• 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!

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal

F107HyperSabr

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
375
Location
Connecticut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal - CNN.com

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal:Michigan's S. Court ordered allowing lower state courts to "exercise reasonable control" over the appearance of witnesses and parties, This rule change proposal came after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.

Is this a religious right ? Is this a personal right trampled on. Or is this a case of reason over the "right" of the veil wearer? Is the "right" of the vel wearer more important than public safety?

I think that the court is right on target.
 
Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal - CNN.com

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal:Michigan's S. Court ordered allowing lower state courts to "exercise reasonable control" over the appearance of witnesses and parties, This rule change proposal came after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.

Is this a religious right ? Is this a personal right trampled on. Or is this a case of reason over the "right" of the veil wearer? Is the "right" of the vel wearer more important than public safety?

I think that the court is right on target.

Sounds to me like the court infringed upon her rights. The judge did not illustrate any compelling reason that she needed to remove the veil (I don't think "needing to see her demeanor and temperament" qualifies). It's different than, say, a driver's license photo IMO, where actually photographing a person's face is part of the established process and may be necessary for legal purposes.
 
Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal - CNN.com

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal:Michigan's S. Court ordered allowing lower state courts to "exercise reasonable control" over the appearance of witnesses and parties, This rule change proposal came after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.

Is this a religious right ? Is this a personal right trampled on. Or is this a case of reason over the "right" of the veil wearer? Is the "right" of the vel wearer more important than public safety?

I think that the court is right on target.

The sad part is this is one of the better rulings by our SC. Michigan has not had alot of luck on SC justices. Without a compelling reason, it's stupid, and as Khandahar stated, there is no compelling reason in this case.
 
Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal - CNN.com

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal:Michigan's S. Court ordered allowing lower state courts to "exercise reasonable control" over the appearance of witnesses and parties, This rule change proposal came after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.

Is this a religious right ? Is this a personal right trampled on. Or is this a case of reason over the "right" of the veil wearer? Is the "right" of the vel wearer more important than public safety?

I think that the court is right on target.


If she is testifying in a court of law then she should not be allowed to conceal her identity period. It is kind of hard to be confronted with the witnesses against you(6th amendment) if your accuser is concealing his or her identity. Demeanor and temperament are important in helping to determine if someone is being truthful. If you libs are going to be claiming separation of church and state then by your logic the judge should be under no obligation to abide by religious customs such as allowing someone to conceal her identity because some closet homosexual religious nuts who oppress women and who have a problem with the female body say she must conceal herself.
 
Last edited:
The sad part is this is one of the better rulings by our SC. Michigan has not had alot of luck on SC justices. Without a compelling reason, it's stupid, and as Khandahar stated, there is no compelling reason in this case.

I disagree. About 80% of human communication is non-verbal. This is a witness in a case in a court of law. A judge and/or jury has a right to see her face as she testifies, so as to better make a decision about the truthfulness of her testimony.

And ultimately, judges have almost 100% control over how individuals conduct themselves within the court room setting. And should.
 
Last edited:
As she prepared to testify, Judge Paul Paruk asked her to remove her niqab, saying he needed to be able to see her face to tell whether she was telling the truth, according to court documents.

"I can't see certain things about your demeanor and temperament that I need to see in a court of law," Paruk said at the time.

Muhammad refused, saying that she was a practicing Muslim and would take off the veil only in front of a female judge.

Paruk said a female judge was not available and told Muhammad she could remove the niqab or have her case dismissed -- she chose the latter, according to court documents.

She sued the judge in federal district court, which declined to exercise jurisdiction over the case. Muhammad has since appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement saying that if the amended rule was interpreted broadly, it could "not only adversely affect Muslim females who wear the head scarf, but could also be used to violate Jewish, Sikh, and other people of faiths' constitutional rights under the First Amendment while in Michigan courts."

It added, "As a civil rights advocacy group, CAIR-MI is concerned about individuals who may be reluctant to report crimes or petition the courts out of fear that their religious rights may be violated."

This is, frankly speaking, an attempt by religious extremists to impose their will on the secular court system of the U.S. I oppose all of those attempts, whether they mean putting the 10 commandments in a courtroom, or trying to demand a certain gender of judge.

This country was founded on the rule of law, and is inherently, a secular nation. These kinds of bullying tactics do not belong in the courtroom (let's leave that role to the prosecutors).
 
Last edited:
Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal - CNN.com

Michigan courts given leeway to force veil removal:Michigan's S. Court ordered allowing lower state courts to "exercise reasonable control" over the appearance of witnesses and parties, This rule change proposal came after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.

Is this a religious right ? Is this a personal right trampled on. Or is this a case of reason over the "right" of the veil wearer? Is the "right" of the vel wearer more important than public safety?

I think that the court is right on target.

Ok, people want to stress out over a guy bringing a gun to a townhall event...I can see where their concern comes from...guns are made to kill...I think they're all a bunch of paranoid freaks, but I can see where they're coming from.

How a vel threatens "public safety" in any way, especially in a court where the woman has already gon through security, is beyond my comprehension.

It's a vel....it's just a vel...get over it.
 
This is, frankly speaking, an attempt by religious extremists to impose their will on the secular court system of the U.S. I oppose all of those attempts, whether they mean putting the 10 commandments in a courtroom, or trying to demand a certain gender of judge.

This country was founded on the rule of law, and is inherently, a secular nation. These kinds of bullying tactics do not belong in the courtroom (let's leave that role to the prosecutors).

That is pretty where I come down on this when I stated that the court was right on target. The veil, shador, burkinin, whatever form of obsurity is attaempted for religious purposes have no place in a court of a secular nation. The Muslins who want to live in the 13th century can do so but not here not in my country.
 
This is, frankly speaking, an attempt by religious extremists to impose their will on the secular court system of the U.S. I oppose all of those attempts, whether they mean putting the 10 commandments in a courtroom, or trying to demand a certain gender of judge.

This country was founded on the rule of law, and is inherently, a secular nation. These kinds of bullying tactics do not belong in the courtroom (let's leave that role to the prosecutors).

Oh Christ can we please drop the droma? It's always "someone's trying to force something on me" with you people.

It's not rape, so calm dawn. It's a veil. She harms no one and it doesn't affect you in any way.
 
Would the court allow a person to testify disguised as a clown or with a paper bag over their head?

There is a big difference between belief and action. She is free to her belief -- a belief that is (or at least should be) entirely voluntary -- but when she engages in certain actions because of such beliefs, then our law supercedes such because the law is based upon actions. Just claiming "religion" to justify such actions doesn't cut it because her rights do not supercede the rights of others. She has the SAME rights as others because the courts would not allow the clown or the paper bag.
 
Would the court allow a person to testify disguised as a clown or with a paper bag over their head?

There is a big difference between belief and action. She is free to her belief -- a belief that is (or at least should be) entirely voluntary -- but when she engages in certain actions because of such beliefs, then our law supercedes such because the law is based upon actions. Just claiming "religion" to justify such actions doesn't cut it because her rights do not supercede the rights of others. She has the SAME rights as others because the courts would not allow the clown or the paper bag.

And I thought TheNextEra was being a troll.
 
And I thought TheNextEra was being a troll.

I said nothing trollish.

Feel free to stick it where the sun don't shine.
 
can't you two just hook up and relieve your sexual tension?
 
Last edited:
Oh Christ can we please drop the droma? It's always "someone's trying to force something on me" with you people.

It's not rape, so calm dawn. It's a veil. She harms no one and it doesn't affect you in any way.

You're wrong. She was giving testimony in court. The judge has every right to remove a barrier between her testimony and the court. And, when asked to remove a veil, she demanded a female judge.

That is an effect.
 
Sounds to me like the court infringed upon her rights. The judge did not illustrate any compelling reason that she needed to remove the veil (I don't think "needing to see her demeanor and temperament" qualifies). It's different than, say, a driver's license photo IMO, where actually photographing a person's face is part of the established process and may be necessary for legal purposes.
The right of the accused to face their accusers.
 
Sounds just about right, when in court you have to take of your Yankee hat but not your yamulka? Why is being in a religious cult respected so much more then being part of a sports cult?
 
You're wrong. She was giving testimony in court. The judge has every right to remove a barrier between her testimony and the court. And, when asked to remove a veil, she demanded a female judge.

That is an effect.

The Judge does have that right, I agree, but her following procedure and taking legitimate steps to try to have it her way is in now way "an attempt by religious extremists to impose their will on the secular court system".

Do we have any reason to believe this woman is anything other than a private citizen minding her own business? Did she go to the media or did the media find her out and sensationalize the issue?

Jesus Crist woman pay attention. Just because I disagree with you that this is an issue of religious extremism does not mean I deny a judge control over the court room. That's a separate issue.
 
Last edited:
Ok, people want to stress out over a guy bringing a gun to a townhall event...I can see where their concern comes from...guns are made to kill...I think they're all a bunch of paranoid freaks, but I can see where they're coming from.

How a vel threatens "public safety" in any way, especially in a court where the woman has already gon through security, is beyond my comprehension.

It's a vel....it's just a vel...get over it.

ok I got a liitle hyperbolic on the public safety bit. The issue of whether ether a judge has the right to ask that a witness be seen including the face is a valid issue and I beleive most of us would agree that the judge has the right to demand that in his court room.
 
ok I got a liitle hyperbolic on the public safety bit. The issue of whether ether a judge has the right to ask that a witness be seen including the face is a valid issue and I beleive most of us would agree that the judge has the right to demand that in his court room.
Of-course judge does. No disagreement there.

But this is not the "public safety" issue you made it out to be, nor is it the "religious radicals are taking over our country" issue Catz made it out to be.

This is about the media blowing a non-issue way out of proportion and you playing right into the hype.
 
Back
Top Bottom