Not So Veiled: Threat To Muslim Civil Rights

Here's the latest in what is becoming a string of lawsuits by Muslims claiming violation of their civil rights. But there's a wrinkle according to the article.

Muhammad said she would have removed her veil before a female judge

To begin with, as was stated at the time, Muslim law does not prohibit her from removing the veil - it's a custom, not a religious law. And evidently she, and I imagine CAIR, are fine with sexism ... it's only the alleged religious persecution that gets their goat.

DETROIT (AP) -- A Muslim woman whose small-claims court case was dismissed after she refused to remove her veil sued the judge Wednesday, saying her religious and civil rights were violated.

Ginnnah Muhammad, 42, of Detroit, says in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit that Judge Paul Paruk's request to remove her veil - and his decision to dismiss her case when she didn't - was unconstitutional based on her First Amendment right to practice her religion.

The claim against Paruk also cites a federal civil rights law in alleging that Muhammad was denied access to the courts because of her religion.

Muhammad wore a niqab - a scarf and veil that covers her head and face, leaving only the eyes visible - during the October hearing in Hamtramck, a city surrounded by Detroit.

She was contesting a $2,750 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

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

Comments

[Darth Malice]

Hey liberals do you really want Sharia law?Well here it is.

[Phoenix]

Good for the judge.

I'm not sure why it's okay for her, or any Muslim woman who chooses to wear the head gear, is allowed to drive in the first place. They don't let people who are half-blind drive.

I remember a woman who refused to take off her head gear for her license photo. What ever happened with that case?

[Zifnab]

"JEERS to the number 60. That's the estimated number of Sunnis who were shot in the head by roaming gangs of Shiite policemen(!) Tuesday night in the Iraqi town of Tal Afar. It was Shiite revenge for Sunni truck bombs. Which was revenge for Shiite bombings. Which was revenge for Sunni kidnappings. Which was revenge for Shiite beheadings. And so on. And so on. And so on..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-28-police-revenge_N.htm?csp=34

[Darth Malice]

Z....I love Red on Red violence.

[Fred Beloit]

There is a Constitutional prohibition against the Government "establishing" a religion. If all others in the US appear barefaced while testifying in court, wouldn't it be establishing a religion if, say, BlobinBridgeport were to be allowed to wear her niqab in court simply because she says she is a Muslim?

[Fred Beloit]

That's it Ziffy. Change the subject if the argument is not going your way.

[Zifnab]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about threats to Muslims.

[Fred Beloit]

Threats to Muslims? Threats to Muslims who want to come here to live in peace and become Americans under American law and tolerate American culture and customs? Never. Threats to Muslims who want to come here to impose sharia law under any means necessary replacing American law, to make us change our customs and culture to whatever they deem acceptable and what we do not, to use violence or plot to do so to cause civil unrest or to try to terrorize us? Why not threaten such people, always using lawful means, of course.

[Legalize]

"There is a Constitutional prohibition against the Government "establishing" a religion. If all others in the US appear barefaced while testifying in court, wouldn't it be establishing a religion if, say, BlobinBridgeport were to be allowed to wear her niqab in court simply because she says she is a Muslim?"

No, it would be an "accommodation." Such accommodations are EXTREMELY common place pursuant to the free exercise clause. It's about a million miles away from Sharia law. This is not to say that the govt. is required to accommodate, of course. As long as there is a secular purpose that does not needlessly burden free exercise, and does not overly-involve state supervison, I see no reason why the state should not require that women remove as much of their head-coverings as possible to accomplish whatever goal the state has in mind.

And no, we shouldn't give her a female judge just because; in this country we assume that all judges are impartial referees and competent to interpret the law; absent a showing to the contrary - deal with it. You'll get a fair shake in court.

[Phoenix]

Legalize,

What if the veiled woman is a menopausal moron who does not understand the how's and why's of her situation?
Would the judge give her a fair shake? Can a judge tell such a creature to go get HRT and come back later?

Dude. You so know your stuff.

[Fred Beloit]

I wonder if it would be permissible for an accused, a witness, a defense lawyer, or a prosecutor to wear a large crucifix, say six inches in ht., in court, on the stand, etc.? It seems to me a niqab is a symbol of Muslimism. I shudder to think of all the pro et contra we are in for with our new citizens, if CAIR is any example.

[Fred Beloit]

Legalize wrote "Such accommodations are EXTREMELY common place pursuant to the free exercise clause." Perhaps, but the ACLU is extremely intolerant when it comes to religious symbols in governmental quarters and proceedings.