• 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

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



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.

THere is quite a bit of difference between agitprop aimed at establishing laws for one segment of the population and establishing such laws for all.
Now, I don't expect you to be able to make such distinctions, but the sharia law as established in Britons does not apply to the British, but to the Muslims who do not wish to assimilate.
 
Bravo! So in a small claims civil case, why should one care if she wears a religious head garment.

It is still a court of law, and participants in it are bound to follow normal legal procedures. Did you take a moment to look at the photo of the "veil" under discussion?

"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!

Reading Comprehension is always a positive. They can wear a head "covering" in Georgia. Not a FACE covering.
 
THere is quite a bit of difference between agitprop aimed at establishing laws for one segment of the population and establishing such laws for all.
Now, I don't expect you to be able to make such distinctions, but the sharia law as established in Britons does not apply to the British, but to the Muslims who do not wish to assimilate.

So now you agree with me that Catz is over the top in her rant.
 
that's okay, but i don't see how it compromises safety. your other concerns might be valid.
 
So now you agree with me that Catz is over the top in her rant.

Oh good grief, Jerry. You clearly didn't even understand a single sentence of Gardener's post.

This is aimed at undermining historic legal practices in the U.S. and setting up a different required standard for a small segment of the population that wants to be subject, not to U.S. laws, but to their own laws.

That's troubling for anyone who understands that the entire basis of a republic is in the rule of law.

There is a reason that the statue of justice is usually blindfolded. Maybe you can figure out why that is if you think really hard.
 
possibly.....but F107 mentioned public safety in the top post, and i responded to that particular point. i'm a waffler on this one. i actually think that given our current climate, the woman would be better off winning over the jury or judge WITHOUT her veil.
 
So now you agree with me that Catz is over the top in her rant.

Now, knowing Catz as you surely must by now, don't you think if she wished to rant that she would have already done so by now?
 
Oh good grief, Jerry. You clearly didn't even understand a single sentence of Gardener's post.

This is aimed at undermining historic legal practices in the U.S. and setting up a different required standard for a small segment of the population that wants to be subject, not to U.S. laws, but to their own laws.

That's troubling for anyone who understands that the entire basis of a republic is in the rule of law.

There is a reason that the statue of justice is usually blindfolded. Maybe you can figure out why that is if you think really hard.

That's the premise of everything I've said on this thread.

Glad to see you finally caught up.

I guess I'm just not used to people highlighting common knowledge.
 
but in this case, no rules were broken. in fact, the rule has been amended to force removal (at the judge's discretion) of a veil.
 
but in this case, no rules were broken. in fact, the rule has been amended to force removal (at the judge's discretion) of a veil.

And I support that.

We don't let the Amish get away with it, so why would we let Muslims ;)

Oh noes!!1!11! here comes Catz "the Amish are trying to take over the country.." :lol:...and F107 "the Amish prayer veil is a public safety hazard...":rofl
 
Last edited:
That's the premise of everything I've said on this thread.

Glad to see you finally caught up.

I guess I'm just not used to people highlighting common knowledge.

Jerry, I've been saying the SAME DAMN THING since my first post on this thread. Maybe a reading class is in order.
 
And I support that.

We don't let the Amish get away with it, so why would we let Muslims ;)

All those Amish running around in hoods with just little slits for the eyes?


THis:

PFO3077.jpg


Most certainly equals this:

news-graphics-2007-_443501a.jpg



uh huh.......... :doh
 
All those Amish running around in hoods with just little slits for the eyes?
PFO3077.jpg

:prof That's not a prayer veil, that's bonnet, styled after the Quakers.

Now go google up the correct garment and pretend you knew all along.

On balance, you don't see the Amish making a fuss when asked to remove garments in court.
 
Last edited:
The amendment was prompted by a 2006 small claims case in Michigan filed by Ginnah Muhammad, who wore a niqab -- a garment that covers the entire face and head, except for the eyes -- to court, the order said.

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.

Reasonable request.
There is no need to cover face in a court and no it does not infringe her right to practice seeing the niqab is not a religious practice in any shape or form.
 
:prof That's not a prayer veil, that's bonnet, styled after the Quakers.

Now go google up the correct garment and pretend you knew all along.

On balance, you don't see the Amish making a fuss when asked to remove garments in court.

You got me there, Jerry.

I have to concede that my experience with people kicking up a fuss when asked to remove clothing is considerably less than yours.
 
You got me there, Jerry.

I have to concede that my experience with people kicking up a fuss when asked to remove clothing is considerable less than yours.

Amish people only wear prayer veils within the religious setting. They would consider it anathema to wear them in public.
 
And I support that.

We don't let the Amish get away with it, so why would we let Muslims ;)

Oh noes!!1!11! here comes Catz "the Amish are trying to take over the country.." :lol:...and F107 "the Amish prayer veil is a public safety hazard...":rofl

OK I already admited that I got a little hyperbolic on the public safety claim. The reason that the veil needed to be removed is to facilitate proper court procedings and open testmony.
 
OK I already admited that I got a little hyperbolic on the public safety claim.
Every time someone reads your OP for the first time, you're saying that hyperbole again. So long as the OP remains as written, you're still saying it.

The reason that the veil needed to be removed is to facilitate proper court procedings and open testmony.

Mhmm, I have no problem with that, but you jumped right to the hyperbole and into the hands of media sensationalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom