NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices, BUT couldn't a more reasonable compromise be found in these cases of jailing women for wearing head scarfs?

Ga. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/12-17-2008/20081217075004_05.html)
By DIONNE WALKER Associated Press Writer

DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A Georgia judge ordered a Muslim woman arrested Tuesday for contempt of court for refusing to take off her head scarf at a security checkpoint.

The judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia.

"I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," Valentine told The Associated Press on Wednesday from her home, after she said she was unexpectedly released once CAIR got involved. Jail officials declined to say why she was freed.

Municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins said that "it would not be appropriate" for him to comment on the case.

Last year, a judge in Valdosta in southern Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her head scarf. There have been similar cases in other states, including Michigan, where a Muslim woman in Detroit filed a federal lawsuit in February 2007 after a judge dismissed her small-claims court case when she refused to remove a head and face veil.

Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab.

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices, BUT couldn't a more reasonable compromise be found in these cases of jailing women for wearing head scarfs?
Well, they could have removed her head and reattached it once her business within was done.

Here's an easy way to test this courthouse: Would they do the same thing to a Catholic nun wearing a traditional habit?

I know how I'd bet on that one.

Here's an easy way to test this courthouse: Would they do the same thing to a Catholic nun wearing a traditional habit?

I know how I'd bet on that one.

Of course. Nuns are never suicide bombing terrorists.

Of course. Nuns are never suicide bombing terrorists.
Oh, I see, this court's rule against headwear in the courtroom is really just against exploding headwear.

Worn by Muslims.

Here's an easy way to test this courthouse: Would they do the same thing to a Catholic nun wearing a traditional habit?

I know how I'd bet on that one.
Maybe if the nun argued with the security guard and started cursing as she turned to leave. The issue started with the head scarf, but she wasn't cuffed on sight.
The title of this thread is misleading, it isn't "women" who are being jailed, it is "woman." One, singular. Given how little information is provided about what sort of expletive(s) she used and how passionately (or long) she argued the point with the guard, it is hard to make a judgment.

On the one hand, one would hope for some resolution that didn't require arrest, I honestly can't see the harm in wearing a scarf to court and I would bet I can source pictures of ordinary people wearing a headscarf in court, especially as people simply watching, any celebrity case..

On the other hand, I care very little for religious accoutrements, the idea that any God would demand one to wear cloth on one's head is patently ridiculous.

So, where reasonably necessary, I'd stand by the request to take off religious headgear.

Maybe if the nun argued with the security guard and started cursing as she turned to leave. The issue started with the head scarf, but she wasn't cuffed on sight.

The title of this thread is misleading, it isn't "women" who are being jailed, it is "woman." One, singular. Given how little information is provided about what sort of expletive(s) she used and how passionately (or long) she argued the point with the guard, it is hard to make a judgment.

You are correct that the article only refers to one woman who has been jailed.

It does refer to other women who have been barred from courtrooms and who have had the cases dismissed because they wore headscarves. I can link other similar cases if necessary.

EDIT: Also, according to the police in the article, Ms. Valentine was arrested becuase she "violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court," not for arguing with the bailiff or using an expletive.

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices, BUT couldn't a more reasonable compromise be found in these cases of jailing women for wearing head scarfs?I am going to wear a headscarf to the next court case I attend. (Not that I'm a woman, but I wonder what reaction I will get.)

Maybe if the nun argued with the security guard and started cursing as she turned to leave. The issue started with the head scarf, but she wasn't cuffed on sight.
The title of this thread is misleading, it isn't "women" who are being jailed, it is "woman." One, singular. Given how little information is provided about what sort of expletive(s) she used and how passionately (or long) she argued the point with the guard, it is hard to make a judgment.
Who cares what the expletive was? She was leaving. If security didn't want to be bothered by a pain-in-the-ass citizen, then in that instance, all they had to do was watch her disappear. I could see if she was standing there making a scene, but she wasn't.

Or are we to conclude that she wasn't detained for her religion but rather for her speech?

And then are we supposed to feel better about that?

EDIT: Also the article states that she uttered an expletive while turning to leave. Your quibbles with it depend on you imagining that more happened than you were told. I see no evidence that the woman made a scene. You decide to suppose she might have. I see a specific statement that she was not cuffed until she turned to go. You decide to suppose it happened differently. I think I'll go with what little the article does say over the great deal you choose to imagine.

You are correct that the article only refers to one woman who has been jailed.
That wasn't my only argument. The woman was not jailed for wearing a head scarf; she was jailed for refusing to remove her scarf, arguing with a guard, and cursing. At that point she was held in contempt.
And that is strictly interpreting the information provided by a brief, sympathetic article.
It does refer to other women who have been barred from courtrooms and who have had the cases dismissed because they wore headscarves. I can link other similar cases if necessary.
But no prison time.

Fom the description, I suspect the arrest had more to do with the expletive than the scarf.

I might also point out that accompanying someone to a traffic citation hearing is hardly a matter of life and death and strikes me as a poor basis for a test case. A court could easily take the turkey's way out and say she didn't have a fundamental right to accompany someone else to court on such a trivial matter.

Isn't there some kind of compromise where the woman can remove the hijab for inspection in the company of only other women? I honestly don't know because I don't know much about Islam.

Aren't there any Muslim women in this county who wear the hijab and are lawyers? What happens then? :confused:

Who cares what the expletive was? She was leaving. If security didn't want to be bothered by a pain-in-the-ass citizen, then in that instance, all they had to do was watch her disappear. I could see if she was standing there making a scene, but she wasn't.
And how do you know that she wasn't? A sympathetic article written using the woman's husband as a source.
Or are we to conclude that she wasn't detained for her religion but rather for her speech?

And then are we supposed to feel better about that?
Not better, but differently.
EDIT: Also the article states that she uttered an expletive while turning to leave. Your quibbles with it depend on you imagining that more happened than you were told. I see no evidence that the woman made a scene. You decide to suppose she might have. I see a specific statement that she was not cuffed until she turned to go. You decide to suppose it happened differently. I think I'll go with what little the article does say over the great deal you choose to imagine.
I'm not supposing anything; I'm just pointing out the unreliability of the article to amuse myself.

she refused the dress code of the court. and was held in contempt I see no issue.

And how do you know that she wasn't? A sympathetic article written using the woman's husband as a source.

Not better, but differently.

I'm not supposing anything; I'm just pointing out the unreliability of the article to amuse myself.
You are apparently very easily amused, but at least you amuse one person.

You are apparently very easily amused, but at least you amuse one person.
And for whom do you perform? Existence is masturbatory.

And for whom do you perform? Existence is masturbatory.
Speak for yourself and your audience of one.

She was arrested for contempt in court, but I do have to wonder why the court didn't want her wearing her hijab, I'd like to see the reason behind that.

While I generally agree with the dictum, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do", I also agree that often "The Law is an Ass". There can and should be exemption for relious types (nuns, cardinals, rabbis, Muslims etc). A system that is too rigid is failing to cater for minority rights. Tyranny by th emajority is not democracy.

People need to get over themselves: If you want to go into a courtroom, then you have to obey its rules (kinda like if you want to post on NSG you have to obey its rules). If the courts rules contradict your beliefs, then you have to decide which is more important: Your beliefs, or the courts rules and act accordingly. It's not like the woman was being forced to attend the hearing.

This article (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/12/17/hijab.html) should help clear up the idea that it wasn't the head scarf that got her jail time:

Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40, was arrested at the Douglasville Municipal Court for violating a court policy of no headgear, said Chris Womack, deputy chief of operations for the Douglasville police.

Judge Keith Rollins ordered her held in jail for 10 days, but she was released Tuesday evening. The reason for the early release wasn’t immediately clear.


The article also makes clear other Muslim women have been jailed for this "offense":

Other Muslim women said the same judge has ordered them to remove their hijabs.

Sabreen Abdul Rahman, 55, said she was asked to take off her scarf when she went to the municipal court last week with her son. “I can’t. I’m Muslim,” she mouthed silently to the bailiff, who then removed her from the courtroom, Rahman said.

“This is a religious right,” she said.

Halimah Abdullah, 43, said she spent 24 hours in jail in November 2007 after Rollins held her in contempt of court for refusing to remove her head covering. Rollins could not be reached for comment.


Similar articles:

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said after they arrested her Tuesday.

Kelley Jackson, a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said state law doesn't permit or prohibit head scarfs.

"It's at the discretion of the judge and the sheriffs and is up to the security officers in the court house to enforce their decision," she said. link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hut0sy7RtvuLIvsTxA8vb-oCslswD954MK2G0)

People need to get over themselves: If you want to go into a courtroom, then you have to obey its rules (kinda like if you want to post on NSG you have to obey its rules). If the courts rules contradict your beliefs, then you have to decide which is more important: Your beliefs, or the courts rules and act accordingly. It's not like the woman was being forced to attend the hearing.

Meh. Access to important services/rights like a U.S. courtroom shouldn't require violating one's religous rights unnecessarily. The rule against headscarves serves no important purpose and could easily be amendmend to avoid this problem.

While I agree that a court policy regarding dress code should apply to everyone regardless of age, sex or religion, I do find 10 days in jail for arguing and then not even setting foot into the court room very harsh indeed.
The article said she was leaving, so where was the need to imprison her? Had she been sitting in the court room, and refused to leave and to take off her head scarf, I could see the point. But in this situation the judges reaction seems excessive to say the least.

If it had been an orthodox jewish man wearing a yarmulke, I wonder what would've happened.

1- The Quran includes the notion that certain rules are allowed to be bent or broken in case of need - which is why the Saudi National Football Team is allowed to play showing a good deal of their legs, as Muslim dress code tends to include legs covered for men as well. Religiously, she didn't NEED to wear the hijab in court.

2- That said, the big question is "Would they do that to a nun? To a bothersome man who refused to take his cap off? To a rabbi student with a short fuse?" - I believe the answer is "no", among other things because of the state the judge is in.

I agree that one must expose one's face for security purposes, but couldn't a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf perhaps do so in, I don't know, a private room or something? I mean, really, identification is the only real reason to ask that the headscarf be removed if the woman wants to wear it. Any other reason is basically just an excuse to stick it to her for being a Muslim.

I agree that one must expose one's face for security purposes, but couldn't a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf perhaps do so in, I don't know, a private room or something? I mean, really, identification is the only real reason to ask that the headscarf be removed if the woman wants to wear it.

The hijab doesn't cover the face.

The hijab doesn't cover the face.

I get confused over terms. There are so many.

In that case, I don't think there's any reason to remove it. Would the same be asked of a Sikh? I'm not usually much of a defender of Muslims, but this is just silly.

I wonder what would happen if said judge went to an Islamic country and ended up in court. Would he willingly cover his head/arms or whatever the custom was, or would he stand there and say he was an American and didn't have to follow their rules. I would think the latter
This case says to me that not all rules are good rules

Fair enough.

Are we all forgetting that the covering of the head for Mulsim woman is not a mandatory thing, but a personal(social/cultural) inturpretation of the rule to dress modestly?

She could have removed her scarf, she refused to and was found in contempt. It seems clear and easy to me.

None of this really matters (about how important it is to a religion). The point is, why is it so important to that judge that everyone appears before him bareheaded.
George Washington wore a wig in public and hats.
Judges often wear wigs. Should their heads be uncovered.
No the law is an ass on this one.
And it may be violating her civil rights.

Now a burqua - that's different. For one thing, identity can't be established.

None of this really matters (about how important it is to a religion). The point is, why is it so important to that judge that everyone appears before him bareheaded.
George Washington wore a wig in public and hats.
Judges often wear wigs. Should their heads be uncovered.
No the law is an ass on this one.
And it may be violating her civil rights.

Now a burqua - that's different. For one thing, identity can't be established.

Great point....I never even thought of that

Oh, I see, this court's rule against headwear in the courtroom is really just against exploding headwear.

Worn by Muslims.They have a rule regarding passport and ID card photos: There's a fee for getting one with your hair covered for religious reasons (non-religious reasons are insufficient to make an exception). The rule was mainly instated to discourage muslim women from preventing easier identification, but when some nuns went to get ID, they were surprised that they were held to the same standard. Then again, Germany isn't Georgia...

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices, BUT couldn't a more reasonable compromise be found in these cases of jailing women for wearing head scarfs?

Ga. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/12-17-2008/20081217075004_05.html)
By DIONNE WALKER Associated Press Writer

DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. (AP) - A Georgia judge ordered a Muslim woman arrested Tuesday for contempt of court for refusing to take off her head scarf at a security checkpoint.

The judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said.

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia.

"I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," Valentine told The Associated Press on Wednesday from her home, after she said she was unexpectedly released once CAIR got involved. Jail officials declined to say why she was freed.

Municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins said that "it would not be appropriate" for him to comment on the case.

Last year, a judge in Valdosta in southern Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her head scarf. There have been similar cases in other states, including Michigan, where a Muslim woman in Detroit filed a federal lawsuit in February 2007 after a judge dismissed her small-claims court case when she refused to remove a head and face veil.

Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab.

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

I think the part that is clear contempt of court is uttering the expletive - the scarf might have sparked the incident, but she had no real reason to stay in court, was leaving, and then said something insulting to the court.

I see taking off the scarf for positive identification purposes at a security checkpoint, or when asked to present identification. Since she's just accompanying someone, have her take it off at the checkpoint, then put it back on and go into court.

If she was a witness, I believe she should have to remove anything covering her face for the duration of her testimony and cross-examination.

If she was a judge, I believe we have this thing about not having hooded, masked judges.

And if she were a defendant, no facial covering whatsover for the duration of the trial.

I think the part that is clear contempt of court is uttering the expletive - the scarf might have sparked the incident, but she had no real reason to stay in court, was leaving, and then said something insulting to the court.

I see taking off the scarf for positive identification purposes at a security checkpoint, or when asked to present identification. Since she's just accompanying someone, have her take it off at the checkpoint, then put it back on and go into court.

If she was a witness, I believe she should have to remove anything covering her face for the duration of her testimony and cross-examination.

If she was a judge, I believe we have this thing about not having hooded, masked judges.

And if she were a defendant, no facial covering whatsover for the duration of the trial.

It's a head scarf, not a veil.

For reference, here are the different types of head scarves that Muslim women wear; it's based not just on religion but also on the culture that they are apart of.

http://www.weaselhut.net/1.gifhttp://www.weaselhut.net/2.gif
http://www.weaselhut.net/3.gifhttp://www.weaselhut.net/4.gif

Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm)

With the exception of the Niqab and Burqa, none of the others cover the face; just the hair. You may also note that the Khimar leaves the face clear to anyone around while still covering the hair. In reference to the article, we can safely assume that the scarf being worn is one where the face is clearly visible.

Och, Kryo, you broke the forum... =(

EDIT: And now it's fixed again! =D

Och, Kryo, you broke the forum... =(

EDIT: And now it's fixed again! =D

I keep forgetting that not everyone has wide screen monitors and that not everyone uses 1680x1050... (but I didn't think that my post would have broken it...)

I keep forgetting that not everyone has wide screen monitors and that not everyone uses 1680x1050... (but I didn't think that my post would have broken it...)Actually, your post ended before its content did. Monitor size had nothing to do with it.

Actually, your post ended before its content did. Monitor size had nothing to do with it.

Meh it all seems fine to me!

Pic of Woman in the article below. I'd be interested to know what "security check" required the removal of the scarf.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_us/muslim_headscarf_arrest

Pic of Woman in the article below. I'd be interested to know what "security check" required the removal of the scarf.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_us/muslim_headscarf_arrest

Again meh! she did not comply with the rules of the court.

Pic of Woman in the article below. I'd be interested to know what "security check" required the removal of the scarf.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_re_us/muslim_headscarf_arrest

Her face is VERY visible. There is no veil covering her face; just her head.

As for complying with the rules, she turned to leave. Her parting words are never mentioned, just a vague description. It leaves me to wonder just what was said.

Would the security guards have done the same to a Sikh man, a nun? Any other religious individual who happens to wear a head piece?

Would a naturist be allowed in a courtroom wearing nothing?

No headgear in court is the rule. Not no headgear unless you really really want to, or you religion says so.

There can and should be exemption for relious types (nuns, cardinals, rabbis, Muslims etc).
I suspect that would run afoul of the 1st Amendment.
If it had been an orthodox jewish man wearing a yarmulke, I wonder what would've happened.
The guards would obviously let him in. He is running the world, after all.
I wonder what would happen if said judge went to an Islamic country and ended up in court. Would he willingly cover his head/arms or whatever the custom was, or would he stand there and say he was an American and didn't have to follow their rules. I would think the latter

I would think the former. A judge(or lawyer) more so than most people would realise that laws don't stop applying when you're from another country. Well, except sometimes.

Would the security guards have done the same to a Sikh man, a nun? Any other religious individual who happens to wear a head piece?

This question I think will remain unanswerd until such a time arrives.

There is no religous rule for Muslims to cover their heads though, she could have taken the scarf off. I'm not sure about a nun, and indeed a Sikh man does not have to wear a turban, this also is a cultural thing rather than a religous thing.

she refused the dress code of the court. and was held in contempt I see no issue.

Are we all forgetting that the covering of the head for Mulsim woman is not a mandatory thing, but a personal(social/cultural) inturpretation of the rule to dress modestly?

She could have removed her scarf, she refused to and was found in contempt. It seems clear and easy to me.

Again meh! she did not comply with the rules of the court.

No headgear in court is the rule. Not no headgear unless you really really want to, or you religion says so.



Kelley Jackson, a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said state law doesn't permit or prohibit head scarfs.

"It's at the discretion of the judge and the sheriffs and is up to the security officers in the court house to enforce their decision," she said.link (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hut0sy7RtvuLIvsTxA8vb-oCslswD954MK2G0)

Apparently the law is flexible.

It's a head scarf, not a veil.

It's contempt if you use an expletive in response to something a judge says.

If she had kept her mouth shut, I could see her having a case.

Since this appears to be straightforward contempt, she doesn't.

You go into any American court, and in response to anything the judge or magistrate says, reply (mutter under your breath so he can barely hear it) "fuck that shit" and see if you end up charged with contempt.

Apparently the law is flexible.
No headgear in court is the rule.
Apparently the judge and his rules are not.
It's contempt if you use an expletive in response to something a judge says.
Wasn't she speaking to a security guard of some kind, not a judge? Or would that count as speaking to the court?

Apparently the judge and his rules are not.


To me it seems that the judge is being an arse about it than anything else.

To me it seems that the judge is being an arse about it than anything else.

Yes that is quite probable, but that does not change the fact that this woman could have done as she was asked, and she would not have ended up in prison.

well i guess its time for georgia to enter the 21st century where muslims live in the US and have religious considerations that need to be respected.

To me it seems that the judge is being an arse about it than anything else.

I expect so.

What part of 'no headgear in court' does she not understand?

What part of 'no headgear in court' does she not understand?
the part where she has to appear in court but needs to maintain her religious integrity.

no one should have to violate their religious rules if it is not a security problem.

the part where she has to appear in court but needs to maintain her religious integrity.

no one should have to violate their religious rules if it is not a security problem.

The judge didn't punish her until she muttered an expletive. This is a matter of simple contempt.

In this particular instance, it certainly seems that uppity behaviour on both sides are present, though given the details one can't fully know either side.

Beyond that, in the battle between the law of the land and the law of some arbitrary religion, I'll back equality before the law everytime.

This sort of case is annoying because the security guard seems out of order, Valentine Rose seems out of order and it muddies the underlying principle.

Equality means no special exemptions, for anything.

It's contempt if you use an expletive in response to something a judge says.

If she had kept her mouth shut, I could see her having a case.

Since this appears to be straightforward contempt, she doesn't.

You go into any American court, and in response to anything the judge or magistrate says, reply (mutter under your breath so he can barely hear it) "fuck that shit" and see if you end up charged with contempt.

Then why bother with the following?
I see taking off the scarf for positive identification purposes at a security checkpoint, or when asked to present identification. Since she's just accompanying someone, have her take it off at the checkpoint, then put it back on and go into court.

If she was a witness, I believe she should have to remove anything covering her face for the duration of her testimony and cross-examination.

If she was a judge, I believe we have this thing about not having hooded, masked judges.

And if she were a defendant, no facial covering whatsover for the duration of the trial.

the part where she has to appear in court but needs to maintain her religious integrity.
She didn't have to appear in court. She was voluntarily accompanying a nephew who was there about a traffic violation.

The judge didn't punish her until she muttered an expletive. This is a matter of simple contempt.
thats not the point i was responding to.

and it is outrageous that she was disallowed from entering the courtroom.

The judge didn't punish her until she muttered an expletive. This is a matter of simple contempt.

The judge wasn't aware of the situation(presumably) until the bailiff arrested her at a security checkpoint and brought her to him. Unless the judge was hanging around the security checkpoint then I don't see how she could have been swearing at him.

Then why bother with the following?

Why don't you read what I post?

I don't make the rules in court.

The last part you quoted is what I see as reasonable in court or a security checkpoint.

Contempt is not a reasonable act - muttering expletives in court in response to ANYTHING the judge orders is contempt - whether you have a head scarf on or not.

The judge wasn't aware of the situation(presumably) until the bailiff arrested her at a security checkpoint and brought her to him. Unless the judge was hanging around the security checkpoint then I don't see how she could have been swearing at him.

She apparently swore after the judge gave her an order. That's all it takes.

She could have had fresh spaghetti on her head, and it wouldn't have mattered.

Go ahead. You go into an American court, and tell a judge to fuck off just loud enough so he can hear it.

It won't matter what else is going on - you'll get a contempt charge.

She didn't have to appear in court. She was voluntarily accompanying a nephew who was there about a traffic violation.
yeah that makes all the difference. *I* can go to court with my nephew but she is turned away because of the way her religion requires that she dress. yeah that is suddenly OK.

thats not the point i was responding to.

and it is outrageous that she was disallowed from entering the courtroom.

She was disallowed from going through security.

As much as it's obvious this was motivated by bigotry, and I don't think it's just that she was Muslim, if you see the images, she is black, and I suspect that lay at the base and the Muslim headscarf was an excuse...

...no matter, nun, Muslim, Atlanta Braves cap, it is what it is.

Why don't you read what I post?.

I did.


The last part you quoted is what I see as reasonable in court or a security checkpoint.?.

The "last part" consisted of the majority of your post, which is based on the premise that the woman had her face covered. As she did not, I fail to see its relevance.

She was disallowed from going through security.

As much as it's obvious this was motivated by bigotry, and I don't think it's just that she was Muslim, if you see the images, she is black, and I suspect that lay at the base and the Muslim headscarf was an excuse...

...no matter, nun, Muslim, Atlanta Braves cap, it is what it is.
it is what it is and it is still outrageous. time to update the laws to reflect the presense of muslims in georgia.

I did.



The "last part" consisted of the majority of your post, which is based on the premise that the woman had her face covered. As she did not, I fail to see its relevance.

It doesn't matter if she had her face covered or not. What matters is that in response to what the judge said, she muttered an expletive.

As for any restrictions on scarves, masks, veils, etc - read what I posted.

The judge can make the rules in his court. If you don't want to follow them, just leave (she didn't have to be there). If you don't like what the judge says, keep your mouth shut.

Pretty simple.

it is what it is and it is still outrageous. time to update the laws to reflect the presense of muslims in georgia.

Oh, so Muslims should be allowed to commit contempt of court at will?

Mutter expletives?

She apparently swore after the judge gave her an order. That's all it takes.
*SNIP*
Go ahead. You go into an American court, and tell a judge to fuck off just loud enough so he can hear it.

From the article:

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

She was brought before the judge after swearing. There is no indication as to what is actual said. There is just a vague mention of an expletive. And that expletive could have been anything at this point. She never swore in front of the judge, unless you count any oath, in which case, it is technically swearing...

And a definition for you...

expletive (ĕk'splĭ-tĭv)
1. An exclamation or oath, especially one that is profane, vulgar, or obscene.
2.
a. A word or phrase that does not contribute any meaning but is added only to fill out a sentence or a metrical line.
b. Linguistics. A word or other grammatical element that has no meaning but is needed to fill a syntactic position, such as the words it and there in the sentences It's raining and There are many books on the table.

She was disallowed from going through security.

As much as it's obvious this was motivated by bigotry, and I don't think it's just that she was Muslim, if you see the images, she is black, and I suspect that lay at the base and the Muslim headscarf was an excuse...

...no matter, nun, Muslim, Atlanta Braves cap, it is what it is.

Interesting you should mention the colour of her skin...

During this past semester at school, I had an assignment to go to court to observe proceedings, and while at court, I had to go through security. I was waved through without so much as a second glance. My dad who had been ahead of me pointed out after we passed through security that there had been a woman in front of us - one of colour - who had been pulled aside for further searching. The metal detector hadn't gone off. Maybe it was a coincidence in that case, maybe it wasn't... of course, I only bring this up as an anecdote.

Oh, so Muslims should be allowed to commit contempt of court at will?

Mutter expletives?
certainly not

they should not have to be put in a situation of being turned away because they are wearing headscarves.

She apparently swore after the judge gave her an order. That's all it takes.

I saw where it says she swore at a bailiff. Where did she swear at a judge?

From the article:

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

She was brought before the judge after swearing. There is no indication as to what is actual said. There is just a vague mention of an expletive. And that expletive could have been anything at this point. She never swore in front of the judge, unless you count any oath, in which case, it is technically swearing...




Swearing at a law enforcement officer in response to his authorized actions is assault.

It doesn't matter if she had her face covered or not.

Theny why did you bring it up?


What matters is that in response to what the judge said, she muttered an expletive.


And where in the article did you see that?


Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

it is what it is and it is still outrageous. time to update the laws to reflect the presense of muslims in georgia.

On the one hand, I'd ultimately agree with wearing anything to court, it's really up to you, go naked if you want but to make exceptions in a nod to religion as an exception...

Stupidly, this is one of those cases where it's not even law, it's simply a policy of the court and I certainly don't agree with arbitrary application of that policy, I'd hope I'd view this the same given any religious accoutrement.

My overriding principle is that the law of the land beats religious custom and although I think this is a stupid application, the underlying principle is the same.

As I said before, this is a really stupid case that creates division unnecessarily, and I'd lay most blame on the security guard for being an ass but, in deciding what takes precedence, I'd fall on the side of equal treatment before the courts and that includes religious custom.

Swearing at a law enforcement officer in response to his authorized actions is assault.

So, saying, "Officer, I swear I did nothing wrong!" is still swearing? :tongue:

I still stand by my earlier point that the expletive is not defined and it's vague. After all, if it's "bad language", it could have been any number of the swears we have in English. If it was in a foreign language, how do we know if it was even a swear?

Interesting you should mention the colour of her skin...

During this past semester at school, I had an assignment to go to court to observe proceedings, and while at court, I had to go through security. I was waved through without so much as a second glance. My dad who had been ahead of me pointed out after we passed through security that there had been a woman in front of us - one of colour - who had been pulled aside for further searching. The metal detector hadn't gone off. Maybe it was a coincidence in that case, maybe it wasn't... of course, I only bring this up as an anecdote.

Absolutely, if it was a white woman in a headscarf, regardless of whether she was Muslim or not, I doubt there'd be an issue.

She never swore in front of the judge

Proof for that?

the part where she has to appear in court but needs to maintain her religious integrity.

no one should have to violate their religious rules if it is not a security problem.

And again, which religious rule is that one? There is no such rule for Muslims.

Proof for that?

Read the OP. She swore in front of the bailiff, who hauled her in front of the judge.

Proof for that?

It's in the pudding, or in this case, the article. May I suggest that you read it and show me exactly where it says in the article (and if you read through the thread, you'd note that there was a second link to the same story from another source), that she swore in front of the judge? The only evidence I see is the utterance of an expletive in front of a security guard, or bailiff; a servant of the court.

And again, which religious rule is that one? There is no such rule for Muslims.
the one they think exists.

And again, which religious rule is that one? There is no such rule for Muslims.

The rule for the hijab?

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. 24:31 - Light, Qu'ran.

This is the passage generally used to support the wearing of a Hijab.

the one they think exists.

But they don't think that, if this woman said I can't remove my scarf for religous porpuses, she blatantly lied.

Nowhere does Islam tell woman they MUST cover their heads. This is a personal/social/cultural inturpretation of the Islamic ruling which suggests that women should dress moderatly.

But they don't think that, if this woman said I can't remove my scarf for religous porpuses, she blatantly lied.
.

Hardly. The majority believe that they are required to cover the head, and thats the way many read it. You picking out a liberal interpretation and waving it at them - even if it is 100% correct - is neither here nor there.

But they don't think that, if this woman said I can't remove my scarf for religous porpuses, she blatantly lied.

Nowhere does Islam tell woman they MUST cover their heads. This is a personal/social/cultural inturpretation of the Islamic ruling which suggests that women should dress moderatly.
they disagree with you.

The rule for the hijab?

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed. 24:31 - Light, Qu'ran.

This is the passage generally used to support the wearing of a Hijab.

Mohammed was actually for equality but in order to gain any support while in Medina, he had to bow to surrounding tribal customs. Allah says at some point that the cause is greater than the means and if he has to appease tribes to gain support then so be it.

Swearing at a law enforcement officer in response to his authorized actions is assault.

no, it is not. Assaut, as defined by law, means one of two things:

1) an attempt to commit battery (IE an attempt to make contact with another person without their consent)

2) placing another person in apprehension of an immediately forthcoming battery.

Raising my fist can be an assault (placing in you in apprehension of being punched). Swinging at you and missing can be an assault (an attempt to commit battery). However it is well settled law that "mere words" without either an attempt at causing a battery, or some action placing the other person in immediate apprehension of a forthcoming battery, is NOT an assault. Stop pretending to be a lawyer DK.

But they don't think that, if this woman said I can't remove my scarf for religous porpuses, she blatantly lied.

Nowhere does Islam tell woman they MUST cover their heads. This is a personal/social/cultural inturpretation of the Islamic ruling which suggests that women should dress moderatly.

It doesn't matter. The test for religious belief under the 1st amendment doesn't care what "a book" says, or what "a cleric says". The test is simple. The only inquiry allowed is whether the individual sincerely believes it as a religious tenant. If she believes that her religion requires it of her, then that's all that matters. If it is her "personal interpretation" of Islam, that's good enough, as long as her belief in such is sincere.

Mohammed was actually for equality but in order to gain any support while in Medina, he had to bow to surrounding tribal customs. Allah says at some point that the cause is greater than the means and if he has to appease tribes to gain support then so be it.

I never said he didn't, and I agree with you. I was merely providing the passage that is used in encouraging Muslim women to dress modestly; something that often warrants wearing a Hijab. Some posters wanted to know where it required women to do so, and I provided the source. :)

they disagree with you.

Heh many people disagree with me, but look a few posts above and inturpert the words for yourself, can you see any where there that says 'A woman must cover her hair'?

We have the same sorta thing going on in the Sikh faith too.

There is a rule that says a Khalsa(baptised) Sikh should not cut their hair. Many take the stance that the hair should also be covered as part of this, but the rule says nowt about it.

So the letter and the inturpretaion can certianly be differant. When it comes to law, then surly the letter is of paramount importance.
So they may disagree with me, but you know, it still does not say 'a woman should cover her hair'.

I never said he didn't, and I agree with you. I was merely providing the passage that is used in encouraging Muslim women to dress modestly; something that often warrants wearing a Hijab. Some posters wanted to know where it required women to do so, and I provided the source. :)

I was merely supplementing, we should have an icon that indicates 'I agree' so that points don't seem contrary, with your newly-appointed mod-powahs, I hope for imminent resolution :)

Heh many people disagree with me, but look a few posts above and inturpert the words for yourself, can you see any where there that says 'A woman must cover her hair'?

We have the same sorta thing going on in the Sikh faith too.

There is a rule that says a Khalsa(baptised) Sikh should not cut their hair. Many take the stance that the hair should also be covered as part of this, but the rule says nowt about it.

So the letter and the inturpretaion can certianly be differant. When it comes to law, then surly the letter is of paramount importance.
So they may disagree with me, but you know, it still does not say 'a woman should cover her hair'.
as long as they interpret it as such, it meets the test of religious necessity.

It doesn't matter. The test for religious belief under the 1st amendment doesn't care what "a book" says, or what "a cleric says". The test is simple. The only inquiry allowed is whether the individual sincerely believes it as a religious tenant. If she believes that her religion requires it of her, then that's all that matters. If it is her "personal interpretation" of Islam, that's good enough, as long as her belief in such is sincere.

Well then that's just a tad strange and a little silly. So the firts amendment may garentee my right to go nekkid if I am convinced that my faith requires that of me?

often warrants wearing a Hijab.

How does it warrant wearing a hijab? That's crap.

So the letter and the inturpretaion can certianly be differant. When it comes to law, then surly the letter is of paramount importance.
So they may disagree with me, but you know, it still does not say 'a woman should cover her hair'.

No, it's not, that's my whole point. Under 1st amendment law, what matters, the ONLY thing that matters, is if whether the individual sincerely believed in that point. It doesn't matter if the Koran does not explicitly say "you must cover your hair". Courts WILL NOT get into the debate as to what is, and is not, legitimate religious dogma. As long as she sincerely believes it to be a component of her faith, then as far as the courts are concerned, it is.

Well then that's just a tad strange and a little silly. So the firts amendment may garentee my right to go nekkid if I am convinced that my faith requires that of me?

it might. The test is "reasonable accomidation". The government must make "reasonable accomidations" to accomidate sincerely held religious beliefs. It would depend on the circumstances of the instant matter to determine whether such thing is reasonable in the circumstances or not.

Laws that are neutral concerning religion are allowed, so whether you believe, even sincerely, in anything, doesn't mean it's permissible before the law.

I'd go so far to say that laws neutral to religion should, and do, take precedence over any religious custom.

Laws that are neutral concerning religion are allowed

Yes and no, certainly a law hostile to religion is barred on its face, but even neutral matters can still be required to make "reasonable accomidations" to accomodate religious beliefs.

How does it warrant wearing a hijab? That's crap.

Because it's open to different interpretations, which may stem from the local culture - an example would be the Burqa. If you refer to an earlier post, there are different types of head wear employed by Muslim women, not all of which are a hijab. Some more liberal Muslim women will simply not wear the scarf but will remain modestly dressed, which means covering their arms, legs and their chest, all the way to the neck.

This is just one religious example. After all, no where in the Bible does it say that a person shall wear a cross around their neck. Nor does it say in the Torah that a Jewish man shall have to wear a Yarmulke. There are many examples of religious articles being warranted that don't have an explicit requirement.

it might. The test is "reasonable accomidation". The government must make "reasonable accomidations" to accomidate sincerely held religious beliefs. It would depend on the circumstances of the instant matter to determine whether such thing is reasonable in the circumstances or not.

Well then in that case I guess she may have some grounds of complaint then huh!

Laws that are neutral concerning religion are allowed, so whether you believe, even sincerely, in anything, doesn't mean it's permissible before the law.

I'd go so far to say that laws neutral to religion should, and do, take precedence over any religious custom.
no.

everyone should be free to practice their religion in whatever nonthreatening way they want to.

headwear is irrelevant to most people so it would seem (in this era) to be a reasonable requirement of respectful dressing that they be disallowed. that way there is no quibbling over whether or not a baseball cap is too casual for court but a fedora is not. '

but if your religion requires headwear, an exception has to be made so that you are free to follow your religion. that it is a tiny minority of people makes no difference.

Yes and no, certainly a law hostile to religion is barred on its face, but even neutral matters can still be required to make "reasonable accomidations" to accomodate religious beliefs.

Hmm...has a true test of this occurred?

I'm no expert on American constitutional law but is there a case that explicitly states that religious practice can be required to take precedence over the law?

I ask in genuine innocence.

Hmm...has a true test of this occurred?

I'm no expert on American constitutional law but is there a case that explicitly states that religious practice can be required to take precedence over the law?

I ask in genuine innocence.

I'd have to find a specific example, but keep in mind, it's not "religious practice takes precedence over the law" it is "the first amendment, being part of the supreme law of the land, takes precedence over non supreme law"

Well then in that case I guess she may have some grounds of complaint then huh!

again, possibly, it depends on the reason for the ban. Security? Then maybe that's a good enough reason. In the face of a neutral restriction, the test isn't much, you just have to show the reason for your actions which results in a ban of a certain religious practice was sufficiently narrow to acheive your (non discriminatory) purpose and that it would be unreasonable to make exceptions.

If their reason perhaps has something to do with security, maybe that's good enough. Too hard to say.

I'd have to find a specific example, but keep in mind, it's not "religious practice takes precedence over the law" it is "the first amendment, being part of the supreme law of the land, takes precedence over non supreme law"

I see the distinction.

I suppose it's an interesting case then, laying aside the general pettiness of the specific details of this particular issue.

In the UK, Sikhs are not required to wear helmets on motorcycles or even construction sites...

S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet.

Riding Motor Cycles

Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.

I'd personally then argue that no one needs to but then I'm no respecter of religious custom.

I do see that law is, in some way, beholden to the times and cultural values we live in - which leaks into my issue with the US constitution, yet I digress - but I believe more in equality before the law.

I suppose 'equality' then becomes an issue, equality of belief?

Ultimately there's issues in the meaning of language and words in applying the rules that govern society.

I see the distinction.

I suppose it's an interesting case then, laying aside the general pettiness of the specific details of this particular issue.

In the UK, Sikhs are not required to wear helmets on motorcycles or even construction sites....

Indeed that is true!:D

Let's face it the court was way out of line. She will bring suit no doubt about it and she will win.

I see the distinction.

I suppose it's an interesting case then, laying aside the general pettiness of the specific details of this particular issue.

In the UK, Sikhs are not required to wear helmets on motorcycles or even construction sites...



I'd personally then argue that no one needs to but then I'm no respecter of religious custom.

I do see that law is, in some way, beholden to the times and cultural values we live in - which leaks into my issue with the US constitution, yet I digress - but I believe more in equality before the law.

I suppose 'equality' then becomes an issue, equality of belief?

Ultimately there's issues in the meaning of language and words in applying the rules that govern society.
the only real problems come in when religious practice conflicts with reasonable laws.

like those religions that use outlawed drugs in religious ceremonies, those that require ceremonial weaponry, or those that recommend polygamy.

those get heavily litigated in order to draw that line between the public good/safety and religious freedom.

so the woman who wanted to be heavily veiled in her driver's license photo had to go to court to get her plight taken into consideration. i dont think she won but they had to at least listen to the reasons why they might let her do it.

yeah that makes all the difference. *I* can go to court with my nephew but she is turned away because of the way her religion requires that she dress. yeah that is suddenly OK.
Yeah, pretty much. Every stupid tradition needs martyrs, why should we deny her this pleasure?

Valentine said she was accompanying her 19-year-old nephew to address a citation Tuesday morning when she was stopped at the metal detector and told she would not be allowed to enter the courtroom with a head scarf.

Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with a scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation.

Frustrated, she turned to leave and uttered an expletive. She said the bailiff then told her she could take the matter up in front of the judge. She said she was handcuffed and taken into Rollins' courtroom.

There was no contempt of court she was not in court yet.

So let me get this straight it was not okay for her to enter with the scarf on. So then you handcuff her and bring her before the judge with headgear on no doubt because she swore. I think first amendment covers the swearing, she was not in court yet.

I think at best the bailiff could have denied access because those were the rules no matter how stupid they were.

A question that might help me understand this one a bit better (addressed to our American NSGers)
Are court baliffs highly skilled people (ex-cops etc) who may have been trained to handle these situations, or are the 'security guard' types (potentially people who like wearing a uniform and excercising their power). I know the last bit was a sweeping statement but hopefully you get my drift.
Perhaps the baliff had no previous experience of this situation and over reacted

There was no contempt of court she was not in court yet.

It...doesn't work that way. "contempt of court" is a general expression meaning showing contempt for the proceedings of the court, or an order given by an officer of the court. The security guard was a court security guard, which made him an officer of the court, same as the judge, the clerks, the bailiffs and the stenographers.

She was in the court BUILDING, addressing an officer of the court.

I think you could say this was a tad excessive. The lady needed to be handcuffed because? She was danger to the court?

ACLU will be down on this like lightning. The reason for removing headgear is strictly a respect issue.

The reason for removing headgear is strictly a respect issue.


That is a good aan valid point. In some culrures the covering of the ehad is a marl of respect whilst in others the removing of such a covering is the same.

Think of removing your hat before entering a church, and covering your head before entering a gurdwara.

Swearing at a law enforcement officer in response to his authorized actions is assault.

no, it is not. Assaut, as defined by law, means one of two things:

1) an attempt to commit battery (IE an attempt to make contact with another person without their consent)

2) placing another person in apprehension of an immediately forthcoming battery.

Raising my fist can be an assault (placing in you in apprehension of being punched). Swinging at you and missing can be an assault (an attempt to commit battery). However it is well settled law that "mere words" without either an attempt at causing a battery, or some action placing the other person in immediate apprehension of a forthcoming battery, is NOT an assault. Stop pretending to be a lawyer DK.
Ya, was gonna bring this up. My understanding is that you can curse, cuss, swear and just spout the most vitriolic garbage your dirty little heart desires at a cop, so long as you are not in any way a nuisance or somehow threatening assault, it is legal.
Because it's open to different interpretations, which may stem from the local culture - an example would be the Burqa. If you refer to an earlier post, there are different types of head wear employed by Muslim women, not all of which are a hijab. Some more liberal Muslim women will simply not wear the scarf but will remain modestly dressed, which means covering their arms, legs and their chest, all the way to the neck.

This is just one religious example. After all, no where in the Bible does it say that a person shall wear a cross around their neck. Nor does it say in the Torah that a Jewish man shall have to wear a Yarmulke. There are many examples of religious articles being warranted that don't have an explicit requirement.

Eh, iirc, Jews are explicitly told to wear a head covering to remind us of God above, but this ranges from kippas that look like beanies to ones that look like fez's to actual full blown hats. As with the Muslim tradition, there is a passage that explicitly commands a vague style of conduct.

what?
So when the paramedic has to tell the sikh's family that their dad died from having his brains splattered all over a lorry's windscreen it's okay because he died with respect?
no no i don't buy it.
It's like;
let's make a hypothetical religion where they can't wear belts over their chests for some reason, so these people are then allowed to not wear seatbelts, even though you can be pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt, this particular religion are allowed to do so...
who care's about respect when people's lives are at risk?
it's almost as bad as refusing blood transfusions because your religion says so.

doesn't make sense to me, i'm sorry it just doesn't.

What are you talking about? I am only saying that in some cultures the covering of the head is a sign of respect whilst in others the opposite is true. What is there to buy into or not about that?

As to the Sikh family they would most likely praise the father for keeping to his religous convictions.

so long as you are not in any way a nuisance or somehow threatening assault, it is legal.

nitpicking, because this always bothers me. You don't really "threaten assault", unless you say something like "I"m going to...try and take a swing at you". Assaut is an ATTEMPT to make contact (or, placing one in apprehension of imminent contact).

The legal term for when you actually physically HIT someone is "battery"

What are you talking about? I am only saying that in some cultures the covering of the haad is a sign of respect whilst in others the opposite is true. What is there to buy into or not about that?

As to the Sikh family they would most likely praise the father for keeping to his religous convictions.

oh, ah, see the thing is. I read things into your previous statement that weren't there, um, so there's no connection with not wearing motorcycle helmets and respecting other people's relgion then?:confused:

oh i know what i did, i'm talking about something else...nevermind, i'm seeing things again.
if it helps i am suffering from bad sleep and headaches, so maybe i'm not so good at reading.:(
ah, yeah, so, like, ah, carry on my mistake.

oh, ah, see the thing is. I read things into your previous statement that weren't there, um, so there's no connection with not wearing motorcycle helmets and respecting other people's relgion then?:confused:

oh i know what i did, i'm talking about something else...nevermind, i'm seeing things again.
if it helps i am suffering from bad sleep and headaches, so maybe i'm not so good at reading.:(
ah, yeah, so, like, ah, carry on my mistake.

Heh an honest mistake.

That is a good aan valid point. In some culrures the covering of the ehad is a marl of respect whilst in others the removing of such a covering is the same.

Think of removing your hat before entering a church, and covering your head before entering a gurdwara.

Yeah but I don't get arrested if I wear a hat in church.

Yeah but I don't get arrested if I wear a hat in church.

try wearing said hat in a courthouse even if it is religious you will get arrested.

Yeah but I don't get arrested if I wear a hat in church.

Man I just noticed the amount of speiling mistakes in that post, umm mine that is not yours!

And in Christian circles it was only the male that should remove his head wear. Ladies were allow to wear their bonnets in church.

nitpicking, because this always bothers me. You don't really "threaten assault", unless you say something like "I"m going to...try and take a swing at you". Assaut is an ATTEMPT to make contact (or, placing one in apprehension of imminent contact).

The legal term for when you actually physically HIT someone is "battery"
Fair enough. Thing is, I actually know that but I always say threaten assault...blame legal dramas or something, dunno.
try wearing said hat in a courthouse even if it is religious you will get arrested.

Actually, as per the article even, it is entirely up to the Judge's/bailiff's discretion as far as headgear is concerned. So, ya, I'd be willing to bet my fucking life that if you're white and wearing Christian religious attire, they'll let you right on in without so much as a second glance.

And in Christian circles it was only the male that should remove his head wear. Ladies were allow to wear their bonnets in church.

Yeah I wonder why the diffrant rules for the genders. In Sikhi a big deal is made about the man wearing the turban, the woman? Not so much.

Actually, as per the article even, it is entirely up to the Judge's/bailiff's discretion as far as headgear is concerned. So, ya, I'd be willing to bet my fucking life that if you're white and wearing Christian religious attire, they'll let you right on in without so much as a second glance.

you will never know until you go test it out. Until then whats the point.

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices, BUT couldn't a more reasonable compromise be found in these cases of jailing women for wearing head scarfs?

I don't really see any reason for the rule at all, even outside of the fact that members of multiple cultural and religious backgrounds wear something on their heads.

I could understand, for instance, a prohibition on covering one's face in court, particularly if one were a part of the proceedings (although, depending on the particular proceedings, one might be able to give testimony, etc. in a judge's chambers rather than in front of the entire courtroom), but I don't really see a need to ban things like this.

And, given the fact that I believe access to public institutions should be as open as possible, I thus don't think the rule should even exist.

I really don't understand why they couldn't just use a wand around her head...

Having not read the article out of apathy, I don't know what specific form of head-dress was worn, but for juridical proceedings, I could see the logic in prohibiting whicher garment covers the face wholly, but not simply a headscarf.

I'm not personally a fan of the doctrine, either it's basis or implications, but I see no reason to require Islamic women who wish to cover their heads not to do so in court.

Are we all forgetting that the covering of the head for Mulsim woman is not a mandatory thing, but a personal(social/cultural) inturpretation of the rule to dress modestly?

So is the requirement of long sleeves in some interpretations of modesty. Or of long pants/skirts. Or of loose fitting clothing.

She could have removed her scarf, she refused to and was found in contempt. It seems clear and easy to me.

I don't see any reason that someone should have to forgo modesty to enter a courtroom unless their version of modesty presents a clear security risk.

it is what it is and it is still outrageous. time to update the laws to reflect the presense of muslims in georgia.

Not just Muslims. Sikh men often wear head coverings. Orthodox Jewish men do as well. There are entire communities of Mennonites in GA and the women in these communities generally keep their hair up and covered. Some women in GA still wear hats (pinned into place) any time they get dressed up (and I doubt a woman with one would have been turned away from court).

But they don't think that, if this woman said I can't remove my scarf for religous porpuses, she blatantly lied.

Because you are her God and can thus determine exactly what her religious beliefs are?

Nowhere does Islam tell woman they MUST cover their heads. This is a personal/social/cultural inturpretation of the Islamic ruling which suggests that women should dress moderatly.

In other words, if one believes that modest dress requires a hijab, one might also believe that a hijab is required to meet the requirements of one's religion - which asks that one dresses modestly.

Heh many people disagree with me, but look a few posts above and inturpert the words for yourself, can you see any where there that says 'A woman must cover her hair'?

Can you show me the Bible passage that specifically says that I shouldn't let my dog take a crap on my neighbor's yard without picking it up?

Or might that fall under the "do unto others..." passage, since I wouldn't want someone to allow their dog to crap on my yard without picking it up?


How does it warrant wearing a hijab? That's crap.

Because your personal definition of modesty is the only possible one?


I'd go so far to say that laws neutral to religion should, and do, take precedence over any religious custom.

I agree. But if those laws are not, in and of themselves, justified, I see no reason that they should exist in the first place.


headwear is irrelevant to most people so it would seem (in this era) to be a reasonable requirement of respectful dressing that they be disallowed. that way there is no quibbling over whether or not a baseball cap is too casual for court but a fedora is not. '

Why would that question even come up? Is it unlawful to wear casual clothing to court?

I really don't understand why they couldn't just use a wand around her head...

Because that might have been... reasonable.

To me it seems that the judge is being an arse about it than anything else.
This...
I don't really see any reason for the rule at all, even outside of the fact that members of multiple cultural and religious backgrounds wear something on their heads.

I could understand, for instance, a prohibition on covering one's face in court, particularly if one were a part of the proceedings (although, depending on the particular proceedings, one might be able to give testimony, etc. in a judge's chambers rather than in front of the entire courtroom), but I don't really see a need to ban things like this.

And, given the fact that I believe access to public institutions should be as open as possible, I thus don't think the rule should even exist.
And this.

That's all I would say said well.

nitpicking, because this always bothers me. You don't really "threaten assault", unless you say something like "I"m going to...try and take a swing at you". Assaut is an ATTEMPT to make contact (or, placing one in apprehension of imminent contact).

The legal term for when you actually physically HIT someone is "battery"

In some countries the definition for those are reversed. This has been my useless comment for the dayhourpost.*

*pretend the forum supports the strikethrough tag because I'm too lazy to think of something that'd actually work

Why would that question even come up? Is it unlawful to wear casual clothing to court?

you are required to dress to a certain standard in court. you cant wear cut offs and a tank top.

you are required to dress to a certain standard in court. you cant wear cut offs and a tank top.

I do not understand this. The facts of a case speak for themselves. As long as clothing passes health codes what business is it of a Judge what you wear?

Is a Judge allowed to decide the color blue is disrespectful too?

I do not understand this. The facts of a case speak for themselves. As long as clothing passes health codes what business is it of a Judge what you wear?

Is a Judge allowed to decide the color blue is disrespectful too?
beats me.

all i know is that courts require respect and they have the power to enforce it. proper dress is part of the mojo of justice.

you are required to dress to a certain standard in court. you cant wear cut offs and a tank top.

(a) That must change from place to place, because I've seen and known of people who went to court dressed in very casual clothes with no problem.

(b) What about older women who hail from a time when a woman was not properly dressed without a matching hat?

(c) Such a rule should not exist. Holding lawyers, judges, and other professionals to some sort of dress code is one thing. But citizens should have the easiest possible access to government buildings. Any dress code should be justified by necessity - and there is no necessity to have people dressed up.

(a) That must change from place to place, because I've seen and known of people who went to court dressed in very casual clothes with no problem.

(b) What about older women who hail from a time when a woman was not properly dressed without a matching hat?

(c) Such a rule should not exist. Holding lawyers, judges, and other professionals to some sort of dress code is one thing. But citizens should have the easiest possible access to government buildings. Any dress code should be justified by necessity - and there is no necessity to have people dressed up.
i dont have a problem with hats. they do. i assume that its part of making sure that its a nondiscriminatory policy when they ban all head wear. i cant imagine that any woman has a problem with removing her hat in court except for those who wear hats/headwear for religious reasons.

i dont have a problem with hats. they do. i assume that its part of making sure that its a nondiscriminatory policy when they ban all head wear. i cant imagine that any woman has a problem with removing her hat in court except for those who wear hats/headwear for religious reasons.
Except, of course, that it raises the specter of discrmination against a religion, doesn't it? You, yourself, acknowledge that it creates a problem for people of certain religions.

The fact remains that this rule does not seem to be necessary for security or any other practical consideration. It seems very clear to me that this bailiff over-reacted to a situation, and that this judge is ego-tripping on how he treats this part of the "dress code."

The right to express one's personal religious beliefs is supposed one of the pillars of American freedom. Does it actually hurt anyone for this woman to wear her head scarf in the courtroom? We can talk about dress codes all day long, but that seems extremely flimsy pretext for forcing someone to take off a piece of cloth on their head. The judge should be ashamed. Leave the woman alone.

I'm sure this thread will attract Muslim-bashing and I do think that generally-applicable neutral rules don't have to have exceptions for religious practices,

Veils and head-scarves were not necessary in the time of Mohammed, and he never supported them.

Veils and head-scarves were not necessary in the time of Mohammed, and he never supported them.

Here's an earlier post addressing that point.

Read me! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14315358#post14315358)

It contains the passage from the Qu'ran supporting the adorning of the hijab. Barringtonia then follows up by providing it with a bit of history. Would you like to contradict this with a source, because I'm interested to know how you came to that conclusion.

The Qu'ran was dictated to Mohammed by the Arch Angel Gabriel, and why would Mohammed write anything but what Allah's messenger wanted? Granted, I don't believe this, but I'm asking from a debate perspective.

i dont have a problem with hats. they do. i assume that its part of making sure that its a nondiscriminatory policy when they ban all head wear. i cant imagine that any woman has a problem with removing her hat in court except for those who wear hats/headwear for religious reasons.

The types of hats older women sometimes wear are rather difficult to remove. They're bobby-pinned on. If she removes it, her hair is probably going to be sticking up in all sorts of odd directions.

IIRC, this is the reason that men are expected to take off their hats during the national anthem, etc. but women often are not.

Of course, my point was that the two policies can be seen as contradictory. A woman who feels she isn't appropriately attired without a hat isn't really going to be able to meet the "appropriately attired" requirement in a courtroom, if both exist.

Veils and head-scarves were not necessary in the time of Mohammed, and he never supported them.

1. How is that relevant to my position in the OP that a reasonable accomodation should be made for headscarves?

2. Are you suggesting courts should determine for individuals what is an is not a reasonable religous belief given membership in a certain religion?

Veils and head-scarves were not necessary in the time of Mohammed, and he never supported them.

It doesn't matter either way.

It wouldn't even matter if this woman was the only Muslim in the world who thought she had to cover her hair, as long as she really believed it.

you are required to dress to a certain standard in court. you cant wear cut offs and a tank top.

Sure ever since they brought the DNA evidence in, I've always thought 'in for a penny, in for a pound'.....

Good! She broke the law, she should be jailed. Finally, a government that doesn't SUCK UP to Muslims.

Good! She broke the law, she should be jailed. Finally, a government that doesn't SUCK UP to Muslims.

And yet you'd be screaming bloody murder if she were, shall we say, a nun.

Gee, five-post-wonder...

Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

Yeah, and I'm sure this had nothing to do with the incident.

Yeah, and I'm sure this had nothing to do with the incident.

And why are the police lying?
Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said.

There appears to be an update on this story:

Police to get training after head-scarf wearer's arrest (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/22/georgia.muslim.courthouse/index.html)

DOUGLASVILLE, Georgia (CNN) -- The Douglasville Police Department said Monday its officers will undergo "sensitivity and cultural diversity training" after a Muslim woman who refused to remove her head scarf at a courthouse was jailed.

"We never want this to happen again. It's not our intent to embarrass anybody," Police Chief Joe Whisenant said at a news conference.

The judge who had the woman jailed briefly for contempt of court will also take part in the training, Whisenant said.

There appears to be an update on this story:

Police to get training after head-scarf wearer's arrest (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/22/georgia.muslim.courthouse/index.html)

So... what are they gonna learn in that training? That nobody can wear any sort of headgear in court, apart from loudmouthed Muslim women? :confused:

So... what are they gonna learn in that training? That nobody can wear any sort of headgear in court, apart from loudmouthed Muslim women? :confused:
Just a guess, but maybe they'll learn that a courthouse regulation that is specifically left up to the case-by-case judgment of bailiffs and judges for how to apply it is not a carte blanche license to throw their weight around like petty Napoleon-wannabes.

Maybe they'll learn that expressing anger verbally is not a crime in the US, especially when it is accompanied by non-aggressive action (leaving; you know, in compliance with the rule against letting her in with her head covered).

And maybe, just maybe, they'll learn the difference between religious attire and a hat and that a dress code does not trump the right to religious practice (including the practice of dressing according to religious rules).

There appears to be an update on this story:

Police to get training after head-scarf wearer's arrest (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/22/georgia.muslim.courthouse/index.html)
thanks for the update.

thats good. i like that the judge has to go too. he gets his own little slap on the wrist.

Would a naturist be allowed in a courtroom wearing nothing?

Only if it was for religious reasons...anyone in for starting a church of his imminent nudeness?

So... what are they gonna learn in that training? That nobody can wear any sort of headgear in court, apart from loudmouthed Muslim women? :confused:

Sounds fair to me.

For reference, here are the different types of head scarves that Muslim women wear; it's based not just on religion but also on the culture that they are apart of.

-snip-

Source: BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/europe_muslim_veils/html/1.stm)

With the exception of the Niqab and Burqa, none of the others cover the face; just the hair. You may also note that the Khimar leaves the face clear to anyone around while still covering the hair. In reference to the article, we can safely assume that the scarf being worn is one where the face is clearly visible.

Shayla is the most attractive on a woman. [/thread]

Wait, what was the issue again?:D