• 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

Jerry said:
, nor is it the "religious radicals are taking over our country" issue Catz made it out to be.

.
Click to expand...

She said nothing about them taking over the country.

It has more to do with moving the bar by demanding special accomidations. THis has proven a successful strategy in the U.K. where the accomidations have now become such that certain practices of Sharia law now receive the full support of the British legal system.

This is a POLITICAL move aimed at exerting pressure upon our own legal system towards similar ends (althouth the position reached in the U.K. is by no means an endpoint).
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's asking too much that folks show up in court both identifiable and recognizable. Eye contact a bonus.
 
I think a veil is entirely appropriate for a courtroom setting, especially since in the case of the woman in question, it is worn for the sake of modesty. Whether this modesty is religiously or secularly motivated is irrelevant.

It is appropriate to ask someone to remove a veil for the purposes of identification (i.e. during an identification check) and safety (i.e. in the presence of moving machinery).
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing it was her connection to CAIR that tipped me off.

Jesus Crist, Jerry, pay attention. :mrgreen:
 
Gardener said:
It has more to do with moving the bar by demanding special accomidations. THis has proven a successful strategy in the U.K. where the accomidations have now become such that certain practices of Sharia law now receive the full support of the British legal system.

This is a POLITICAL move aimed at exerting pressure upon our own legal system towards similar ends (althouth the position reached in the U.K. is by no means an endpoint).
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. I can always count on your to get the point on these types of subjects. Next up is a human rights commission that designates legitimate criticism of Islam as "hate speech." Special courts for women. Islamic judges that follow Islamic laws.

It's all part of a larger plan to demand concessions that undermine fundamental secular principles in our system of justice. I don't support that from ANYONE: Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hippies or Islamics.
 
OxymoronP said:
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?
Click to expand...

Good question to ask about a non religious affiliated govt that requires we swear to God on the bible before we testify.


"Reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses" so as to "ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person." - - -

It seems fine and dandy, so long as the Constitution isn't overruled by such a measure. In looking at it in the perspective of the First Amendment, it is frankly an unjust rule.
 
Gardener said:
She said nothing about them taking over the country.
Click to expand...

Yes she did, because that's the argument, see below....

Gardener said:
It has more to do with moving the bar by demanding special accomidations. THis has proven a successful strategy in the U.K. where the accomidations have now become such that certain practices of Sharia law now receive the full support of the British legal system.

This is a POLITICAL move aimed at exerting pressure upon our own legal system towards similar ends (althouth the position reached in the U.K. is by no means an endpoint).
Click to expand...

See? You said it yourself, this is the early stages of establishing Sharia law.

So she did say it, and I was right.

The judge has the right to tell her to take it off, or let her keep it on, either or.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'm guessing it was her connection to CAIR that tipped me off.

Jesus Crist, Jerry, pay attention. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

If you have information why did you choose the hyperbole instead of an intelligent post?

Entertainment value? I can appreciate that ;)
 
I don't see the necessity to be so rigid in a small claims court, really.

If it was a murder trial I could understand the need to be able to see the witness' face. But not for small potatoes stuff like this.
 
Arcana XV said:
I don't see the necessity to be so rigid in a small claims court, really.

If it was a murder trial I could understand the need to be able to see the witness' face. But not for small potatoes stuff like this.
Click to expand...

Don't you know how this game is played? I guess not. It's the same game for establishing gay-marriage, abortion, gun control, etc.

Once the rule is established in a trivial small claims court, the rule then has credibility and legal precedent, which can then be used to enforce said rule in a higher court...then a higher court....and so it goes.
 
American said:
The right of the accused to face their accusers.
Click to expand...

Actually the Sixth Amendment says people have the right to be CONFRONTED by their accusers. She was in fact physically present in the courtroom. Furthermore, the amendment says "In all criminal proceedings..." This was a civil proceeding.
 
JakeFromWI said:
Good question to ask about a non religious affiliated govt that requires we swear to God on the bible before we testify.
Click to expand...

Have you been to court lately? NO ONE is required to swear on the Bible these days, and they haven't required that kind of oath for at least 30 years. You should really stop watching Perry Mason re-runs.
 
Jerry said:
See? You said it yourself, this is the early stages of establishing Sharia law.

So she did say it, and I was right.

The judge has the right to tell her to take it off, or let her keep it on, either or.
Click to expand...

I think it's a matter of scale, Jerry. In Florida, the odds of Sharia law ever being implemented are slim to none. In Dearborn, Michigan, though? You bet that's where the Islamic community is ultimately pushing things.
 
30 years lol. Around the same time we let black people drink from the same fountains as white people. The same time gays were killed because they were gay. That was soooooooooo long ago.
 
if you're talking about a veil.....how does that compromise safety?
 
JakeFromWI said:
30 years lol. Around the same time we let black people drink from the same fountains as white people. The same time gays were killed because they were gay. That was soooooooooo long ago.
Click to expand...

Some of us actually remember those days. ;)
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Have you been to court lately? NO ONE is required to swear on the Bible these days, and they haven't required that kind of oath for at least 30 years. You should really stop watching Perry Mason re-runs.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was in court a few months ago...yes you do have to take the oath.

Maybe you're the one who needs to lay off the Law and Order?
 
liblady said:
if you're talking about a veil.....how does that compromise safety?
Click to expand...

If you're talking about a head scarf, I have no concerns, but a facial veil that reveals only the eyes could lead to concerns about establishing the identity of a witness, and interpretation problems with witness testimony by the jury and/or judge. It's the blocking of the face that bothers me, frankly.
 
Jerry said:
Yeah I was in court a few months ago...yes you do have to take the oath.

Maybe you're the one who needs to lay off the Law and Order?
Click to expand...

You have to take an oath, but you don't have to swear on any religious text. In fact, you don't have to "swear" at all. You can "affirm" instead.
 
Jerry said:
Yeah I was in court a few months ago...yes you do have to take the oath.

Maybe you're the one who needs to lay off the Law and Order?
Click to expand...

You have to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." There is, generally speaking, no religious clause anymore. Or, in a state which uses a bible, you can request an alternate religious book or no book at all.
 
Kandahar said:
You have to take an oath, but you don't have to swear on any religious text. In fact, you don't have to "swear" at all. You can "affirm" instead.
Click to expand...

I wasn't given an option, and I didn't care, either. I was more concerned with why I was at court to begin with, not some trivial word like "swear".

I guess you have to be hypersensitive to even care about what word is being used.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
You have to swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." There is, generally speaking, no religious clause anymore. Or, in a state which uses a bible, you can request an alternate religious book or no book at all.
Click to expand...

Right, so now you're equivocating. First you said one didn't have to take an oath, now you're saying they do have to take an oath.

As for the bible or reference to a god.....who gives a crap? One way or the other, why should anyone care?
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I wasn't given an option, and I didn't care, either. I was more concerned with why I was at court to begin with, not some trivial word like "swear".

I guess you have to be hypersensitive to even care about what word is being used.
Click to expand...

Some people feel it violates their religion to swear on a holy document (or to swear at all, even in the non-cursing sense). As long as they've said that they'll tell the truth, I don't really have a problem with whatever wording they want to use.
 
Jerry said:
Right, so now you're equivocating. First you said one didn't have to take an oath, now you're saying they do have to take an oath.

As for the bible or reference to a god.....who gives a crap? One way or the other, why should anyone care?
Click to expand...

It varies depending on the state, but no one is forced to swear to a religion that they do not believe.
 
Jerry said:
Right, so now you're equivocating. First you said one didn't have to take an oath, now you're saying they do have to take an oath.

As for the bible or reference to a god.....who gives a crap? One way or the other, why should anyone care?
Click to expand...

Bravo! So in a small claims civil case, why should one care if she wears a religious head garment.

Jerry said:
Don't you know how this game is played? I guess not. It's the same game for establishing gay-marriage, abortion, gun control, etc.

Once the rule is established in a trivial small claims court, the rule then has credibility and legal precedent, which can then be used to enforce said rule in a higher court...then a higher court....and so it goes.
Click to expand...

To quote the bottom of the article under discussion I would like to point out -
"Last month, the Judicial Council of Georgia adopted a policy allowing religious head coverings in the state's courtrooms, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported."

So now everyone can run around in court with head garments everywhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom