Muslim Woman Goes to Jail Cause She Didn't Take Headscarf Off

[Greenday]

http://news.aol.com/article/muslim-woman-jailed-over-head-scarf/280144

I have multiple issues with this:

#1: The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
#2: Look at the responses. Some of the most racist pricks ever.

What the hell is going wrong with society when our COURT SYSTEM is visibly acting prejudiced against someone for their religion? One of THE most fundamental rights and the legal system is BLATANTLY ignoring it. And the responses of the majority of the posters are so racist. I mean, I know it's Georgia, one of the most southern states in the US, but damn, you'd think the court system would be at least kind of normal. Society as a whole down there is completely messed up.

[Flyndaran]

The proper response in this situation is to have had a female officer take the "believer" into another room so that the headgear could be searched for contraband. She could then be allowed to wear it inside the rest of the building.

Turning this whole thing into a humans right issue (HAH) was never needed.

[AdminAssistant]

I mean, I know it's Georgia, one of the most southern states in the US, but damn, you'd think the court system would be at least kind of normal. Society as a whole down there is completely messed up.

Can we get over this...MYTH that racism only happens in the South? Georgia, or any other Southern state for that matter, is no more prone to racism than any other place in the US these days. Actually, I saw much more racism/racist behavior in Kansas City than I ever saw in the South.

The Civil War and Reconstruction was 150 years ago. The Little Rock Nine was 50 years ago. I'm sorry, I know this is OT, but I am really tired of the stereotype of the racist South.

[Amethyst Hunter]

The proper response in this situation is to have had a female officer take the "believer" into another room so that the headgear could be searched for contraband. She could then be allowed to wear it inside the rest of the building.

I agree.

Can we get over this...MYTH that racism only happens in the South?

Also agreed. I live in the "North", and I have been SHOCKED by the number of racist fucks I've come across up here. (My own brother speaks of Hispanics in, shall we say, less than glowing terms) The South just has bad publicity, therefore we hear more about that than what goes on in the northern areas.

[anriana]

"officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf."

"the same judge removed a woman and her 14-year-old daughter from the courtroom last week because they were wearing Muslim head scarves."


The article doesn't make it sound like she needed to remove her hijab only for security purposes, it makes it sound like the judge did not want anyone wearing hijab in his/her court.

I think hijab is stupid and find the concept offensive, but I don't understand how this isn't a violation of the First Amendment.

[Greenday]

Ok, ok, I know not all southerners are racist. I have some friends from the South who are not racist at all. But in all seriousness, there is a decent amount more inherent racism in the South than in the North.

[blas87]

I've never been to the South, however, there are so many ignorant, most likely inbred, Confederate flag donning "yee haw git r done", "The South will rise again!" "I hate niggers spics and Jews!" Toby Keith worshipping redneck lunatics up here in northwest Wisconsin of all places that it doesn't surprise me that people like that can live anywhere.

[daleduke17]

This isn't a human rights issue. If the court rule is "no head gear" and it is being applied equally, there is no racism or other bullshit to be said. She knew the rules of the court and chose not to abide by them.

Too bad, so sad.

[Greenday]

This isn't a human rights issue. If the court rule is "no head gear" and it is being applied equally, there is no racism or other bullshit to be said. She knew the rules of the court and chose not to abide by them.

So the local court's laws take precedence over the Constitution? Yea, I don't think so.

[Pedersen]

So the local court's laws take precedence over the Constitution? Yea, I don't think so.

You're absolutely right, Greenday. In fact, I'll prove how right you are by carrying a sidearm in a visible holster the next time I visit the courthouse. And, since I'm only exercising my second amendment right to bear arms, this will be allowed, right?

[daleduke17]

You're absolutely right, Greenday. In fact, I'll prove how right you are by carrying a sidearm in a visible holster the next time I visit the courthouse. And, since I'm only exercising my second amendment right to bear arms, this will be allowed, right?

That's if you could even get to the door of the courthouse without being questioned by officers and courthouse staff.

[Greenday]

Bringing a gun into the courthouse is much different from wearing a headdress. There is NOTHING threatening or dangerous about a headdress.

[Pedersen]

Bringing a gun into the courthouse is much different from wearing a headdress. There is NOTHING threatening or dangerous about a headdress.

And yet, both are protected by the US Constitution. Carrying a gun openly (with the right permits) is perfectly legal. I can carry it around, and invoke the Constitution against anybody who wishes to deny my right to do so.

However, carrying one into the courthouse will result in my experiencing difficulties, to say the least. However, you wish to use threat level to say that one behavior should be permitted to be (unconstitutionally) denied, while another should not. Let's try something else then.

Walk into court, and wear a t-shirt that says "Judge So-and-so is an asshole." Non-threatening, freedom of speech. You'll get a contempt of court charge (which is what this woman got).

Oh, wait, "asshole" is too inflammatory. Change it to "In my opinion, Judge So-and-so is a jerk." "I don't like this judge, and would rather not look at him." Make any statement that could be considered inflammatory by the judge, and then cry freedom of speech. You'll still get hit with contempt of court, either due to the statement itself, or your refusal to change into a different shirt.

These are the same circumstances. The judge ordered the woman to do something. She refused. She was cited for contempt of court.

Was the judge racist? Maybe. Depends on whether or not he said "No hijabs in the courtroom" or "No headwear of any kind in the courtroom." Since the article said that the judge's rule is "No headwear of any kind in the courtroom", it's not racist for him to enforce the rule that he set down.

I don't necessarily agree with the judge. He seems like rather a jerk, actually. But crying racism, in this case, is over the top I think. Mainly because all we have evidence for is him applying the rules equally.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What about if Pedersen decided to walk into court wearing a giant novelty hat? Would that be the same?

Rules are the same for everyone; if you don't choose to keep them, then you can take the consequences. What if she'd been carrying a gun in her headscarf? Who would be blamed for that? Tho I have to agree with the poster who suggested that she be taken aside by a female court attendant and searched.

Also, in the article it said she was only cuffed after she swore at the officer.

[Greenday]

A headscarf is pretty form-fitting. It's not a loose piece of clothing like a t-shirt or a baggy pair of jeans. If you are hiding a gun in it, it will be quite noticeable that you are concealing something.

[Evandril]

Looking into it a bit, it seems like the 'no headgear' law is purely for etiquette reasons, and, while it seems to be enforced equally across the board (hence no Constitutional violation), it does seem like a poorly thought out rule.

Link I found concerning it from a legal standpoint. http://volokh.com/posts/1229525304.shtml

According to the link, other religions that mandate headgear also were treated the same way, but cannot verify that (Well, not putting the effort into doing so, at least ;) ) Here are two quotes from two different courtrooms policies, as well, which is where I got the 'etiquette' idea.



There is a dress code in Recorder's Court. No shorts, cut-offs, halter-tops, hats or flip-flops of any kind are allowed. In addition, shoes and shirts are required. Casual or business dress is suggested. Also, no weapons, cellular phones or pagers are allowed in the courtroom.



Courtroom Etiquette

Civilian Dress - Civilians entering the courtroom must abide by the dress code as set forth by the Sheriff of Greene County and must not commit any violations of indecent exposure. Any individual violating such law may be subject to arrest and/or refused entrance into the courtroom. Individuals wearing improper court attire, such as tank tops, shorts, or not wearing shoes, unless approved by the presiding judge, may be refused entry into the courtroom and may be asked to change their clothing before entry is allowed. Men wishing to enter the courtroom will not be allowed to wear a hat or head covering during any session, except by permission of the presiding judge.

[Sylvia727]

In Western culture, removing headgear is a sign of respect, and it's not wrong of the judge to enforce respectful behavior in a courthouse. However, he went wrong when he extended his notions of etiquette to someone whose beliefs were in direct conflict with this. Someone refusing to remove a baseball cap or a ten gallon hat coud reasonably be said to be insulting the judge and the court with their headgear. The hat has no special purpose, and our culture does associate a bare head with humility and respect. But a Muslim woman in full religious garb could not be said to be insulting anything, unless someone found her expression of religion offensive. Requiring her to expose the parts of her body that she considers sacred is a violation of civil rights.

If this woman was a nun wearing a habit, would they still require her to remove the veil before entering the courthouse? Nuns are the Brides of Christ, and many orders keep themselves covered to represent their consecration to God. Somehow, I doubt that nuns are subject to the same requirement. Optimistically, perhaps nuns and their traditions are better understood by our heavily Christian society. Pessimistically, perhaps the court officials are ethnocentric.

[crazylegs]

The Qur'an instructs Muslims to dress in a modest way.
The 31st verse of Surah an-Nur states,

“ And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings (khimars) over their bosoms (jaybs), and not display their ornaments except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.
And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Emphasis mine.

It is a requirement within their religion to wear a head dress, by ordering her to remove it the judge is impinging a restricion upon her religious beliefs. Would he order a sikh male to remove his turban, a cardinal to remove his skull cap or a nun to remove her wimple? What would your reactions be if these examples were the case...?

[daleduke17]

It is a requirement within their religion to wear a head dress, by ordering her to remove it the judge is impinging a restricion upon her religious beliefs. Would he order a sikh male to remove his turban, a cardinal to remove his skull cap or a nun to remove her wimple? What would your reactions be if these examples were the case...?

If I was the judge, yes. Although most current days nuns don't wear the traditional habits anymore (at least from what I've seen), so it more than likely wouldn't be a problem.

[Slytovhand]

I'm thinking (and hoping) that the judge was merely enforcing a regulation without respect towards whom it was directing to.

The problem here isn't really the judge, nor the decision. The problem is that the law doesn't at this moment in time take all people's beliefs into consideration. Hopefully, this situation will change soon....

(not saying the judge doesn't have racist tendencies, anyway....). I'm hoping the judge would at least ask a nun to remove her wimple. Hopefully, also, he'd do her for contempt if she refused as well...

[crazylegs]

If I was the judge, yes. Although most current days nuns don't wear the traditional habits anymore (at least from what I've seen), so it more than likely wouldn't be a problem.

They may not wear the full traditional garb but many still wear a head dress of some description.

It's interesting that you didn't state your preference towards the other two examples I gave though.

[AFPheonix]

I'm thinking (and hoping) that the judge was merely enforcing a regulation without respect towards whom it was directing to.

The problem here isn't really the judge, nor the decision. The problem is that the law doesn't at this moment in time take all people's beliefs into consideration. Hopefully, this situation will change soon....

(not saying the judge doesn't have racist tendencies, anyway....). I'm hoping the judge would at least ask a nun to remove her wimple. Hopefully, also, he'd do her for contempt if she refused as well...

It's not a law. It is the judge's preference that no headgear be worn in his court. The article even states that the state law does not allow or disallow hats or scarves in the courtroom.
Not even all that long ago women here in the US wore hats and it was acceptable to have them on in places like courtrooms. Men removed hats out of deference to people in power, women kept them on out of fashion and modesty.
The judge and his bailiffs were out of line entirely. While I'd hate to think that the judge was discriminating against muslims, I have a sneaking hunch that might have been in the back of his mind when he made his decision.

[Slytovhand]

AFP, I don't disagree about what was going on in the back of his head.

Sorry, I said 'law' instead of 'policy'...even though it was 'at the discretion of the judges and sherriffs'. Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court,


One thing I didn't comment on, was the comments at the bottom of the article. Gotta love racist morons, especially when they have no idea about history. But then, that's what helps keep them ignorant.

[MannersMakethMan]

It seems to me if the woman was dressed as in the picture, there didn't ought to be a problem with it. This is one of those examples where they can be accommodating towards another persons religion without poking great holes in procedure. Seeing as state law neither permits nor prohibits headscarfs, why shouldn't she be allowed to dress faithfully to her religion, provided she'd passed the relevant security?

I'd draw the line at the burqua, because it is important to be able to see people reactions, but innocent enough expressions of religion like a hijab, a kippah, a turban or a wimple ought to be fine. Surely we're mature enough to work with and respect people on this?

[Flyndaran]

A headscarf is pretty form-fitting. It's not a loose piece of clothing like a t-shirt or a baggy pair of jeans. If you are hiding a gun in it, it will be quite noticeable that you are concealing something.

Not all contraband are guns. Most involve drug smuggling to soon to be imprisoned defendents, etc.

[Flyndaran]

Is the headgear really a necessary part of Islam as in it's in the Koran? I thought it was a cultural thing that got smacked into those other holy books.

I find religion frightening and somewhat stupid. But even if I were king of the world I wouldn't screw over people of religion if they aren't screwing over someone else.

If we wanted absolute transparency in a courtroom then it should be closed to the public and everyone else should be stark naked. But our CULTURE demands certain amounts of clothing. Just because this woman had one more article than american average, does not give anyone the right to dictate a naked head.

[Greenday]

Not all contraband are guns. Most involve drug smuggling to soon to be imprisoned defendents, etc.

Didn't think drugs would get in that way. I always figured someone paid off the guards.

[MadMike]

If the court rule is "no head gear" and it is being applied equally, there is no racism or other bullshit to be said.

The key word here is "if." Would the judge also ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke? If so, then I'd agree with you. If not, then I'd have to say there is racism.

[anriana]

The key word here is "if." Would the judge also ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke? If so, then I'd agree with you. If not, then I'd have to say there is racism.

How is discriminating against a religion racism?

[Evandril]

From the link I posted, the rule has been enforced with different religions, not just Muslums.

[Sylvia727]

If the judge asks an Islamic woman to remove her headscarf, a Catholic nun to remove her wimple, and a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, then he is not being racist. He is, however, still wrong. Allowing exceptions to this policy is a simple and hassle-free concession to people's religious beliefs. If the clothing is a security issue, the person can be searched by a guard in private. By refusing to grant these exceptions, the judge is in essence saying "The court's notion of etiquette is more important than your religion and your right to express that religion." Headgear is not disruptive, and it does not infringe on anyone else. To uphold such a trivial concern over such deep-seated religious convictions is to spit in the faces of those who hold those beliefs.

As MMTM said, a burkha is a different matter, since it conceals the face. I could go either way on allowing one in a courtroom. For situations where a visual of the face is required, burkhas would have to be prohibited. Not having frequented many courtrooms, I don't if court officials need to see the faces of the audience or not. There was a case in Florida (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2970514.stm), in 2003, in which the State Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim woman was required to remove her veil for a photograph on her driver's license. Since the whole point of a photo ID is to accurately identify the person, and since driving is a privilege not a right, I can't see that her rights were violated.

[MadMike]

How is discriminating against a religion racism?

OK, maybe I used to wrong word. I guess I should have said "religious discrimination."

There was a case in Florida (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2970514.stm), in 2003, in which the State Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim woman was required to remove her veil for a photograph on her driver's license. Since the whole point of a photo ID is to accurately identify the person, and since driving is a privilege not a right, I can't see that her rights were violated.

I could be wrong, but isn't it possible to get a drivers license without a photo, if your religion doesn't allow you to be photographed? Or has that changed?

[AdminAssistant]

I could be wrong, but isn't it possible to get a drivers license without a photo, if your religion doesn't allow you to be photographed? Or has that changed?

Some states allow ID's without photos, in particular for Amish/Mennonite communities that do not believe in photography. However, I know Missouri recently mandated photos.

[Greenday]

I'm pretty sure PA and NJ require photos for licenses. I know NJ requires it for a fact.

[AdminAssistant]

I'm pretty sure PA and NJ require photos for licenses. I know NJ requires it for a fact.

Is that for a Driver's License or a State-Issued (non-driver) ID? I'm pretty sure that the Missouri law said that photo was required for a driver's license but not an ID.

[Greenday]

I've never seen a state ID.

[BlaqueKatt]

apparently most missed the last line of 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."


it was not about the refusal to remove headgear-she was leaving and uttered an expletive at the bailiff-SHE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE COURTROOM YET.

She was leaving and cursed at a court officer-she got her right to free speech and the consequences for it-but both the media and her would rather say "I'm being persecuted for my religion" If she had left quietly I highly doubt she would've been arrested. Not sure what the Koran says about swearing/expletives-and they did not say what it was-maybe it was a racist remark? Maybe it was something very offensive to the officer?

[Slytovhand]

I saw it, BK, but I thought we were on the general subject of headwear??

Anyway - I find it interesting that the expletive was 'uttered' rather than 'said' or 'thrown' - as in, not specifically directed towards anyone. Also, she wasn't in the courtroom, as you pointed out.. how can it be contempt of court if you're not actually in the court???

I'd say it's still pretty heavy-handed - depending on the actual situation. Given she's worn it in courts before, it was a judgement call on behalf of the bailiff (or judge, depending on who said what), which does seem to indicate an inappropriate call (which comes down to what ppl have been saying - bad 'policy').

[Rapscallion]

Just had a look at the MSNBC article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28278572/

That court has a policy of no headgear. As long as it's carried out equally to anyone and everyone with headgear, then fine. She had been in courtrooms before, apparently, but not necessarily in the same building.

The voting on there is about 52% to 48%, slightly in favour of the judge.

I'm 50/50 on this. On the grounds of security for concealed weapons, though, I would lean towards an equal policy of headgear removal provided that it is applied to everyone.

Raspcallion

[machinest]

The trouble is that for this to be fair is that the significance of removing your headgear is far greater for a Muslim, a Jew or other religious person than for a Christian or non religious person .A closer to neutral requirement would be that all persons removed any visible sign of religious affiliation.

[Boozy]

Security concerns might have been rectified by a quick pat-down and a pass through a metal detector. And I don't care what religion you are, if you can't show you're not carrying a weapon, you can't enter a courtroom.

But after that, why couldn't general common sense apply? It is considered disrespectful to wear head coverings in a courtroom. But it is considered a serious religious violation by some Muslim women to remove their hajib. Weighing the feelings on either side, I'd have allowed the woman to wear the head-covering.

[Rapscallion]

Allowing one religion to wear the covering has the problem of a situation where one side is seen to get preferential treatment. That causes hostility towards them.

Rapscallion

[Greenday]

It's because here in Western society, wearing a hat inside is a sign of disrespect. In the Middle East, that doesn't hold true. So now we are forcing our social norms on other people.

[Pedersen]

It's because here in Western society, wearing a hat inside is a sign of disrespect. In the Middle East, that doesn't hold true. So now we are forcing our social norms on other people [B]who have moved into our society[B].

There, fixed that for you.

[Rapscallion]

Nationality is defined (generally) within a region, but should culture be the same?

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

but should culture be the same?


The US is or used to be known as "the melting pot" due to the numerous cultures that melded together to build this country-now with all the "my culture is sacred and I will not abandon it" we have segregation again, and that generally causes unrest. There are areas in my small "city" where I am unwelcome due to my skin color, yet no one is unwelcome in my area. There are also areas in my city that are demanding a spanish only speaking school-because their "culture" is important and they don't want to destroy it by learning english(american). They want to reap the benefits of american culture, but take none of the responsibility. My grandparents fled Germany, came here and learned english to get their citizenship and "assimilate" into American culture-they lived comfortably enough. Now I see news stories about how hard it is for spanish only speakers to accomplish anything, and we should give them more opportunities.

I understand in some cultures that I being a woman am next to worthless, should I visit those countries I would expect it, and so as not to cause trouble would abide by it-however in the country I live in I do not expect it and would resent being treated that way.

More of a "my house my rules, your house your rules" kinda thing or if you prefer-"when in Rome do as the Romans do"

[AFPheonix]

apparently most missed the last line of 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."


it was not about the refusal to remove headgear-she was leaving and uttered an expletive at the bailiff-SHE WAS NOT EVEN IN THE COURTROOM YET.

She was leaving and cursed at a court officer-she got her right to free speech and the consequences for it-but both the media and her would rather say "I'm being persecuted for my religion" If she had left quietly I highly doubt she would've been arrested. Not sure what the Koran says about swearing/expletives-and they did not say what it was-maybe it was a racist remark? Maybe it was something very offensive to the officer?

I'd probably leave and mutter fuck or shit under my breath if someone asked me to take something off that I felt was morally wrong to remove. It does not say directly that the expletive was directed at the bailiff, so I will not assume so. She was also caught well before she got into the courtroom, and she did the civil thing by not pushing the issue and leaving. The court was still way out of line.

In western society, only certain types of headgear are seen as rude when worn indoors or at meals. Women are still permitted to wear hats (as long as they're dress hats, not baseball caps), and in many churches women follow the rules set down in the book of Acts to wear head coverings while in the sanctuary. Religious head coverings are allowed.
Again, I see this as the judge probably being a bit on the racist side (and I say racist because people tend to equate muslims here with arabs).

Also, while we are a melting pot, one does not totally give up their entire cultural identity or customs simply because they've moved here. Can you imagine how much poorer we'd be as a country without many of the influences other cultures have brought? Think of all the new words that we've integrated into English, all the different foods, clothing, etc etc etc. As long as the particular custom is not hurting anyone, why should they give it up? The judge made a mountain out of a molehill in this case.

[Greenday]

There, fixed that for you.

That's a bad fix. Not all Muslim people moved here. There are enough that are born here. Hell, America is diverse enough that what is completely normal in one area is a horrible act in another. Just because people are different doesn't mean we should be disrespectful of them or intolerant.

[AdminAssistant]

Again, I see this as the judge probably being a bit on the racist side (and I say racist because people tend to equate muslims here with arabs).

I'd say xenophobia instead of racism, more accurate for the situation I think. However, from the picture, the woman does look black. :shrug:

My completely uneducated opinion is that the Judge probably thought, "My rules are the rules and I'm not gonna make any exceptions!!" I highly doubt it was a concious racist/xenophobic move. Judges are not generally known for their leniency, and the Judge in this case probably resented being asked to set aside his rules.

And I agree with BlaqueKatt. She should've waited until she got outside to let fly with the profanity.

[Slytovhand]

I highly doubt it was a concious racist/xenophobic move.

Just thought I'd throw 2 cents at that, and suggest that racism/xenophobia usually isn't conscious, but an automatic ingrained thing. Wouldn't take any thought at all.

But... still doesn't add much to the debate :p

[AFPheonix]

I'd say xenophobia instead of racism, more accurate for the situation I think. However, from the picture, the woman does look black. :shrug:

My completely uneducated opinion is that the Judge probably thought, "My rules are the rules and I'm not gonna make any exceptions!!" I highly doubt it was a concious racist/xenophobic move. Judges are not generally known for their leniency, and the Judge in this case probably resented being asked to set aside his rules.

And I agree with BlaqueKatt. She should've waited until she got outside to let fly with the profanity.

She should have, but she didn't. Neither was she in the court room when she cursed, so the bailiff was still out of line. Security checkpoints in courthouses are typically located right inside the doors of the building.

I'm trying to imagine how this would go down if this were a Mennonite or Amish woman. I'm envisioning a very different outcome.