Muslim Woman Jailed For Refusing to Remove Head Scarf in Court (and then cussing at the court)

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Thats what some people here seem to think, based on some idiotic freedom based exception to rules idea.

Does anybody know why the court doesn't allow hats and variations of such?

Perhaps for the same reason the judge is placed high above everyone else, why everyone needs to stand when he/she enters, why you (used to) place your hand on a bible, etc. etc.

Its a matter of respect and routine.

The rule doesn't protect anybody, it has nothing to do with the legal process, etc.

 

[SAWYER]

So Jules, are Muslims he only ones that should get to wear their religious head dress? If not, do you think all religions should?

 

[ranmaniac]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Actually I think she shouldn't have been asked to remove her head scarf. That isn't some trivial thing for muslim women.

Shush you. There is no place for tolerance in our society.

This has nothing to do with tolerance.

She demanded SPECIAL treatment and the right to break a rule that is applied equally to all. Instead of equal rights, she wanted UNequal rights.

So you would favor Orthodox Jews and Catholic Nuns to conform also?

 

[SAWYER]

I think they should all take that shit off if it's the rule of the court, or they should all be able to wear it, no exceptions for certain groups

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
So Jules, are Muslims he only ones that should get to wear their religious head dress? If not, do you think all religions should?

No, and I wouldn't have a problem allowing a Jewish person to wear a yamaka or a nun to wear her habit in a court of law either.

Personally, I think it's up to the judge's discretion and I think he fucked up in this case.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.
The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.
Laws are different.

no, they're not. The threshold question wrt to religious discrimination is not whether something is a rule or a law or an ordinance, it's whether the action in question is "governmental action." A judge's exercise of discretion whether or not to allow particular headgear into a court is undeniably governmental action, as is just about any other act a judge makes while exercising his duties. If he allows yarmulkes but bans headscarves (that do not obscure the face), then there has to be a justifiable reason for that distinction, and I can't think of one. I still haven't seen whether or not yarmulkes or a nun habit would have been allowed.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.
The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.
Laws are different.

no, they're not. The threshold question wrt to religious discrimination is not whether something is a rule or a law or an ordinance, it's whether the action in question is "governmental action." A judge's exercise of discretion whether or not to allow particular headgear into a court is undeniably governmental action, as is just about any other act a judge makes while exercising his duties. If he allows yarmulkes but bans headscarves (that do not obscure the face), then there has to be a justifiable reason for that distinction, and I can't think of one. I still haven't seen whether or not yarmulkes or a nun habit would have been allowed.

The rule is no headgear in courtroom. Religion is not mentioned. How does that turn in to discrimination? Are you saying a judge's courthouse audience rule is suddenly law? There is no mention of habits and yarmulkes. In this instance, I would believe they would be barred from the court audience too.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I find it funny that this rule is only called into question when someone breaks it demanding special treatment. If a jew was forced to take off his yamaka and was kicked out for swearing, I doubt there would be much sympathy. But when a Muslim does it, it's called "discrimination." Except it's not, because NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR HEADGEAR IN A COURTROOM.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante
I find it funny that this rule is only called into question when someone breaks it demanding special treatment. If a jew was forced to take off his yamaka and was kicked out for swearing, I doubt there would be much sympathy. But when a Muslim does it, it's called "discrimination." Except it's not, because NO ONE IS ALLOWED TO WEAR HEADGEAR IN A COURTROOM.

I wouldn't go that far. It is a matter of this particular woman (and her lawyer) calling it discrimination based on religion.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
We're throwing people in jail because they wore a religious head scarf? Nice tolerant society we've got here...

This is nothing more than a dumb fucking judge on a power trip and/or hatred if you ask me.

Or maybe she cursed at the judge?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: SagaLore
Actually I think she shouldn't have been asked to remove her head scarf. That isn't some trivial thing for muslim women.

Shush you. There is no place for tolerance in our society.

This has nothing to do with tolerance.

She demanded SPECIAL treatment and the right to break a rule that is applied equally to all. Instead of equal rights, she wanted UNequal rights.

So you would favor Orthodox Jews and Catholic Nuns to conform also?

Of course. "No headgear" means just that and to be equal, a rule must be applied equally. Religious exceptions are inequality and end up being a nightmare. Like I said before, just ask the prison system about religious exceptions to rules.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Why do Muslims like this expect the society they live in to change for them?

its not just muslims that expect this

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Why do Muslims like this expect the society they live in to change for them?

Do you really believe that if it was some little old lady that has lived in the area her entire life and showed up with a hat they would have said a word about it? Look at any picture of a courtroom before ladies hats went largely out of style and you will see plenty of women wearing hats in a courtroom.

back when women wore hats for fashion on a daily basis, they werent included in those rules. mens hats were the ones that mattered.

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Again the people that think this is ok, what about a hat with a big cross on it? Would that be ok, why or why not? And if this was a Christian, do you think the ACLU would be fighting against it?

different situation, since no christian religion i know of requires wearing a scarf/ hat/ head cover. if she was wearing a hat with a cross on it, it was just a hat. not a symbol of the religion. the cross is irrelevant.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Why do Muslims like this expect the society they live in to change for them?

Do you really believe that if it was some little old lady that has lived in the area her entire life and showed up with a hat they would have said a word about it? Look at any picture of a courtroom before ladies hats went largely out of style and you will see plenty of women wearing hats in a courtroom.

back when women wore hats for fashion on a daily basis, they werent included in those rules. mens hats were the ones that mattered.

And then we had feminism which meant men and women were to be treated equally... or did that only matter when it wasn't in the woman's favor?

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Amused
Of course. "No headgear" means just that and to be equal, a rule must be applied equally. Religious exceptions are inequality and end up being a nightmare. Like I said before, just ask the prison system about religious exceptions to rules.

What if someone had a gauze wrapping on their head, because they just had some medical procedure done?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sdifox
The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.
Laws are different.

no, they're not. The threshold question wrt to religious discrimination is not whether something is a rule or a law or an ordinance, it's whether the action in question is "governmental action." A judge's exercise of discretion whether or not to allow particular headgear into a court is undeniably governmental action, as is just about any other act a judge makes while exercising his duties. If he allows yarmulkes but bans headscarves (that do not obscure the face), then there has to be a justifiable reason for that distinction, and I can't think of one. I still haven't seen whether or not yarmulkes or a nun habit would have been allowed.

The rule is no headgear in courtroom. Religion is not mentioned. How does that turn in to discrimination? Are you saying a judge's courthouse audience rule is suddenly law? There is no mention of habits and yarmulkes. In this instance, I would believe they would be barred from the court audience too.

If governmental action has the effect of religious discrimination despite wording that does not mention religion, it can still be violative of the 1st amendment. For ex. Say it's the judge's discretion to pick meals for the jury and he picks pork chops. A jewish jury member says he can't eat that and the judge says "no one is forcing you to. Don't eat if you don't want to." The rule is the judge picks lunches, it doesn't say anything about religion.

Again, rule or law doesn't matter, the threshold question is whether or not there is government action involved. Are you denying that a judge deciding what is permissible in his courtroom is a government action? Once you answer in the affirmative you move on to the question of whether the action has the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion.

Go read Lemon v Kurtzman for more details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

 

[Aimster]

let me educate you people who are just blabbering as usual

Nothing is a "law" if it goes against the Constitution. It would be an illegal law.
A headscarf is part of the religion. A hat is not.

When you break the law you are not 'guaranteed' full constitutional rights.

It is clear the woman had no right to be arrested which is why someone in the higher-ups passed the word to free her

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: vi edit
I wager dollars to donuts that if this was a Nun in a habit as a plaintiff [OR as a spectator] it would have been a non-issue.

At the end of the day, THIS is what stands out for me.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sdifox
The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.
Laws are different.

no, they're not. The threshold question wrt to religious discrimination is not whether something is a rule or a law or an ordinance, it's whether the action in question is "governmental action." A judge's exercise of discretion whether or not to allow particular headgear into a court is undeniably governmental action, as is just about any other act a judge makes while exercising his duties. If he allows yarmulkes but bans headscarves (that do not obscure the face), then there has to be a justifiable reason for that distinction, and I can't think of one. I still haven't seen whether or not yarmulkes or a nun habit would have been allowed.

The rule is no headgear in courtroom. Religion is not mentioned. How does that turn in to discrimination? Are you saying a judge's courthouse audience rule is suddenly law? There is no mention of habits and yarmulkes. In this instance, I would believe they would be barred from the court audience too.

If governmental action has the effect of religious discrimination despite wording that does not mention religion, it can still be violative of the 1st amendment. For ex. Say it's the judge's discretion to pick meals for the jury and he picks pork chops. A jewish jury member says he can't eat that and the judge says "no one is forcing you to. Don't eat if you don't want to." The rule is the judge picks lunches, it doesn't say anything about religion.

Again, rule or law doesn't matter, the threshold question is whether or not there is government action involved. Are you denying that a judge deciding what is permissible in his courtroom is a government action? Once you answer in the affirmative you move on to the question of whether the action has the effect of promoting or inhibiting religion.

Go read Lemon v Kurtzman for more details

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Very different situation when it involves juries. We are talking spectators here.

You are essentially projecting the judge's rule of conduct for admittance to the courtroom audience to government action.

What is the relevance of education funding on this case?

 

[hanoverphist]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Why do Muslims like this expect the society they live in to change for them?

Do you really believe that if it was some little old lady that has lived in the area her entire life and showed up with a hat they would have said a word about it? Look at any picture of a courtroom before ladies hats went largely out of style and you will see plenty of women wearing hats in a courtroom.

back when women wore hats for fashion on a daily basis, they werent included in those rules. mens hats were the ones that mattered.

And then we had feminism which meant men and women were to be treated equally... or did that only matter when it wasn't in the woman's favor?

i wasnt posing an opinion for either side, i was just stating that back when the whole hat thing mattered to people, womens hats werent generally included in it.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Very different situation when it involves juries. We are talking spectators here.

You are essentially projecting the judge's rule of conduct for admittance to the courtroom audience to government action.

CORRECT, because it is. Just about any action at all taken by a government employee, agency or organization is governmental action. It's not a very high threshold. If the judge banned all headgear regardless of religion, there is no discrimination. Once he starts picking and choosing which religious headgear is ok, problem. We don't know if that was the case here or not, and she wasn't arrested for wearing the headgear, but for her behavior.

Good reading: http://www.jlaw.com/Recent/yarmulkecourtroom.html

THE COURT: I note there are quite a few people here. As a matter of respect for the Court, the dignity of the Court does not allow any head- 8 No. 02-3424 dresses, so individuals wearing any type of headdresses will be asked to leave now or remove them. Also, no hats, no skull caps, nothing like that is permitted. Did you folks hear me in the back?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is my national headdress and also a part of my religion. THE COURT: Ma?am, that is not allowed in this courtroom. You are welcome without it, so please leave until you can take it off.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If Jews were to come in here?
THE COURT: Jews will not wear yarmulkes. I am Catholic and the Pope would not wear a miter. Please leave, take it off and come back in, or do not come back in, the choice is yours.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sdifox
Very different situation when it involves juries. We are talking spectators here.

You are essentially projecting the judge's rule of conduct for admittance to the courtroom audience to government action.

CORRECT, because it is. Just about any action at all taken by a government employee, agency or organization is governmental action. It's not a very high threshold.

Good reading: http://www.jlaw.com/Recent/yarmulkecourtroom.html

THE COURT: I note there are quite a few people here. As a matter of respect for the Court, the dignity of the Court does not allow any head- 8 No. 02-3424 dresses, so individuals wearing any type of headdresses will be asked to leave now or remove them. Also, no hats, no skull caps, nothing like that is permitted. Did you folks hear me in the back?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is my national headdress and also a part of my religion. THE COURT: Ma?am, that is not allowed in this courtroom. You are welcome without it, so please leave until you can take it off.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If Jews were to come in here?
THE COURT: Jews will not wear yarmulkes. I am Catholic and the Pope would not wear a miter. Please leave, take it off and come back in, or do not come back in, the choice is yours.

Err, the article you linked to says I am right...I thought you were disagreeing with me. The judge is allowed to extend the courtesy, but not required to.

PS after your edit, I guess we are in agreement, I think.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Aimster
let me educate you people who are just blabbering as usual

Nothing is a "law" if it goes against the Constitution. It would be an illegal law.
A headscarf is part of the religion. A hat is not.

When you break the law you are not 'guaranteed' full constitutional rights.

It is clear the woman had no right to be arrested which is why someone in the higher-ups passed the word to free her

No where in the constitution does it say a person's religious practices or garments may break court rules or that a court must make an exception to it's rules to accomodate ANY religous practices. In fact, these rules have nothing to do with the constitution at all. MOST of your constitutional rights go out the door during court proceedings. Free speech, freedom of expression and many others are stopped in order to keep order in the courtroom.

She was arrested for contempt of court. If you look that law up, you'll find that ANY thing a person does that is disrespectful of the court, its process, and its invested powers is legally "Contempt of Court." She cussed at a Bailiff. Technically that is contempt of court. But once the media got wind of it and FALSELY portrayed it as her being jailed for wearing a Hijab, the higher court released her. She was released for political and PR reasons, not legal reasons.

She was technically guilty of contempt. When you show disrespect to the court, you are in contempt.

A rule is a rule. I see no reasons to make religious exceptions to such rules. That would make the religious more equal, and the irreligious less equal, which is contrary to our country's basic ideals; that all men are equal under the law.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Err, the article you linked to says I am right...I thoguht you were disagreeing with me.

I linked it to show that picking individual religions is not acceptable, it's all or nothing. And the court wasn't making an official ruling on headgear, it was just speaking about the issue.

Because James himself did not seek to wear any form of head covering, he lacks standing to raise this contention. None of the spectators was held in contempt, and none has sued seeking a declaratory judgment. But although this appeal does not present an Article III case or controversy on this issue, the judicial branch has an interest in the prudent handling of public relations, and no formal controversy is needed to say a few words on the topic. The Constitution does not oblige the government to accommodate religiously motivated conduct that is forbidden by neutral rules

A much longer take on the issue:
http://volokh.com/posts/1229525304.shtml