of authority in the building they are in requests it. Besides, the full veil, I think, is not a piece of vital apparell to a Muslim woman.

[Dragon-Smaug]

At 10/23/06 11:03 AM, Magnum-X wrote: What I believe should be the law, is that Muslim women wearing veils should HAVE to remove it if a figure of authority in the building they are in requests it. Besides, the full veil, I think, is not a piece of vital apparell to a Muslim woman.

While I acknowledge there may be certain situations where veils should not be allowed, what you suggest is, in my opinion, an unneeded law that disregards the first amendment. Should a Jew wearing fringes be asked to remove his shirt? Should a preist be asked to remove his preistly garb? Neither you or I is an expert on Muslim religious apparel. It seems to me to be religious. As such, it is their religious right to wear it anywhere that clothes are allowed to be worn.

It certainly separates them from the majority, and assimilation is a part of America, but it is ultimately their choice, I feel.

[Magnum-X]

And the First Ammendment should matter to Scotland?

[Me-Patch]

At 10/23/06 11:30 AM, Magnum-X wrote: And the First Ammendment should matter to Scotland?

Well if you don't have a freedom of speach law in your constitution you should.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 12:59 PM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:30 AM, Magnum-X wrote: And the First Ammendment should matter to Scotland?

Well if you don't have a freedom of speach law in your constitution you should.

We don’t have a constitution. We don’t need an old piece of paper to assure ourselves on what rights belong to us.

[ironzealot]

At 10/23/06 01:41 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

At 10/23/06 12:59 PM, Me-Patch wrote:

At 10/23/06 11:30 AM, Magnum-X wrote: And the First Ammendment should matter to Scotland?

Well if you don't have a freedom of speach law in your constitution you should.

We don’t have a constitution. We don’t need an old piece of paper to assure ourselves on what rights belong to us.

that might be why your losing them at an even faster clip then we are here in the states. Laws against intolerant speech, the up and coming child-database, can't own a weapon, can't display your own nation's flag if it offends a muslim.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 01:46 PM, ironzealot wrote: Laws against intolerant speech,

You can be as intolerant as you want. the law your thinking of is against 'Inciting racial hatred'. as long as your not calling for jihad, your fine. This law came in handy in deporting several muslim clerics.

the up and coming child-database,

Solely and english thing. I'm not bothered.

can't own a weapon,

Bullshit. We have stricter gun laws for sure, which the vast majority of the population is happy about. The Dunblane massacre, our worst gun incident in our history, was caused by legal firearms after all.

can't display your own nation's flag if it offends a muslim.

Now your just pulling shit out of your ass.

[Proteas]

At 10/23/06 11:21 AM, Dragon-Smaug wrote: It certainly separates them from the majority, and assimilation is a part of America, but it is ultimately their choice, I feel.

She was in court, she was asked to abide by the courts rule on dressing appropriatly for her case, and she refused. She got the exact same treatment that would have been given to someone who showed up wearing a shirt from T-Shirt Hell and ripped blue jeans, and I feel no sympathy for her or her supposed religious rights....

Which, btw, if she was THAT heavy into her belief system, why isn't her husband talking for her?

[Proteas]

Paruk said that as a fact finder, he needs to see the face of a person testifying. Michigan has no rules governing what judges can do regarding religious attire of people in court, so the judges have leeway on how to run their courtrooms.

"My job in the courtroom is to make a determination as to the veracity of somebody's claim," he said. "Part of that, you need to identify the witness and you need to look at the witness and watch how they testify."

Paruk said he offered to let Muhammad, who was born in the United States and converted to Islam at the age of 10, wear the veil during the proceedings except when she testified. He said this was the first time someone had come before his court wearing a niqab, and he noted that many Muslims do not consider it a religious symbol.

"I felt I was trying to accommodate her as best I could," he said.

What really got me was the little blurb earlier on in the article, about how a woman from Florida successfully got her picture taken for her drivers license photo while wearing her niqab.

[troubles1]

Good for the Judge, the law is the law, And he did not bend it to fit the wants of that ingrate who was trying to make a Mockery of his Courtroom. There is a dress code, when one is appearing in Court and wearing a hat is not allowed. IT shows disrespect for the court. And the towel she was wearing is the same thing . If she got away with is then a criminal can wear a ski mask to court. Hell, there is no way of proving she was who she said she was covering her face anyway.

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 05:44 PM, troubles1 wrote: If she got away with is then a criminal can wear a ski mask to court

If a ski mask is part of religion then yes.

[troubles1]

At 10/23/06 05:47 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote:

At 10/23/06 05:44 PM, troubles1 wrote: If she got away with is then a criminal can wear a ski mask to court

If a ski mask is part of religion then yes.

Are you telling me that you don't see any reason why this should not be allowed in a court of law? serisouly there are so many instances were covering your entire face in the court room would hinder both a judge the jury , next you will tell me that they can wear this in a police line up, because there religion so. This is America We will not be ruled by a Muslim cleric, we will not be undermined by the fundamentalist ideals that cause chaos in the middle east.. she chose to live here and must respect the laws and codes our government has put in place.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/23/06 08:15 PM, troubles1 wrote: Are you telling me that you don't see any reason why this should not be allowed in a court of law?

Holy shit they're prosecuting imperial troopers too now?! Well it was about damned time! >:/

At 10/23/06 01:59 PM, ImmoralLibertarian wrote: Now your just pulling shit out of your ass.

I don't see what's so offensive to the Muslims in your country about a white X and the color blue... I just don't. Am I missing something here?

[ImmoralLibertarian]

At 10/23/06 08:15 PM, troubles1 wrote: yak yak yak

You really are a moron aren't you huh...?

You said, and I quote "If she got away with this then a criminal can wear a ski mask to court"

I agreed, said yes, but only if it was part of their religion. As the veil is part of hers.

You get it? you understand? want me to draw you a nice little picture with crayons?

[SolInvictus]

At 10/23/06 08:15 PM, troubles1 wrote: serisouly there are so many instances were covering your entire face in the court room would hinder both a judge the jury , next you will tell me that they can wear this in a police line up, because there religion so.

well if she insists as much as this woman did then chances is are she had it on at the time of the crime so eh.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 10/23/06 08:34 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: well if she insists as much as this woman did then chances is are she had it on at the time of the crime so eh.

Yup that's the one! The one with the black scarf, she robbed me! *4 confused women in black scarves turn to one another*. You might as well say "the one with the hair" or "the one with the arms and legs."