• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ga. Judge Jails Muslim Woman Over Head Scarf

Right you are - I'm the one who misread. I thought that the incident that spawned this thread happened in Virginia for some reason



Hatuey's article indicates that the judge in that case (or the state) was never sued. SALDEF sent a letter seeking an apology, and the judge provided it. I don't think anything official came of it.

If there is state law on the matter, however, the judge can still make a rule violating it, said rule would just get tossed when addressed in part. Congress can make a law that says "niggers and jews can't vote" if they really want to. It's just that that law wouldn't survive a legal challenge. (for further examples see everything from the Patriot Act to the new FISA law)

I don't think this is a case of law beyond the contempt of court. When in a courtroom, you do what the judge says. If he tells you to sit down and shut up, you do it or you are in contempt. If he tells you to hand him what's in your hands for him to inspect, you do it or you are in contempt. If he tells you to remove your hat, scarf, gloves, or hajib...you do so or you are in contempt.
 
Kernal: This woman might not be as forgiving as the Sikh. She was actually thrown into jail, don't forget. I'll be interested in how this all plays out, legally.

Thanks for the info, btw.
 
I don't think this is a case of law beyond the contempt of court. When in a courtroom, you do what the judge says. If he tells you to sit down and shut up, you do it or you are in contempt. If he tells you to hand him what's in your hands for him to inspect, you do it or you are in contempt. If he tells you to remove your hat, scarf, gloves, or hajib...you do so or you are in contempt.

It isn't quite that simple. A judge can't arbitrarily demand that every black person in the courtroom leave or any other discriminatory thing (at least not without consequence). If this is was a security measure (looking back up I appear to be assuming that it was), I think the courts would side with the court. Otherwise I could see the policy getting tossed (although that still isn't a certainty)

Kernal: This woman might not be as forgiving as the Sikh. She was actually thrown into jail, don't forget. I'll be interested in how this all plays out, legally.

Thanks for the info, btw.

Well the Sikh thing never went to court, so it's still possible that the rule would be upheld if it does go anywhere. And, as I said, my guess is that a security measure would be upheld in court. You can't refuse to get your shoes checked in an airport on religious grounds, and I think that a genuine security measure would trump a religious practice. Particularly one that, when you really get down to it, is the result of society's interpretation of the Qur'an, not the Qur'an itself. Islam commands women to be modest, but does not define modesty. Sometimes this takes the form of a headscarf, sometimes a burka, sometimes you're okay as long as you aren't getting gangbanged in public. It is an interesting question, though
 
It isn't quite that simple. A judge can't arbitrarily demand that every black person in the courtroom leave or any other discriminatory thing (at least not without consequence). If this is was a security measure (looking back up I appear to be assuming that it was), I think the courts would side with the court. Otherwise I could see the policy getting tossed (although that still isn't a certainty)

Apples and oranges. He can make any socially acceptable request he wishes. Removal of head gear in a formal gathering is well within the lines of socially acceptable in American society.
 
Look at where this happened... Ga.

Not exactly a bastion of cultural understanding. It's not like this is the first time a Muslim woman with a hijab has ever entered a court room. They could have checked her at security, and then let her proceed. But not let her wear it at all? How is that a security issue? The judge probably had a thing against Muslims and took it out on her.

He could have easily let her in but instead decided to create a stink and make it political. This has nothing to do with religious law bowing to U.S. law, and everything to do with the personal biases of one judge.

What is true of him is not true of the whole. I call prejudice.
 
Apples and oranges. He can make any socially acceptable request he wishes. Removal of head gear in a formal gathering is well within the lines of socially acceptable in American society.

Yes, but most of those cases have exceptions for religion (I could be wrong but I've never witnessed a Jew being asked to remove a yamaka). Also, he threw the woman in jail. That makes things a bit different.

My main point was that if there's no reason such as security checks for the rule there is a distinct possibility that the 1st will trump the rule
 
I am very much a religious rights guy, but on the other hand I am also a respect protocol guy, so I'm torn on who to pull for......but I will say it does seem like the judge in this case could have been more lenient, especially considering it is a religious code.
 
I don't begrudge a state the ability to make their own laws and apply them to their own public buildings (unless they violate the constitution), but if this state put a religious exclusion... and we know the hajib is indeed religious apparel for a major religion, just like the sihk turben and the Jewish cap, then the judge should have known better.
My best friend is a juvenile law enforcement agent and told me it's surprising how much some judges don't know about legal subtleties such as exceptions or technicalities.
 
Its seems everyone is forgetting something. When she was told to remove her head scarf she turned and began to exit the courtroom instead. This would have been fine until she uttered an expletive. That is when she was hand cuffed and taken in front of the judge.

If I or anyone else cursed in a courtroom that is contempt. The judge had every right to send her to jail.
 
Inclement Weather

"Inclement Weather"

There is no sand storm blowing in here, take your hood off wigger!!!
eminem%207.jpg
 
I can't say for sure. I do know that I would never even attempt wearing a hat in a courtroom.

perry_mason.jpg



*gasp!*

Call out the national guard!
This "disrespect" is untenetable!

:roll:
 
perry_mason.jpg



*gasp!*

Call out the national guard!
This "disrespect" is untenetable!

:roll:

I thought the womens movement of the 60's -70's fought for equal rights for women. Except for when its convenient to be treated differently then men.

Did you read my last post on the real reason she was most likely found to be in contempt? I think if she would have simply left the court room and kept her fat mouth shut she would have not been arrested. But she had to mouth off. If she had cursed in my courtroom I would have sent her butt to jail, if I was a judge that is.
 
Last edited:
Source [Yahoo News! (AP) | Ga. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf]

A judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court, said police in Douglasville, a city of about 20,000 people on Atlanta's west suburban outskirts.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said after they arrested her Tuesday.

Kelley Jackson, a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker, said state law doesn't permit or prohibit head scarfs.

"It's at the discretion of the judge and the sheriffs and is up to the security officers in the court house to enforce their decision," she said.

The charge was indeed Contempt of Court, and the court's policy does not violate any state laws. It also sounds like the policy is indeed a security measure. IOW, the court is entirely in the right, and the woman is entirely out of line.
 
Source: New York Times
Date: Dec 17, 2008



http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2008/12/17/us/AP-Muslim-Headscarf-Arrest.html?_r=2

In America it is disrespectful to wear a hat or head covering in a courtroom. Not the same as a church where the woman retains her head gear ??

The real question posed by this story is whether American law or Islamic law must give way when the two conflict.

You know what they say " when in Rome do as the Romans do" if its against your religion then stay the hell out of Rome.
I'd say "Islamic law be damned"..The woman was wrong, she is out of order, and she is not cognizant of her surroundings.....
 
In America it is disrespectful to wear a hat or head covering in a courtroom.

The real question posed by this story is whether American law or Islamic law must give way when the two conflict.

You know what they say " when in Rome do as the Romans do" if its against your religion then stay the hell out of Rome.

I gotta agree with ya 100% on this one! Same goes for choosing to live in this country, enjoy our freedoms and learning to speak our language!

Good post!
 
perry_mason.jpg



*gasp!*

Call out the national guard!
This "disrespect" is untenetable!

:roll:

So you found some picture of a woman with her head covered from some bygone era when women were expected to keep their heads covered. Did you have some kind of point or were you just blathering on in that way you do?
 
So anybody want to discuss whether or not the freedom to exercise religion clause is valid in tax payer funded institutions?
 
It was the second time Rollins ordered Valentine arrested. She spent 24 hours behind bars last year for wearing her hijab in his courtroom.

Source

Her second offense? Sounds like she went looking for trouble...
 
Source

Her second offense? Sounds like she went looking for trouble...

This woman isn't doing anything that is not supported by the freedom to exercise religion clause. Unless of course you're saying that once you're in an American court room your legal right to exercise religion as long as it is lawful no longer exists? This isn't a private business or an airport. This is a tax payer funded location. The constitution still applies doesn't it?
 
Much depends on separate yet intermingled corollaries. Era, location, code of law, and customary proscription. As an example, if you substitute an Arab courtroom in the ME for the Georgia courtroom, the same result can occur due to the applicable considerations. A woman's outright refusal to obey a judge's order to cover her hair in this scenario would also result in unpleasant consequences.

The old maxim seems to be most apt... When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
 
This woman isn't doing anything that is not supported by the freedom to exercise religion clause. Unless of course you're saying that once you're in an American court room your legal right to exercise religion as long as it is lawful no longer exists? This isn't a private business or an airport. This is a tax payer funded location. The constitution still applies doesn't it?

All I am saying is that while I agree 110% with your point, that it could have very well been a case of discrimination, I have to question her disposition in the situation. She could have been in actual contempt of court and the media jumped on this as a scandal related to the initiating offense... I.E. religious connotations. If she was told to remove her scarf for inspection, for legitimate security reasons and turned and walked away cursing under her breath, etc at the security officer and then that officer took her in-front of the judge and she continued to be unruly, she deserved what she got. I think we are seeing media spin towards the sensationalism.
 
The old maxim seems to be most apt... When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Unless of course the Romans specifically recognize freely exercising religion as a fundamental right of the populace. Going as far as putting it in the first amendment of their constitution.
 
Unless of course the Romans specifically recognize freely exercising religion as a fundamental right of the populace. Going as far as putting it in the first amendment of their constitution.
IMO, religious freedom does not impart the right to hold any and all notions as religious absolutes.
 
IMO, religious freedom does not impart the right to hold any and all notions as religious absolutes.

EXACTLY!!!! I don't think we have the right to go expressing our personal beliefs in formal gatherings, period. Let alone making those expressions in a secular court.
 
This woman isn't doing anything that is not supported by the freedom to exercise religion clause. Unless of course you're saying that once you're in an American court room your legal right to exercise religion as long as it is lawful no longer exists? This isn't a private business or an airport. This is a tax payer funded location. The constitution still applies doesn't it?

So do you think you have the right to enter the whitehouse on a civilian tour in a full burka without getting checked?
 
Back
Top Bottom