Ga. Woman Jailed Over Head Scarf

[LaoSexMachine]

Ga. Woman Jailed Over Head Scarf

Judge jails Muslim woman for refusing to remove her headscarf in court

By DIONNE WALKER

The Associated Press

ATLANTA


A Muslim woman arrested for refusing to take off her head scarf at a courthouse security checkpoint said Wednesday that she felt her human and civil rights were violated. 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.
Valentine, who recently moved to Georgia from New Haven, Conn., said the incident reminded her of stories she'd heard of the civil rights-era South.
"I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," she said Wednesday from her home. She said she was unexpectedly released after the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations urged federal authorities to investigate the incident as well as others in Georgia.
The group cited a report that the same judge removed a woman and her 14-year-old daughter from the courtroom last week because they were wearing Muslim head scarves.
Jail officials declined to say why she was freed and municipal Court Judge Keith Rollins said that "it would not be appropriate" for him to comment on the case.
Last year, a judge in Valdosta in southern Georgia barred a Muslim woman from entering a courtroom because she would not remove her head scarf. There have been similar cases in other states, including Michigan, where a Muslim woman in Detroit filed a federal lawsuit in February 2007 after a judge dismissed her small-claims court case when she refused to remove a head and face veil.
Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab.
Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.


http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6479903

[PALADIN]

sh!t storm in 5...4...3...2...

[budgie]

Looks like she was jailed for the expletive more than the scarf.

But that aside, there should be no harm in making provision for religious considerations when it comes to courtroom attire.

[Wildgoose]

It's the discretion of the judge, like the state office says. It's not a prohibition against Muslim headwear, it's a prohibition upon headgear of any kind whether it be the Muslim habib, Jewish yarmulke or a freaking Dr. Seuss hat.

Your laws of your religion stop where the state mandates it. This is not a theocratic country. If you don't like what the judge dictates, then don't go into the courtroom. This ain't Riyadh, this is Atlanta.

[LineDoggie]

They same People who bitch and moan about the need for seperation of church and state will say she was treated unfairly. Tango Sierra Mrs.Valentine, next time remember not to curse out the Security Officer.

[eskachig]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that the government couldn't extend a little tolerance toward religious considerations.

What exactly is the reason for the headgear ban anyhow? If it's a security issue I might understand (though why hats and not other forms of clothing?), if it's a policy simply for the hell of it then it should definitely be amended.

Or simply done away with - I don't see why courts need a dress code, it's not middle school.

I'm an atheist btw.

[Mr.K]

It's the discretion of the judge, like the state office says. It's not a prohibition against Muslim headwear, it's a prohibition upon headgear of any kind whether it be the Muslim habib, Jewish yarmulke or a freaking Dr. Seuss hat.

Your laws of your religion stop where the state mandates it. This is not a theocratic country. If you don't like what the judge dictates, then don't go into the courtroom. This ain't Riyadh, this is Atlanta.

On yarmukles and court rooms.
http://www.jlaw.com/Commentary/yarmulke.html

Seems that this attorney got deeply offended, because before removing the yarmulke in a court was not deemed necessary.
And i bet the officer would have never dared of pulling such a stunt with the jewish attorney mentioned above, he would have eatend him for lunch and put his family in debt for a few decades.

The expletive part from the angry woman, I can understand. Getting jailed for it, not really.

[eskachig]

The expletive part, I can understand.
Well I can't. In general I think the "contempt of court" power is waaaay too broad. I understand that a judge should be able to keep his court running smoothly and without interference, but these kinds of broad powers end up with some rather petty scenarios such as these.

The woman was outside the courtroom and leaving, as far as I'm concerned there was no way she was interfering with the court and should be able to say what she likes.

A little profanity never hurt anyone, the bailiff sounds entirely too thin skinned to be in law enforcement.

[gaijinsamurai]

Agreed, eskachig. Where I live, I can't imagine someone being arrested while LEAVING the court, simply for uttering a curseword. I would think the baliff would have things of greater importance to get worked up over.

But, it's Georgia, and if people want to choose to move there, they should know what they're getting into.

[Scrim]

Deny her admittance, fine. Arrest her? Come on. Its all they're talking about on the local news.
Dumb ass Baliff just cost us xxxhundred thousand dollars in the ensuing law suit.

[brett]

This must be a very, very poor Judge. To pass down a custodial sentence in this particular case is disproportionate.
He lacked the good judgement to avoid the consequences of setting a dangerous precedent for the future, which is
that people in the [Southern] State of Georgia, may be judged/ punished, on the basis of their outward appearance.

[gaijinsamurai]

Hey, Scrim!

I see you're in Georgia. What do most of the people there seem to think of the issue?

[m.i.t]

Congrads USA.. Say hello to new social fun .

My country faced political crisis many times for that headscarf issue ...

[ggk]

why is wrong to wear any head gear in the court, and i meant hat, cap and etc. is there a reason?

If the reason were plausible then the muslim woman should just open her head scarf. It is allowed technically to open the hijab if the condition doesnt allowed it. She can always wear it back later...afterall God would understand.

[Creeper]

Hey, Scrim!

I see you're in Georgia. What do most of the people there seem to think of the issue?

To begin with , this is a very old and conservative area of Georgia. This small city, 30 miles from Atlanta, that has experienced a recent (10 yrs) population growth.

"Lisa Valentine, also known by her Islamic name, Miedah, 40."
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/12/17/hijab.html
A convert. Ok, fine.

"Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation."http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/12/17/hijab.html
I seriously doubt that she has worn that hijab past security. Is "religious violation" the correct muslim term? Or is it just hers?

[QUOTE]Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation.moved to Georgia from New Haven, Conn., said the incident reminded her of stories she'd heard of the civil rights-era South./QUOTE]
A very classic Black statement. She knows dammed right well what the "South" is like.

[QUOTE] When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge./QUOTE]
Would a Muslim born women act and speak in similar fashion ? Perhaps not.

[QUOTE]“They were putting me in there like I was some sort of criminal,” she said./QUOTE] http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/12/17/hijab.html
When you disrespect a court and the authority of a Judge,, well ,,,,

[QUOTE]“I can’t believe someone would do this in America,” said Valentine’s husband, Omar Hall./QUOTE]http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printedition/2008/12/17/hijab.html
Not respecting the Laws, Judges, and the people of the court ?

IMHO: The courtesies, customs and laws are respected in Muslim countries. The same shall be observed there in Douglasville, Georgia. I agree that Mrs Valentine's actions were contempt of court. She wanted to make a statement,, well,,so did the Judge.
Good on the Judge.

[Bia]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that the government couldn't extend a little tolerance toward religious considerations.

What exactly is the reason for the headgear ban anyhow? If it's a security issue I might understand (though why hats and not other forms of clothing?), if it's a policy simply for the hell of it then it should definitely be amended.

Or simply done away with - I don't see why courts need a dress code, it's not middle school.

I'm an atheist btw.I have seen people (females) show up to court in barely nothing... get sent home by the judge... much to the sadness of the men in the courtroom. :P


This must be a very, very poor Judge. To pass down a custodial sentence in this particular case is disproportionate.
He lacked the good judgement to avoid the consequences of setting a dangerous precedent for the future, which is
that people in the [Southern] State of Georgia, may be judged/ punished, on the basis of their outward appearance.Well... dont we all judge people by how they look?
Of course we do.
A judge needs control of his courtroom... period.


No sympathy for stupid people trying to make a statement wearing crap.

[Scrim]

Hey, Scrim!

I see you're in Georgia. What do most of the people there seem to think of the issue?
Well I live in a bit of a liberal oasis of a town, where the streets run with bio-fuels and every house is blessed by an Obama yard sign.p-) There's probably a protest march being organised downtown as we speak.
However, step outside Athens, and many other Georgians probably think the judge was too lenient, and she should now be at bible re-education camp.

[Wildgoose]

IMHO: The courtesies, customs and laws are respected in Muslim countries. The same shall be observed there in Douglasville, Georgia. I agree that Mrs Valentine's actions were contempt of court. She wanted to make a statement,, well,,so did the Judge.
Good on the Judge.

My in-laws are from Douglasville. Good honest people. You want to make your religious issues out here, it's not going to happen. I've seen how this **** gets out of hand in Europe, and the next thing you know you've got "Death to All Non-Believers" protests in your home town. Integrate in society or there'll be more actions like this. The judge did the correct thing and jail for contempt of court is a common punishment.

Stopping this kind of crap now sends a very clear message. I really don't care if it offends or pisses other folks off who don't live here. I live in this area and you should take off your headcovers when you walk into a judge's chambers.

[ed316]

why is wrong to wear any head gear in the court, and i meant hat, cap and etc. is there a reason?
.


Don't know how it's done in Malaysia but here in America I have never been in a courtroom where the judge let's you wear a cap or hat. Taking a cap or hat off indoors is proper etiquette.

As for the lady. Maybe next time bite your tongue.

[hank2222]

this is america ..if do not like the laws here I WILL SAY IN A LOUD WAY.,.
GET THE HEEEEEE OUT..and go and to the middle east to live ,,
take off the caps and other hat typle items in the court room as order by the judge in HIS courtroom..not hers courtroom his courtroom

[Lazy Lob]

There is so much BS going around about "oh my poor little sensibilities".

Good on the judge and his staff. Leave yer feckin wacko costumes at the door. Horse hair wigs not included.

[Salman]

this is america ..if do not like the laws here I WILL SAY IN A LOUD WAY.,.
GET THE HEEEEEE OUT..and go and to the middle east to live ,,
take off the caps and other hat typle items in the court room as order by the judge in HIS courtroom..not hers courtroom his courtroom


I agree but maybe this will drag far enough to revise that law. Hopefully that would mean she can enter a courtroom with a hijab legally :)

[Karl_Kroenen]

In my opinion, religious garb should be left at the door when it comes to civil and criminal proceedings.

While people are entitled to their own religious beliefs, externally visible iconography and dress influences the viewer in a way that may not necessarily be fair to the court.

Individuals who participate in religions where certain dress is required should realize it is their choice and it will not be universally accepted/allowed/defended.

In my opinion, in American culture (and to a certain extent the global culture we've exported) we've outgrown the point where religion is to be actively defended. Of course we should discourage bigotry and prosecute hate crimes, but it is no longer reasonable or in our interest to make sure everyone is accommodated. Religion must no longer shape public life!

[Cstafford]

Well I live in a bit of a liberal oasis of a town, where the streets run with bio-fuels and every house is blessed by an Obama yard sign.p-) There's probably a protest march being organised downtown as we speak.
However, step outside Athens, and many other Georgians probably think the judge was too lenient, and she should now be at bible re-education camp.
lmao.... you guys are super liberal until its Saturday during football season. I live in Winder so here everyone would more or less be like "that arab got what she done deserves! DURK OUR DOBS!" But what can you do..

[WKD]

Separation of church and state doesn't mean that the government couldn't extend a little tolerance toward religious considerations.



It does mean that religion does what it is told when it walks into a court room though. Belief does not exempt you from the Law's jurisdiction.

[Scrim]

lmao.... you guys are super liberal until its Saturday during football season. I live in Winder so here everyone would more or less be like "that arab got what she done deserves! DURK OUR DOBS!" But what can you do..
LOL I think I can hear yall chanting from here "DEY DURK OUR DOBS!"

[Creeper]

bible re-education camp.

I like that! rofl

Many years ago,,I have had people want to take me to their "Summer Vacation Camps."

"Thanks , but No," I replied.

Perhaps, Mrs . Valentine may find a more tolerable area to sell insurance. Also, Most importantly, she may or may not come to a conclusion that it is not the color of her skin that is causing a ruckus in the Douglasville Court, it is her disrespect of the laws and the religion of the South.

Let me add this: the backbone of every Southerner is their belief in Christianity. The Bible is first and foremost. It is the most defining element. This belief is reflected in their occupation(s), family, etc,,.
So let it be. I respect them for it.

Furthermore, other countries may let outside religions "over-run" there own culture and sensibilities,, but I seriously doubt it will that happen in Douglasville.

(FWIW: I am not from Georgia, Nor am I Southern Baptist. But I am a Christian.p-) )

[budgie]

It's not just a matter of a "PC conspiracy" or "If you don't like it get out". It's got nothing to do with separation of church and state. Muslim women that are used to wearing headscarves feel naked without them. Would you want your wife/daughter/mother to go into a public place feeling exposed and uncomfortable because she has to remove some items of clothing?

The judge could have made an exception to the 'no-hats' rule in this woman's case because of her religious/cultural beliefs. There would have been no harm in that.

She certainly deserved a penalty for cussing in the courthouse, but other than that I think the judge was simply a mean old bastard trying to make an example of Muslims by rejecting her right to modesty on her own terms.

[Macs.]

Let me add this: the backbone of every Southerner is their belief in Christianity. The Bible is first and foremost. It is the most defining element. This belief is reflected in their occupation(s), family, etc,,.
So let it be. I respect them for it.

Bull****. The ban must be because either all headgear or all religious symbols are forbidden, not because "dis be christian here and we don't laik no otha religion round here". Hello; Do you even check what you are writing ? Are you talking about the USA or Saudi Arabia ?

And I am pretty sure that it is NOT the backbone of every Southerner. People with reason and a rational world view that are no focusing their lifes on one book are all over the world.

[Bulletproof]

That's how it work, deal with it or gtfo. We're not the ones who have to bend over.

[Creeper]

Bull****. The ban must be because either all headgear or all religious symbols are forbidden, not because "dis be christian here and we don't laik no otha religion round here". Hello; Do you even check what you are writing ? Are you talking about the USA or Saudi Arabia ?

And I am pretty sure that it is NOT the backbone of every Southerner. People with reason and a rational world view that are no focusing their lifes on one book are all over the world.

Ok, What do mean by, "The ban must be because either all headgear or all religious symbols are forbidden," ?
Ok,,Mac; How about religious symbols in the form of headgear shall be banned ?
Will this work for ya ? p-)

Lets try again, "People with reason and a rational world view that are no focusing their lifes on one book are all over the world."
HUH ?

You sit there at a distance and write that you are PRETTY SURE of this and that! LMFAO !

Well,, you can KISS MY GRITS!

[Karl_Kroenen]

Ok, What do mean by, "The ban must be because either all headgear or all religious symbols are forbidden," ?
Ok,,Mac; How about religious symbols in the form of headgear shall be banned ?
Will this work for ya ? p-)

Lets try again, "People with reason and a rational world view that are no focusing their lifes on one book are all over the world."
HUH ?

You sit there at a distance and write that you are PRETTY SURE of this and that! LMFAO !

Well,, you can KISS MY GRITS!

Sod off.

You damn well understood what he said and your recalcitrant attitude is what drags down the lower half of our country into voluntary retardation.

How you respect people that willingly defy logic and scientific convention I'll never know.

Oh, also, nice job bringing up skin color scum bag.

[Creeper]

Sod off.

You damn well understood what he said and your recalcitrant attitude is what drags down the lower half of our country into voluntary retardation.

How you respect people that willingly defy logic and scientific convention I'll never know.

Oh, also, nice job bringing up skin color scum bag.

I did not bring the "skin color" up, Mrs. Valentine did here:
"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.
Valentine, who recently moved to Georgia from New Haven, Conn., said the incident reminded her of stories she'd heard of the civil rights-era South.http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6479903

In this specific case, I will not respect a person or people who attempts , then fails , to defy logic and scientific convention(sp?) for the sake of personal or group religious agenda(s).

Sure, I understood what I think he meant,, only after untwisting his thought.

Something I am doing with you.

Do the Liberals a huge favor and go choke your self,,, twice.

p-)

[Karl_Kroenen]

I did not bring the "skin color" up, Mrs. Valentine did here: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=6479903

Golly, I must have misinterpreted her reference. She's extrapolating the civil rights movement to stand as a prerequisite for identity rights movements.

Novel concept eh?

I'm not too sure it's hers though. I'm of the opinion she was fed that line by an attorney or a Muslim rights group




In this specific case, I will not respect a person or people who attempts , then fails , to defy logic and scientific convention(sp?) for the sake of personal or group religious agenda(s).

Now I'm going to have to ask you to untangle yourself here because your ****oun use is confusing. What's "this" case?

Actually, don't answer. You're a dumbass and it hurts my eyes to read your bigoted slander.


Sure, I understood what I think he meant,, only after untwisting his thought.

Something I am doing with you.

Do the Liberals a huge favor and go choke your self,,, twice.

p-)

So you understood what the other member said, you just chose to make him look foolish? Your intention was admirable.

Also, what part of my writing is difficult to understand? Are some of the words I use missing from your vocabulary?

Maybe you can look in the Bible's glossary. I'm sure they'll be there.

[Pigdog]

Sod off.

You damn well understood what he said and your recalcitrant attitude is what drags down the lower half of our country into voluntary retardation.

How you respect people that willingly defy logic and scientific convention I'll never know.

I assume you take issue with Lisa Valentine as well?


Actually, don't answer. You're a dumbass and it hurts my eyes to read your bigoted slander.

Hmm...

[Karl_Kroenen]

I assume you take issue with Lisa Valentine as well?

Hell yeah check out my post on the second page:

[quote=Karl_Kroenen;3775411]In my opinion, religious garb should be left at the door when it comes to civil and criminal proceedings.

While people are entitled to their own religious beliefs, externally visible iconography and dress influences the viewer in a way that may not necessarily be fair to the court.

Individuals who participate in religions where certain dress is required should realize it is their choice and it will not be universally accepted/allowed/defended.

In my opinion, in American culture (and to a certain extent the global culture we've exported) we've outgrown the point where religion is to be actively defended. Of course we should discourage bigotry and prosecute hate crimes, but it is no longer reasonable or in our interest to make sure everyone is accommodated. Religion must no longer shape public life!





Hmm...

Hmm what? You like that phrase?

I don't give preference or privilege to any religion. While I am thankful for the contributions religions gave to modern society as institutions, they've lived their lives and it's time for them to leave the public sphere.

[Creeper]

Karl
You have succeeded in boring the hell out of me.
Thank you.

[Karl_Kroenen]

Karl
You have succeded in boring the hell out of me.

Oh, my five dollar words have got you tuckered out?

Nice job dropping your argument. I was kind of curious what you mean by:


In this specific case, I will not respect a person or people who attempts , then fails , to defy logic and scientific convention(sp?) for the sake of personal or group religious agenda(s).

But I'll let it go; I'm not sure you know what that meant either.


And why haven't you choked yourself?

Is this a rhetorical question? I don't really value your opinion and even if I did, I imagine you'd be liable for my death. So from a purely practical perspective (the alliteration was unintentional, I swear) you probably don't want me to do it.

Here's a question for you:

Why haven't you let go of your religious convictions yet and accepted reason?

[shocker1]

How Southerners tolerate the arrogant retardation of individuals and groups bent on talking down to them is a testament to their character. The audacity to proclaim the motivations of such fine people as backwards and against all logic smells of rotten bigotry. Resurrected from the bowls of humanism, drunk with a cheap batch of conceited wine. True Grace would extend this woman love and inclusion with the expectation that one's faith may even show on the outside. Something the hateful, intolerant, exclusionary world should learn from. Not everyone walks the same path, the journey of one can teach another. However once this woman painted her incident as a continuation of the evils of the Civil Rights era, well she lost my support.

Here the Judge is right yet horribly wrong. Let's ponder how many Muslim women have entered a court of law in the State of Georgia without incident. That does not fit the "stereotype" many seem to employ on the good folk. Well **** you and this stiff neck good ole boy judge too. Georgia is a fine place, don't like it GTFO.

[Karl_Kroenen]

How Southerners tolerate the arrogant retardation of individuals and groups bent on talking down to them is a testament to their character. The audacity to proclaim the motivations of such fine people as backwards and against all logic smells of rotten bigotry. Resurrected from the bowls of humanism, drunk with a cheap batch of conceited wine. True Grace would extend this woman love and inclusion with the expectation that one's faith may even show on the outside. Something the hateful, intolerant, exclusionary world should learn from. Not everyone walks the same path, the journey of one can teach another. However once this woman painted her incident as a continuation of the evils of the Civil Rights era, well she lost my support.

A culture of tolerance and decency is wholly admirable.

One which includes deep seated discrimination as Creeper supposes is not quite so laudable.

Religious ideology in the South frequently compromises intellectualism. There can be no disputing of that.

To misread my position as one of smug superiority would be to ignore what I've been writing.

Also, note I've said nothing of motivations. I only desire to correct religious ideology which creeps into public life. That bit about the wine was a nice flourish.

[shocker1]

A culture of tolerance and decency is wholly admirable.

One which includes deep seated discrimination as Creeper supposes is not quite so laudable.

Religious ideology in the South frequently compromises intellectualism. There can be no disputing of that.

To misread my position as one of smug superiority would be to ignore what I've been writing.

Also, note I've said nothing of motivations. I only desire to correct religious ideology which creeps into public life. That bit about the wine was a nice flourish.
I read you as a arrogant, intolerant person bent on being argumentative for the sake of it. Maybe even pushing an anti-religion agenda. Need I quote your intolerant drivel? Superiority? Very high minded of you and humrous. So religious people who live in the South taint the culture? Nice and tolerant, very friendly.

[shocker1]

However, to be pragmatic about the religious ignorance and at least compromise I will give an example. I must buy my beer on Saturday for fishing on Sunday. It is illegal to sell booze on Sunday here. Saturday is the Sabbath and beer is good for all. Let's all join together, put our differences aside and demand beer 7 days a week.

[Chulo]

A culture of tolerance and decency is wholly admirable.

One which includes deep seated discrimination as Creeper supposes is not quite so laudable.

Religious ideology in the South frequently compromises intellectualism. There can be no disputing of that.

To misread my position as one of smug superiority would be to ignore what I've been writing.

Also, note I've said nothing of motivations. I only desire to correct religious ideology which creeps into public life. That bit about the wine was a nice flourish.
eh.. "Tolerance" and its definition only apply to those that it benefit and according to those that set it. Tolerance is an exercise in oxymora


Religious ideology in the South frequently compromises intellectualism. There can be no disputing of that.
Your statement implies that Religion and intellectualism do not mix, and
by stereotyping a whole geographic region i think is misplaced ignorance

[Hollis]

Gentlemen,

Civility is more than expected on this forum, it is demanded.

:)

[shocker1]

Gentlemen,

Civility is more than expected on this forum, it is demanded.

:)
So, I mention the restrictions imposed on beer and you pop in.

[Hollis]

So, I mention the restrictions imposed on beer and you pop in.


I agree with you sir, Beer should be Here Now.

Beer should be a daily sacrement. Especially when one is expecting the Fishing Gods to to provide the catch of the day.

[Karl_Kroenen]

That can be agreed to :)

[Cstafford]

LOL I think I can hear yall chanting from here "DEY DURK OUR DOBS!"
haha yeah its bad, some of the people over here would bewilder you with their.... ignorance.

[Macs.]

Ok, What do mean by, "The ban must be because either all headgear or all religious symbols are forbidden," ?
Ok,,Mac; How about religious symbols in the form of headgear shall be banned ?
Will this work for ya ? p-)

If it's because all religious symbols are banned, it's fine. If it's because maybe the judge/jury has problems identifying her otherwise, it's fine. She has to cooperate or should be forced to do so if her part for the court is so important. Otherwise you would have a justice-system that could be heavily damaged by people who wear all kind of religious gear of all sorts, and it would be unfair to the population that does not follow any kind of religion and is not allowed to wear headgear. Baseballcap or Headscarf, it has to be the same in court.

If it's because the Judge doesn't like religion A or B and does so because he he believes in another religion it would be a pretty sad state of affairs.





Lets try again, "People with reason and a rational world view that are no focusing their lifes on one book are all over the world."
HUH ?

You sit there at a distance and write that you are PRETTY SURE of this and that! LMFAO !

Yes, I do believe that it's possible that of Millions and Millions of people who live in the "Southener" USA there are people who do not base their lives off their religious ideology.

[bersaglieri]

People need to recognise the solemnity of courts and the legal process. Some of the most important decisions made in peoples lives happen there, it is a serious business and needs to be treated as such. Dressing appropriately is the first stage of behaving appropriately.

However.

I cannot see how on earth this woman could be convicted of contempt of court when she was not in the courtroom or before the judge. She was stopped at the door security check and metal detector,refused entrance unless she removed the headwear and was leaving when arrested. If the expletive was sufficient to charge her with some sort of public order offence ,fair enough, but as she was not IN the courtroom she cannot be in contempt of court by her behaviour. Perhaps this fact has something to do with her rather sudden release?

[ggk]

People need to recognise the solemnity of courts and the legal process. Some of the most important decisions made in peoples lives happen there, it is a serious business and needs to be treated as such. Dressing appropriately is the first stage of behaving appropriately.

However.

I cannot see how on earth this woman could be convicted of contempt of court when she was not in the courtroom or before the judge. She was stopped at the door security check and metal detector,refused entrance unless she removed the headwear and was leaving when arrested. If the expletive was sufficient to charge her with some sort of public order offence ,fair enough, but as she was not IN the courtroom she cannot be in contempt of court by her behaviour. Perhaps this fact has something to do with her rather sudden release?

probably because of something she said to the cop...i dont know.

but theres another woman jailed for unproper clothing. Not a muslim though, but i kinda get it how strict the court clothing ettique are.

in other word lisnt to the judge.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch/v/ifrw-wh7_8w

[Scrim]

Never fear guys! The news just told me that the NAACP have arrived in force in their bow-ties to sort out his mess!

[Mr.K]

probably because of something she said to the cop...i dont know.

but theres another woman jailed for unproper clothing. Not a muslim though, but i kinda get it how strict the court clothing ettique are.

in other word lisnt to the judge.


The women above got aressted because the judge was jealous.

I've seen people being dressed like crap in court all the time, trailer trash in jeans with holes,camo pants, urban thugs with airbrushed t-shirts and durags, you name it. I've never seen any one of them being arrested.

Obviously if you want to show respect to the court and the judge (and maximize your chances of winning or having the accusations dropped) you have to dress proper, but that's a personal choice as far as I know.

[Bia]

The women above got aressted because the judge was jealous.

I've seen people being dressed like crap in court all the time, trailer trash in jeans with holes,camo pants, urban thugs with airbrushed t-shirts and durags, you name it. I've never seen any one of them being arrested.

Obviously if you want to show respect to the court and the judge (and maximize your chances of winning or having the accusations dropped) you have to dress proper, but that's a personal choice as far as I know.no no and no.

She was arrested for continually not following rules.
I have seen with my own eyes two times females told to go home and change clothing by a male judge... jealousy isnt the issue. A structured well run court room is the point. Anything disruptive... you run the risk of comtempt of court. The massive majority of fighting contempt of court charges fail.

As far as seeing bummy looking people......the judge is highly aware of some bum looking tard that got arrested and is appearing for court VS. the citizen that came to court that day to handle some business. Both times I went to traffic court the arrested people went first..... then the citizens off the street were seen next.

It's not a personal choice.... Grrrr why does everyone assume this? When you're on your own time....dress anyway you choose. When you're on the courts time... use common sense or end up like these people.

[Erik2a4]

It's not just a matter of a "PC conspiracy" or "If you don't like it get out". It's got nothing to do with separation of church and state. Muslim women that are used to wearing headscarves feel naked without them. Would you want your wife/daughter/mother to go into a public place feeling exposed and uncomfortable because she has to remove some items of clothing?

The judge could have made an exception to the 'no-hats' rule in this woman's case because of her religious/cultural beliefs. There would have been no harm in that.

She certainly deserved a penalty for cussing in the courthouse, but other than that I think the judge was simply a mean old bastard trying to make an example of Muslims by rejecting her right to modesty on her own terms.

I think you're using a faulty argument. How I want my wife/daughter/mother to dress has no bearing. Your view of the judge as a mean old bastard is conjecture. And I'm not aware of a right to modesty on one's own terms.

If the woman in question does not like the ruling then there are ways of appealing that rule/law.

And it seems like you contradict yourself when you say, "It's got nothing to do with separation of church and state" and then turn around and say, "The judge could have made an exception to the 'no-hats' rule in this woman's case because of her religious/cultural beliefs."

It either is a completely secular decision (no hats for anyone barring a medical reason), or it's a religious one (muslim women are comfortable with scarves, so the they should be exempted from hat-less requirements).

Otherwise we have a slippery slope where a minority has secured a "right" that the majority does not possess.

Whether or not there should be a rule regarding the wearing of hats in courtrooms is a separate topic really.

[ggk]

I think you're using a faulty argument. How I want my wife/daughter/mother to dress has no bearing. Your view of the judge as a mean old bastard is conjecture. And I'm not aware of a right to modesty on one's own terms.

If the woman in question does not like the ruling then there are ways of appealing that rule/law.

And it seems like you contradict yourself when you say, "It's got nothing to do with separation of church and state" and then turn around and say, "The judge could have made an exception to the 'no-hats' rule in this woman's case because of her religious/cultural beliefs."

It either is a completely secular decision (no hats for anyone barring a medical reason), or it's a religious one (muslim women are comfortable with scarves, so the they should be exempted from hat-less requirements).

Otherwise we have a slippery slope where a minority has secured a "right" that the majority does not possess.

i wonder what happen if its a Sikh man in her place...would the judge do the same?