Muslim Woman Goes to Jail Cause She Didn't Take Headscarf Off

[Evandril]

Looking into it a bit, it seems like the 'no headgear' law is purely for etiquette reasons, and, while it seems to be enforced equally across the board (hence no Constitutional violation), it does seem like a poorly thought out rule.

Link I found concerning it from a legal standpoint. http://volokh.com/posts/1229525304.shtml

According to the link, other religions that mandate headgear also were treated the same way, but cannot verify that (Well, not putting the effort into doing so, at least ) Here are two quotes from two different courtrooms policies, as well, which is where I got the 'etiquette' idea.



There is a dress code in Recorder's Court. No shorts, cut-offs, halter-tops, hats or flip-flops of any kind are allowed. In addition, shoes and shirts are required. Casual or business dress is suggested. Also, no weapons, cellular phones or pagers are allowed in the courtroom.



Courtroom Etiquette

Civilian Dress - Civilians entering the courtroom must abide by the dress code as set forth by the Sheriff of Greene County and must not commit any violations of indecent exposure. Any individual violating such law may be subject to arrest and/or refused entrance into the courtroom. Individuals wearing improper court attire, such as tank tops, shorts, or not wearing shoes, unless approved by the presiding judge, may be refused entry into the courtroom and may be asked to change their clothing before entry is allowed. Men wishing to enter the courtroom will not be allowed to wear a hat or head covering during any session, except by permission of the presiding judge.

[Sylvia727]

In Western culture, removing headgear is a sign of respect, and it's not wrong of the judge to enforce respectful behavior in a courthouse. However, he went wrong when he extended his notions of etiquette to someone whose beliefs were in direct conflict with this. Someone refusing to remove a baseball cap or a ten gallon hat coud reasonably be said to be insulting the judge and the court with their headgear. The hat has no special purpose, and our culture does associate a bare head with humility and respect. But a Muslim woman in full religious garb could not be said to be insulting anything, unless someone found her expression of religion offensive. Requiring her to expose the parts of her body that she considers sacred is a violation of civil rights.

If this woman was a nun wearing a habit, would they still require her to remove the veil before entering the courthouse? Nuns are the Brides of Christ, and many orders keep themselves covered to represent their consecration to God. Somehow, I doubt that nuns are subject to the same requirement. Optimistically, perhaps nuns and their traditions are better understood by our heavily Christian society. Pessimistically, perhaps the court officials are ethnocentric.

[crazylegs]

The Qur'an instructs Muslims to dress in a modest way.
The 31st verse of Surah an-Nur states,

“ And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings (khimars) over their bosoms (jaybs), and not display their ornaments except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments.
And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.

Emphasis mine.

It is a requirement within their religion to wear a head dress, by ordering her to remove it the judge is impinging a restricion upon her religious beliefs. Would he order a sikh male to remove his turban, a cardinal to remove his skull cap or a nun to remove her wimple? What would your reactions be if these examples were the case...?

[daleduke17]

It is a requirement within their religion to wear a head dress, by ordering her to remove it the judge is impinging a restricion upon her religious beliefs. Would he order a sikh male to remove his turban, a cardinal to remove his skull cap or a nun to remove her wimple? What would your reactions be if these examples were the case...?

If I was the judge, yes. Although most current days nuns don't wear the traditional habits anymore (at least from what I've seen), so it more than likely wouldn't be a problem.

[Slytovhand]

I'm thinking (and hoping) that the judge was merely enforcing a regulation without respect towards whom it was directing to.

The problem here isn't really the judge, nor the decision. The problem is that the law doesn't at this moment in time take all people's beliefs into consideration. Hopefully, this situation will change soon....

(not saying the judge doesn't have racist tendencies, anyway....). I'm hoping the judge would at least ask a nun to remove her wimple. Hopefully, also, he'd do her for contempt if she refused as well...

[crazylegs]

If I was the judge, yes. Although most current days nuns don't wear the traditional habits anymore (at least from what I've seen), so it more than likely wouldn't be a problem.

They may not wear the full traditional garb but many still wear a head dress of some description.

It's interesting that you didn't state your preference towards the other two examples I gave though.

[AFPheonix]

I'm thinking (and hoping) that the judge was merely enforcing a regulation without respect towards whom it was directing to.

The problem here isn't really the judge, nor the decision. The problem is that the law doesn't at this moment in time take all people's beliefs into consideration. Hopefully, this situation will change soon....

(not saying the judge doesn't have racist tendencies, anyway....). I'm hoping the judge would at least ask a nun to remove her wimple. Hopefully, also, he'd do her for contempt if she refused as well...

It's not a law. It is the judge's preference that no headgear be worn in his court. The article even states that the state law does not allow or disallow hats or scarves in the courtroom.
Not even all that long ago women here in the US wore hats and it was acceptable to have them on in places like courtrooms. Men removed hats out of deference to people in power, women kept them on out of fashion and modesty.
The judge and his bailiffs were out of line entirely. While I'd hate to think that the judge was discriminating against muslims, I have a sneaking hunch that might have been in the back of his mind when he made his decision.

[Slytovhand]

AFP, I don't disagree about what was going on in the back of his head.

Sorry, I said 'law' instead of 'policy'...even though it was 'at the discretion of the judges and sherriffs'.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court,

One thing I didn't comment on, was the comments at the bottom of the article. Gotta love racist morons, especially when they have no idea about history. But then, that's what helps keep them ignorant.

[MannersMakethMan]

It seems to me if the woman was dressed as in the picture, there didn't ought to be a problem with it. This is one of those examples where they can be accommodating towards another persons religion without poking great holes in procedure. Seeing as state law neither permits nor prohibits headscarfs, why shouldn't she be allowed to dress faithfully to her religion, provided she'd passed the relevant security?

I'd draw the line at the burqua, because it is important to be able to see people reactions, but innocent enough expressions of religion like a hijab, a kippah, a turban or a wimple ought to be fine. Surely we're mature enough to work with and respect people on this?

[Flyndaran]

A headscarf is pretty form-fitting. It's not a loose piece of clothing like a t-shirt or a baggy pair of jeans. If you are hiding a gun in it, it will be quite noticeable that you are concealing something.

Not all contraband are guns. Most involve drug smuggling to soon to be imprisoned defendents, etc.

[Flyndaran]

Is the headgear really a necessary part of Islam as in it's in the Koran? I thought it was a cultural thing that got smacked into those other holy books.

I find religion frightening and somewhat stupid. But even if I were king of the world I wouldn't screw over people of religion if they aren't screwing over someone else.

If we wanted absolute transparency in a courtroom then it should be closed to the public and everyone else should be stark naked. But our CULTURE demands certain amounts of clothing. Just because this woman had one more article than american average, does not give anyone the right to dictate a naked head.

[Greenday]

Not all contraband are guns. Most involve drug smuggling to soon to be imprisoned defendents, etc.

Didn't think drugs would get in that way. I always figured someone paid off the guards.

[MadMike]

If the court rule is "no head gear" and it is being applied equally, there is no racism or other bullshit to be said.

The key word here is "if." Would the judge also ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke? If so, then I'd agree with you. If not, then I'd have to say there is racism.

[anriana]

The key word here is "if." Would the judge also ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke? If so, then I'd agree with you. If not, then I'd have to say there is racism.

How is discriminating against a religion racism?

[Evandril]

From the link I posted, the rule has been enforced with different religions, not just Muslums.