Credibility. Could be anyone.
All Headline News – October 23, 2006:
Ginnah Muhammad, 42, is a devout Muslim, so as such, she feels she was forced to choose between her small claims court case and her religion, Friday.
Judge Paul Paruk, in Hamtramck District Court, told Muhammad she had to take off her niqab; a scarf and veil, which covers her face and head except for her eyes, or he would dismiss her case. The judge said he needed to see her face so he could judge her truthfulness when she testified.
Paruk told the Detroit Free press he offered to let Muhammad, who was born in the United States and converted to Islam at the age of 10, wear her niqab in court, except when she testified. “I felt I was trying to accommodate her as best I could,” Judge Paruk said.
Muhammad had gone to small claims court to contest a rental car company charging her $2,750 to repair a vehicle she had leased after thieves broke into it.
“I just feel so sad,” Muhammad said. “I feel that the court is there for justice for us. I don’t feel that the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I feel I can’t trust the court.”
I need to see her (insert body part here) to judge her truthfulness.
Good for the judge. Good to see someone with balls and not pander to this nonsense. I wonder how long it will be before the scumbags at the ACLU step in to sue the state for violation of this person’s civil rights to freely practice her religion.
I wonder how long i will before the scumbags who populate our government require us all to have American flags tattooed on our butts? It makes as much sense as gq’s whining.
Now, back OT: questions of religious dress have been coming up for centuries in the U.S.. Most often in the military. Which is why American Sikhs and Gurkhas could choose not to cut their hair or remove turbans whilst on active duty — till the regs were changed in 1999. Don’t know if there’s been a challenge since.
Well if a person wants to practice their religion then let them. As long as she swears on the appropriate religious text then who cares what she wears.
The judge was afraid that she was a ninja! đ
I find it strange that this woman has never seen an episode of judge Judy, or any other of those types of programs. Then she would have known that something like this can happen.
Our justice system demands that accusers and the accused be allowed to confront each other, face to face. Allowing the covering of the face defeats this concept of common law, as the user might as well be in another room or place, something which is only allowed in extraordinary circumstances (child abuse, etc).
I am starting to believe that the only way to end this madness is to do outrageous things and claim they were done in line with one’s religion. Hopefully at some point, the argument can never be used again, and societies norms, policies and procedures will change organically and not radically.
Imagine if lots of people started walking into banks, commuter stations, and governmental offices wearing ski masks, and backpacks full of iron “prayer rods”, claiming religious freedom? (The prayer rods must be ‘throw’ 4 times a day, by the way).
bottom line: Unlimited religious freedom ends at your doorstep. Even behind your doorstep is only established between consenting adults.
I thought that it was against the law to cover your face,
(Ref: KKK), in US, is this not true?
i though in islam women are supposed to do what me tell them to do. or, maybe she felt it was against allahs will for her to win
hehe
Lou, perfect common sense IMO. Same to you gq. As in everything else, here has to be limits. Wearing a turban is not the same thing at all. What if she were the accused? It’s important to see if someone is mouthing F__k Y_u to the judge.
What a tough situation. Hopefully there are no religions which require smoking pot while testifying.
Interesting how we can have all these sophisticated electronic, psychological and torture methods to help determine truth which all remain suspect as to their ultimate validity while judges and juries believe truth reveals itself by merely looking at one’s face.
But I believe the system ultimately failed her in its lack of a creative solution. That said, if I was king of the world, I would have a court system where jurors are only given transcripts to base their decisions upon.
Reminds me of a case years & years ago when a female lawyer was kicked out of court for wearing a pantsuit – against the decorum of the times – so she returned with it removed as her top covered enough of her bottom.
RBG
A niqab works in a culture where women are not seen nor heard, where women are treated very differently than in the US, and where they have few–if any– human rights.
But I think they make absolutely no sense in the US. These women need to choose…be a doormat and don’t drive or go to court or do any of the things you are not allowed to do in your native land because you have no pen!s, or take the damn thing off and be a woman in the western world.
#3, cmon, Moss, ease up with the politically correct bull. Since religion is such a variable thing, let’s drop the religious aspect and ask the following question:
If physical safety is not an issue, should any/all types of dress allowed in any/all circumstances?
Unless you answer YES to the above, you have your own line(s) in the proverbial sand that shoudn’t get crossed, so you should respect other people’s ‘lines’, and use reason and thought to persuade why that line is wrong. And the line in the sand of facing your accuser (seeing their facial expressions), is an important one, especially since we humans are wired for facial recognition.
It is well established in our cannon of law that organizations can establish codes and norms to the people involved. Resturants can require dress codes, people can not go to court wearing bathing suits (if the judge doesn’t allow it), corporations can require their male employees to wear ties, or be fired.
And I will repeat: There are thousands of religions in this world, with customs that vary so much and allow virtually anything, including many things which we as a modern society abhor (slavery, rape, polygamy, forced religious conversion, etc. etc.). Our legal system and our laws need not, and should not, take religion into account.
Let’s take it to the other extreme… require that everyone testify nude in order to judge their ‘truthiness’. In a way that is what this woman was being asked to do. A judge asking her to show her face publicly is akin to asking a regular defendant to go topless.
In a case like this, the judge should base his decisions on facts, not facial expressions. If you think about it, judging based on appearance should be illegal, since it can easily become racist, gender or otherwise biased.
But she has little to complain about… the tradeoff for the freedoms that she enjoys in America compared to her native land should just make her shut up and count her blessings. It doesn’t make the judge correct, but it is the reality that she should be thinking about.
shall we reconsider the semantic implications of the phrase “freedom of religion”?
#13 Sorry, I don’t agree. This woman wasn’t born into this religion in an oppressive country. She was born here and converted to this backward religion when she was 10, so her native land is here.
There is only one thing i can think of when i hear this story, and thats t Nelson’s laugh from the simpsons.
I mean seriously, you are welcome to this countries judicial system, but we have to see your face, how stupid can you be jeez, seperation of church and state please.
#15 you assert two things that are open to subjection:
1. America is not oppressive
2. Islam is a backward religion
I assert, that if one is a muslim living in America, they *may* feel oppressed for what they assert to be forward thinking.
but, I’m sure the opinions of one thinker can be taken over the opinions of another.
10,
Why doesn’t Rastafarianism get any respect???
#16 … why do we still have people swear on bibles?
oh, and remind me where seperation of church and state is written into our laws? seriously, I just can’t remember.
#18, must be that seperation of church and state thing we keep hearing about
Most likely she can cover her face for her drivers license photo, so that’s a bonus.
#2 – The ACLU doesn’t step in to sue for violation of people’s civil rights to freely practice religion. They step in to prevent people from freely practicing religion.
22,
Can you provide documentation of this?
boring – next time i have to goto court im gonna wear a JFK mask or a prez bush mask and state I have to wear it because of some moronic belief… this is rubbish
yeah, they’re (ACLU) all about seperation, I’d be pretty suprised if they took a break from hunting down religious artifacts in courthouses and schools to stand up for this lady
Jimmy, I had to fix your post…
They step in to prevent people from freely practicing religion at the public’s expense.
I’ve yet to hear about the ACLU stopping people from practicing religion in their own homes or churches.
#24, if you’re not interested in trying to understand, why bother posting?
Wow. the trolls are out in this one. I feel like I’m reading Little Green Footballs.
What in the world does covering your face have to do with small claims court? Is this judge just asking for trouble?
As for those arguing, “Our legal system says you have to face your accuser” well that would be a nice reason, except that has nothing to do with why the judge threw out the case. It was thrown out because the judge has amazing powers to tell is someone is lying based solely on looking at their face. I guess all that time you spent becoming such legal experts would have been better spent learning reading comprehension.
This is a civil suit, not a criminal case. It isn’t as if the woman is on trial or anything. If the judge has to rely on looking at someone’s face rather than the facts to determine a case, then the judge doesn’t sound that good at the job.
I would say that I think it was wrong of the judge to do what he did. Yes now we are talking about covering the face, but what is to stop it there. I as a Christian wear a cross (the Romans used it as a instrument of torture) I have friends that wear crucifixes (an image of a Man being tortured on a instrument of torture) so what is to stop some law maker or judge from saying that images of torture are inappropriate and ban them from public display.
Also remember it is âFreedom OF Religionâ not âFreedom FROM Religionâ
And to the person that said it ends at your doorstep, when was that ever the case? Public display of Religion is part of Freedom of Religion which is in the same amendment to the constitution as freedom of speech. âCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. â And note the phrase âprohibiting the free exercise thereofâ
“prohibiting the free exercise thereofâ”
Yeah, but once you make everyone pay for it, it’s no longer free. Do what you want on your own land or in your own church. But when you’re forcing the public to follow your beliefs you’re imposing your religion on everyone else.
As someone once brilliantly wrote, your freedom to extend your fist ends at my face.