That's the WSJ and the comments are very interesting....Should Witnesses be Allowed to Wear Niqabs While Testifying?
In our opinion, the best legal controversies arise when two compelling principles smack headlong into each other.Here’s one: should a devout Muslim woman be required to lift her veil when testifying in court? The issue pits two cherished American values: the desire to let people practice their religions freely against the desire for transparency and integrity within our justice system.
The issue has been kicking around courts in Michigan for some time, as it turns out. And the Michigan Supreme Court made a bit of news on the topic on Wednesday when it voted to give judges authority over how witnesses dress in court. The new statewide rule, which gives judges the authority to regulate the appearance of witnesses — such as asking them to remove face coverings, was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion. Click here for the AP story; here for the Detroit News story; here for the AP story.
According to the AP story, the issue arose recently in Michigan, which has a large Muslim population, when a Muslim woman went to small-claims court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into. Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnah Muhammad (pictured) he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. Muhammad refused, insisting on keeping her niqab on during the 2006 hearing. Judge Paruk dismissed the case, claiming he needed to see her face to determine her truthfulness.
Muhammad sued the judge in federal court, and lost. The case is currently on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
But after Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association lent their support to a court rule giving judges “reasonable” control over the appearance of parties.
one muslima hits the nail on the head for the planet without realizing it....
Huma wrote:
Absolutely ridiculous. Speaking as a Muslim woman who used to wear hijab and jilbab before 9/11/2001, when Muslim women who observed traditional form of Islamic dress like that were assaulted across the country,(WTF IS SHE TALKING ABOUT?) lifting the veil when it’s something you’ve committed to wearing is not possible. It is a non-negotiable matter. It is a commitment that a woman makes to God to cover her face from men that aren’t a part of her family, and no man-made law should be able to supplant it especially when we are fortunate enough to have safeguards like the first amendment available in this country.
Giving judges supposed ‘reasonable’ control over situations like these is terrible public policy because it in essence cuts off a portion of the American population (niqabis) from utilizing the justice system, leaving them with little effective recourse if they are wronged.
Absolutely ridiculous.
As my grandmama would say...."FARSHTAY?".
The point of democracy or a republic, is that WE MAKE THE LAW, and all other rules are subservient, of course.
Another commenter sums up the argument succinctly as well...
I would like to wear a paper bag over my head if I ever have to testify in court.
I wonder if Huma realizes she just delineated the fault line between Islam and freedom.
2 comments:
With so many religions and variations of religions in this world, people could come up with any variety of ways to use religion to subjucate man's laws. I, as a female do not see the forced use of the veil as freedom. And the women who stand up in defense of it are clearly brainwashed to the other implications and abuses that go along with it. I am glad the ruling was in the judges favor. We need to see more of these clearly enlightened judges stand up and uphold our laws and constitution. Christine
"It is a non-negotiable matter. It is a commitment that a woman makes to God to cover her face from men that aren’t a part of her family, and no man-made law should be able to supplant it."
This quote from the Muslim woman illustrates that she DOES NOT UNDERSTAND the essence of separation of Church and State. What you commit or promise to God and your faith is a separate matter from the laws of your land. To enact justice, police officers, a judge, jury and lawyers must be able to see one's face -- for identification of witnesses, clues and to make judgements regarding someone's veracity.
Post a Comment