Where do you draw the line with a hijab?
Let’s assume it wasn’t this severe.
But what if it was?
Woman sues, claims judge forced her to remove hijab – CNN.com Cripes. Here we go again with another rash of this crap.
A Muslim woman and the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations sued a judge Wednesday for allegedly ordering the woman to remove her hijab, or religious head covering, in court.
Raneen Albaghdady, of Wayne County, Michigan, contends that Judge William Callahan told her to remove her hijab on June 16 when she was petitioning for a name change, according to the lawsuit, which was filed Wednesday in a U.S. district court in Michigan.
Wayne County is also listed as a defendant in the suit.
#2 I think you’re the only one on this blog that does that with those images.
This was obviously a setup by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
They are trying to impose their laws on our courts.
It obvious to those who actually read the article.
There could be a man underneath that hijab, or maybe its just a very hairy persian woman.
It would be nice if perhaps islam would accomodate the west once in awhile, because it seems the west is doing all the accomodating.
I don’t see why we have to go back to the 11th century just to make some goat herders happy.
Rick, exactly. They live in our country under our laws.
Case closed.
How can you make a judgment on a person you cannot see? Seems like the judge should have total discretionary preference. Would they leave the garb on her if she were brought into a hospital from a car wreck?
The money says “In God we Trust” not Allah. If you don’t like it, go elsewhere.
Wouldn’t an outfit like this make a judge or jury less inclined to find in favor of the wearer? I think it would, which makes the point moot. She can wear the hajib if she wants to lose, so let her wear it.
#8 If your stating that the judge ordered the woman’s protestations removed from the record, the the judge is on very dangerous ice. But I believe it would be a very far stretch to believe a judge in open court would order such a thing. I stand by my believe that the plaintiffs are reaching.
“The suit comes a day after the state’s Supreme Court issued an order allowing lower state courts to “exercise reasonable control” over the appearance of witnesses and parties to lawsuits, a rule change that had been proposed after a Muslim woman refused to remove an Islamic garment in a small claims court.”
#11, Jag,
I was expecting you to post this picture.
Aahh, good taste will always be remembered.
#14, Roasted
someone is trying to get their name changed I imagine they would have to show their face to the judge.
#16, SN,
But neither of those conceal a person’s facial expression or identity.
#23, Rick Cain,
There could be a man underneath that hijab, or maybe its just a very hairy persian woman.
#25, Grandpa,
How can you make a judgment on a person you cannot see?
What each one of you people failed to grasp is that a hajab is a head covering scarf. It is not a veil and the entire face is visible. While ignorance is bliss, this was pointed out in #2 by Jagermeister.
Here, look at some more hajabs.
http://tinyurl.com/lgglkd
Pure genius. What better way to get a suicide bomber into a courtroom. You gotta admire their ingenuity. Boom.
No, that could never happen.
Dodd…you cannot get into a Wayne County courthouse without passing through a metal detector.
#31-Baggins-you cannot get into a Wayne County courthouse without passing through a metal detector.
You would think that would be enough, but it seems that during a security test government investigators were able to smuggle bomb-making materials into 10 federal buildings.
Yep, right past the police agency charged with protecting those buildings. They also found numerous other gaps in security, according to the congressional report.
So you see federal buildings are not as safe as we would like to believe.
If they allow Sihks to wear their turbans and Jews to wear their yarmulkes in court then they should let Muslims wear their hijabs, since they don’t cover their faces. But they shouldn’t be allowed to wear clothes that completely cover their faces. This is American, we have American rules, and when you’re in American courts you have to do it our way. Civil law takes precedence over religious beliefs in this case. IMHO.
#18
Does anybody know why Detroit has the largest Muslim population?
To me, it’s like pirates being in a place far away from water. Like Nebraska. And I don’t mean for the amber waves of grain.
#34 because when you have nothing left to loose, you are unemployed, you have grown up in poverty and your family keeps breeding like fucking rabbits… you are a prime candidate for religions “enlightenment”.
I’m just waiting for the day when some nut job shows up in court in the full muslim regalia…with about 40 pounds of tnt strapped on.
OH how fickle the mob. We scream about religion because a judge wants a statue of the 10 commandments. YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. A judge’s courtroom is their turf, their sanctum, their rules, within the guidelines of the US Constitution. Anything else doesn’t apply. If a judge can’t have a 10 commandments sculpture on display because of separation of church & state, then the same thing goes for all the people that walk into the courtroom. I don’t care what religion you are or what your customs are, you’re on federal property and must abide within the rules of the court.
#36, sql,
Why not read the effen article before you come in your panties. Then try reading some of the opinions that prohibited the Ten Commandments on public property.
This is not Federal property. It was County Property. A Court is limited in how they can prohibit a person from expressing their religion. It would have to disrupt the court or interfere with the judicial process.
But just read the article moran.
The courts are in the right. At that point someone could walk in wearing a clown mask and ask for a name change. Sorry Ho, but there is a separation of church and state for a reason.
#38, assholetiki,
She wasn’t wearing a clown mask. She was wearing a headscarf that does not cover her face.
Ignorance is not an excuse for something already pointed out several times already.
Quote from TFA: In the 30-second video, the judge can be heard saying, “The head piece? No hats allowed in the courtroom.”
How ’bout an old lady with a wig on? Does she have to take that off & show the whispy little patch of hair that is all she has left? And sir, please remove that toupe.
On the other hand, a so-called niqab (also from TFA) that covers the face is pretty silly in a courtroom. Should not the judge be allowed to see who he’s dealing with? What if she comes back into his court at a later date & he didn’t see her the first time? Court has to be a “face-to-face” deal or your case gets thrown out. Not so tough to figure out.