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.”
There must be no blind judges.
#30…. get off it.
dressing how one pleases is not forcing any public to follow any beliefs or imposing any religion on anyone else.
however
forcing one to take it off is an imposition of religion. in this case, the religion to see one’s face in civil cases.
dictionary.com, def 6: something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
“forcing one to take it off is an imposition of religion.”
Nope. Sorry, no matter how you dress that up it won’t fly.
For a start the veil isn’t anything to do with being a muslim, it’s to do with repressive societies that mandate it who are also muslim.
This is about culture clashes, not religion. the whole thing is like (for example) a black guy pulling the race card when he gets pulled over for speeding – it distracts from the point of why he was pulled over and tries to shift the blame to the other party.
“dressing how one pleases is not forcing any public to follow any beliefs or imposing any religion on anyone else.”
She was in court attempting to get an order that says she does not owe the defendant any money. She was neither in her home nor in a church. She was imposing her beliefs onto everyone in the courtroom and the judge had enough.
I’ll say it again, if you believe in fairies, ghosts, or other invisible entities, keep it to yourself or among others with similar delusions.
#33, 34 … before I can respond, I have to know what you think religion is.
“I’ll say it again, if you believe in fairies, ghosts, or other invisible entities, keep it to yourself or among others with similar delusions.”
What if you believe you can tell if someone is lying just by looking at their face?
Great discussion guys. Back a few posts someone joked about her driver’s license. Did she remove her veil then? I can’t imagine her being allowed to get one wearing her veil.
“before I can respond, I have to know what you think religion is.”
Mmm… when one person believes in invisible boogymen telling them how to run their life, it’s called insanity. So when two or more believe in the same boogymen giving them the same directions to live their lives, maybe it should be called group insanity.
geez, the woman is looking for attention…in our ME society, it’s hard to find it without resorting to extremes. She should be happy, she got her attention.
….I think this is all bull….in a court, she uncovers her face, or doesn’t go to court. Simple as that. As for not being sensitive…I’ve had sensitive up to HERE….I’m sick of the victims, sick of the blaming of others, and tired of the nonsense. Why does everyone think they are so “special”?
“Why does everyone think they are so “special”?”
I agree 100% Are we a nation where everyone is equal or are some people more equal than others?
Obviously this woman believes she should be given special treatment because of her religion. If you want to live in such a regime, move to Iran.
Once again, SN you are playing the part of the fool. Do you think that you are smarter than the rest of us because you are an athiest? Is that why you refer to boogeymen rather than saying it plainly?
The judge is forcing his beliefs on her by insisting she remove her veil when it isn’t necessary.
She is not forcing her beliefs on anyone by wearing a veil in court unless there is some law I am unaware of that says she is not allowed to have her face covered in court.
She is obviously not doing it to get attention since she is willing to lose $2,500 dollars for her beliefs. I would think that sort of money says she is not making a capricious statement.
All of the statements you have made SN can be boiled down to one. If they don’t do it your way, they can get the fuck out of your country.
#2 – 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.
Comment by gquaglia — 10/23/2006 @ 8:56 am
Ungrateful bastard. The ACLU defended your people in Skokie, IL… That’s a fine way to say thank you.
“I don’t know what planet you live on, but society is based on face to face contact. ”
I live on a planet where a judge is supposed to rule on the basis of facts and an argument, not if someone looks like they have an honest face.
I wouldn’t buy a car without checking it out, so I don’t know why a judge should rule on a case without checking it out.
How do we know it was her in the first place? Please excuse my ignorance, but does someone have to show their face to anyone in the process of entering a courtroom? Maybe the judge just wanted to read their character before taking their testimony.
I’m as respectful of faith as anyone I know, but there comes a time where the law trumps everything (including the President (you knew I wanted to say that)).
If we care that much about it, have her and others like her tried in a court deliberately convened with female judge and jury (male defendants can be sequestered in an adjoining room within view of the judge and jury but not the witness if you want to get sticky about it) so she can bare her face without shame.
#17 #15 you assert two things that are open to subjection:
1. America is not oppressive
2. Islam is a backward religion
Comment by woktiny — 10/23/2006 @ 10:06 am
1. America IS oppressive depending on who you are….
2. ALL religion is backward.
“I live on a planet where a judge is supposed to rule on the basis of facts and an argument, not if someone looks like they have an honest face.”
Then your problem is that you’re utterly ignorant of the law. God, why do people feel the need to chime in on things they know nothing about?!
One of the main jobs of a fact finder (in this case the judge) is to determine credibility. If someone is being evasive, the fact finder can determine that he’s lying. If someone is avoiding eye contact, the fact finder can determine he’s lying. If someone tightens up while answering, the fact finder can determine he’s lying..
Heck, why do you think professional poker players wear sunglasses?! Non verbal expressions are an extremely important means of communication.
Here’s some good proof. Here’s a transcript of Ed McMahon on the Tonight Show:
“Here’s Johnny.”
Now here’s Jack Torrance, AKA Jack Nicholson, from the movie the Shining
“Here’s Johnny.”
They appear identical to me. Are they supposed to have the same meaning?!
Thank you for the good laughs. I’m serious, there are some really hilarious posts on this one. And, since I just finished dinner, the humor will aid the digestion. I know it is very hard sometimes not to be dragged into a ridiculous argument, but seriously, answering the trolls only encourages them.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion !!! It has to do with decorum in the Court Room. Every Judge is allowed to enforce any rule that would compel respect for the Court and laws of the nation. I can’t think of any court that would find fault with his ruling.
Men are not allowed to wear hats. Women can not wear excessively short skirts or revealing clothes. No one may wear a shirt with any writing or message that would bring the impartiality or reputation of the court into question. Shirt and shoes are required.
Years ago, Larry Flint, the publisher of Hustler Magazine, was in court on pornography charges. As he was crippled and had no bladder or bowel control, he wore a diaper. That was fine until he chose to wear a US flag as an oversize diaper. That was contempt to which I think he served 6 months. Yup, he beat the porn charge but lost the protest.
“Do you think that you are smarter than the rest of us because you are an athiest?”
Well, I do know how to spell atheist!
“The judge is forcing his beliefs on her by insisting she remove her veil when it isn’t necessary.”
She’s bringing the case. When you bring a case you have to abide by a judge’s rulings. She refused thus she got her case kicked out. You think that she is more equal than others merely because of her religion. And to that I strongly disagree. That woman deserves to be treated no differently than anyone else.
“unless there is some law I am unaware of that says she is not allowed to have her face covered in court.”
Well, there is. A fact finder’s job is to determine credibility. Thus if a witness is hiding her face the jury (or in this case the judge) can say, “I can’t see you, stop looking away.” Furthermore, a judge has pretty wide discretion over what people wear in his or her courtroom. Making people take off their hats is quite common. Exactly why do you think that Muslim woman should be treated differently than everyone else who has to take of their hats? Do you think some people are more equal than others?!
“She is obviously not doing it to get attention since she is willing to lose $2,500 dollars for her beliefs.”
Or she is such a bad liar she knew the judge would figure it out once he saw her testify.
“If they don’t do it your way, they can get the fuck out of your country.”
Wait a minute, the woman is the one who wants it her way. Even Islam does not require that she wear a niqab. Most Muslim women do not wear them. She made a choice and paid the consequences.
And I’ve said it plenty of times before, if you want to talk to your boogman do it on your own property or in your own church. Outside in the real world follow everyone else’s rules. And don’t expect special treatment. You may feel more equal than others, but you’re not.
#45 – If we care that much about it, have her and others like her tried in a court deliberately convened with female judge and jury (male defendants can be sequestered in an adjoining room within view of the judge and jury but not the witness if you want to get sticky about it) so she can bare her face without shame.
This is not viable since the male jury members doesn’t have the ability to read her body language.
#12, lou,
If physical safety is not an issue, should any/all types of dress allowed in any/all circumstances?
What the eff is the question?
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.
What the h*ll are you talking about? You do know that doing lines is slang for snorting coke. Not a smart idea when we are discussing these heavy legal matters. Not that I do coke, I don’t, but if I did and you snorted my line, I would be a little pissed. Just remember, if it’s my line, it ain’t yours so keep your nose off of it.
It is well established in our cannon of law that organizations can establish codes and norms to the people involved.
So what? They are shooting cannons at us now? I suppose they are shooting mighty legal tomes, full of weighted opinions at us. I give, lets go back to the coke.
This whole thing is silly. Why didn’t she simply get legal representation? It’s not *required* for small claims but I don’t think it’s disallowed.
It sounds like this lady isn’t getting proper council from her fellow Muslims either. For example, Muslims don’t allow the payment of interest, but there are such things as “Muslim mortgages”.
The accomodation clearly is the responsibility of the citizen, not the court.
You have to wonder: what is so deeply shaming about baring your face in public (or in front of men)?
What drives these women to subsume their individuality and characters behind a drab tent?
Just how deeply has primitive Arab cultural mores permeated Islam so that all other foreign cultural influences are eradicated and what does this say of the cultural Imperialism of this religion?
“What drives these women to subsume their individuality and characters behind a drab tent?”
What drives American women to subsume their individuality and characters behind a slab of makeup and ankle killing high heels?!
What drives men take dangerous jobs for low pay, e.g., firemen, policemen, coal miners or suicide bombers?!
I don’t know. But I do know that every culture I’ve been exposed to has wackos in one form or another.
A very important part of our trial system is noting how someone responds to questioning. Those who claim body language is not an important part of a civil or criminal case are either incredibly naive . . . or lying. (And please, do not make yourself the fool by comparing the removal of a veil to giving testimony while nude.)
We do not modify our court system to accommodate the sensibilities of the plaintiff. Our country, our law, our rules.
“A very important part of our trial system is noting how someone responds to questioning… Our country, our law, our rules.”
Thanks Smith. A very sensible post indeed!
woktiny, can you say for sure that the witness, Ginnah Muhammad, was actually present at the hearing? How do you know the mystery woman wasn’t covering (heh heh) for her sister who was driving without a license because she refused to take her veil off for the ID photo? Eh? Your arguments are holey.
50,
I said female jury. If, then the male defendant would sit partially obscured. He has no interest in the body language of the accuser, he has no role in the decision beyond evidentiary.
religion is an intangible belief.. clothes are not..
there are many ways to prove identity..
fingerprints should be enough..
I’ll take an Iris scan.
#58
I missed that. My bad. Still, I think that no one should be hidden from anyone.