  Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 387 Registered: 03-2006 |
Glad to see the Muslim folks are assimilating so well. I think it would be pretty tough to know if someone was lying in court with their face covered... http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070329/LIFESTYLE04/703290384  | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1245 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Yes she is. She seems to understand the constitution better than the judge does. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 840 Registered: 10-2003 |
What did the constitution say about muslim babes hiding their faces behind veils in court?... or would this be the "living document" interpretation of the constitution? | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 1781 Registered: 12-2005 |
Fashion Nazis should wear Mickey Mouse ears in court to demonstrate their dedication to their beliefs. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 345 Registered: 02-2006 |
Screw her. Play by the rules of where you live or live somewhere else. Do you think anyone of us could pull that sh** in the Middle East? | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 308 Registered: 11-2006 |
Weren't American women and others who went to the Middle East required to dress like them? I seem to remember Christiane Amanpour (sorry about the spelling) wearing some type of fabric head cover during a televised report on CNN. This type Muslim pisses me off. (Message edited by kathinozarks on March 29, 2007) | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 309 Registered: 11-2006 |
And another thing! Who the F does she (assuming it's a she) think she is? | ||
Barnesfoto Member Username: Barnesfoto Post Number: 3284 Registered: 10-2003 |
"Glad to see the Muslim folks are assimilating so well." Isn't this woman an American Convert? (In which case she is de-assimilating). | ||
Schoolcraft Member Username: Schoolcraft Post Number: 111 Registered: 07-2005 |
Vive la France!!! | ||
Rjk Member Username: Rjk Post Number: 657 Registered: 11-2003 |
I'm just glad Zenia hasn't bought into the head to toe black cover up. She's quite the looker. The other one, not so much. | ||
Gistok Member Username: Gistok Post Number: 3975 Registered: 08-2004 |
In the words of LIFE ON THE D LIST's Kathy Griffon when she visited the Middle East... "Burkha Bad!" | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 124 Registered: 02-2007 |
Pam - I don't get your point. No need to cite chapter in verse in the Constitution, but tell us how this woman is in the right. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1246 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Doesn't this fall under "freedom of religion"? I assume that is the basis of her lawsuit. | ||
Ookpik Member Username: Ookpik Post Number: 165 Registered: 01-2007 |
Per this sentence in the article, the veil does not appear to be part of any religious doctrine: "The Quran doesn't explicitly require women to cover their face, but many Muslim women wear a hajib or other covering as a sign of piety and modesty." | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1249 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Yeah I saw that but obviously she feels it is. Do you guys really think it is ok that the judge totally threw her case out? Sounds wrong to me. Who says you have to see someone's face in court? I thought video testimony was accepted in some cases. (Message edited by Pam on March 30, 2007) | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 564 Registered: 04-2006 |
'Per this sentence in the article, the veil does not appear to be part of any religious doctrine: "The Quran doesn't explicitly require women to cover their face, but many Muslim women wear a hajib or other covering as a sign of piety and modesty."' The Bible doesn't say you can eat shell fish. | ||
Rjk Member Username: Rjk Post Number: 658 Registered: 11-2003 |
"Who says you have to see someone's face in court? I thought video testimony was accepted in some cases." Then why to people have to show up in court? Maybe we should just be allowed to phone in our testimony? You mentioned people video taping testimony, but you still can see the face of that person. If I'm being sued by someone and the only thing I can see is their eyes how can I properly ID them? If I'm sitting on a jury and a person is testifying I'm looking directly at that person, listening and watching them. By wearing a veil this woman has effectively turned every person in the courtroom into a blind person. You have the right to face your accuser. Not the right to face a couple of eyes peeking out between a veil. | ||
Craig Member Username: Craig Post Number: 128 Registered: 02-2007 |
Pam - I believe that you're misinterpreting the Constitution on this one. We are free from the establishment of an official religion or religious practice, but I don't necessarily believe that this translate into protection of what this woman wants. In other words, there's a difference between "everyone must pray or place a hand upon the Bible" (not allowed) and the freedom to express one's religiosity in every way imaginable (e.g. prisoners requesting live animals to sacrifice for the practice of Santeira [sp?], which was not ruled as protected). I don't feel that having to show one's face upon demand (in court or at the Secretary of State's office) is asking too much, but that's a argument different from protected religious practice. Con Law experts: weigh-in now! | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1250 Registered: 11-2005 |
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs .dll/article?AID=2007703290412 Quote from link above: "Paruk said he needed to see Muhammad's face to gauge her truthfulness." This is what I was referring to. Sounds like something the judge just made up. I think he should have made some sort of attempt to accomodate her instead of just having a hissyfit and dismissing her case. | ||
Rjk Member Username: Rjk Post Number: 659 Registered: 11-2003 |
"This is what I was referring to. Sounds like something the judge just made up." Using non-verbal clues to help determine if someone is being truthful has been widely studied, this isn't something that this judge just pulled out of his ass. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1251 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: I know that, but is it a standard part of legal procedure that gives him legal recourse to throw out her case if he can't do it? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9327 Registered: 10-2003 |
Once again....add this to the cashier at Target who refused to scan pork products through her lane. How about these people who feel so "infringed upon" go back to where they came from and see how "free" it is there? | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1664 Registered: 11-2003 |
Although video depositions(testimony taken under oath before a certified court reporter with both counsel present) are common-place now, in the 60's thru the 70's, we had a lot of trial depositions which were taken of expert witnesses who did not come to court to testify, but instead their deposition was read to the jury. Often, the atty's law clerk would come over to court and play the part of the deponent(expert witness) and the atty would ask the questions and the clerk would answer them reading right from the deposition. Then the opposing atty would take up the cross-examination and the clerk would again play the part of the expert witness and proceed to again answer the questions posed in the deposition. This was done under the provisions of the Mich.General Court Rules relating to the use of depositions and depositions to be used at trial. Both expert AND non-expert witnesses were called to the witness stand in this manner. The judge NEVER saw the deponent( witness) nor did the jury. They just saw the law clerk or whomever was acting as the witness in a particular deposition. So the jury (or the judge if it was a bench trial wherein the judge is both acting as a judge and as the jury) never saw the "face of the witness to gauge his or her truthfulness". I had a malpractice case or two wherein the plaintiff died between the time her deposition was taken and the trial was conducted. So her deposition ( after agreed upon editing) was read to the jury. This will be an interesting case to follow. Emotions have and will continue to run high, but its a very interesting case from a purely legal standpoint. | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1340 Registered: 12-2004 |
I really wish women would stop wearing these things, as they seem to set humanity back thousands of years. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 56 Registered: 02-2007 |
I thought cases were decided on the preponderance of the evidence. Not the expression on one's face. I agree with Pam on this one. We have freedom of religion and expression. Larry Flynt wore a shirt into court with big bold letters "F&%$ this court" (replace symbols), he was taunting the Judge, but well within his rights. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8758 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: As long as you are only addressing the few and not Muslims and Americans of Middle East decent in their entirety. Every color, ethnicity, religious background, etc has a few that go overboard so let's make sure not to stereotype everyone. Not saying you are but it will certainly go down that path. | ||
Fnemecek Member Username: Fnemecek Post Number: 2416 Registered: 12-2004 |
In addition, there's one other interesting thing about this case. If I recall correctly, most interpretations of Islamic law forbid women from either a) driving a car or b) entering into a contract (such as a car rental agreement). A fundamental question then is: can someone pick & choose which precepts of a given religion they want to follow and still insist that the Court make accommodations for them? | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 760 Registered: 01-2005 |
Two of the issues in the ancient gesture of "coming to court" is the confrontation of your accuser. You often hear a prosecutor or defense attorney appeal to the jury to "judge for yourselves" whether this person is lying. Juries have to use their emotional intelligence and evaluate the sincerity and veracity of witnesses. Hard to do when a principal can hide expression. I don't think that we can wear bags over our heads when coming to court. It is not a religious issue, as it is established that such a covering is not required. It is cultural. I think the burka has no place on the witness stand. It is medieval, out of step with cultural enlightenment and un-American. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 589 Registered: 01-2005 |
The judge is immune from lawsuits such as this. It's a tempest in a teapot. This issue has come up many times in many jurisdictions and I believe the aggrieved party always loses. As it should be. | ||
6nois Member Username: 6nois Post Number: 135 Registered: 11-2006 |
I think as an american citizen she is well with in her rights to wear her veil. If that is how she dresses on a daily basis then she should be able to wear her vail. If you want America to be the land of the free you need to treat everyone with respect and dignity in regards to their customs. Flat out no way can you say otherwise. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1252 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Maybe she is an American citizen, maybe she was born here. Thanks Rock for presenting an actual legal point of view. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8764 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Isn't that the American way when it comes to religion? I think that is a clear sign that she is 'assimilating' | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 590 Registered: 01-2005 |
She's assimilated insofar as she apparently had no trouble finding a lawyer who was willing to file a frivolous lawsuit against a judge who is immune from such claims. Her appropriate remedy would be to appeal the dismissal to the Circuit Court. She did not do that because her lawyers knew she would lose. The lawyers who filed the suit should be appropriately sanctioned as permitted by the Court Rules. What say you,The_rock? | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8768 Registered: 10-2003 |
3rd - My comment was tongue in cheek. | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 762 Registered: 01-2005 |
"Larry Flynt wore a shirt into court with big bold letters "F&%$ this court" (replace symbols), he was taunting the Judge, but well within his rights." That was in the movie - I doubt very much that he did that in real life with no sanction. In real life: my crazy neighbors belonged to the Anti-Police Brutality Group and went to Federal Court when the Indicted 18 of the DPD 4th Precinct were on trial. The neighbor couple were wearing some sort of political tee-shirts that used an obscenity about the police. I was there and saw this: the Judge Avern Cohn said they had to remove the tee shirts and they refused. He said that he could hold them in contempt of court, but instead he would just have them removed and barred from coming into the court room in the future. Cut to the bailiffs escorting them out. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 808 Registered: 01-2006 |
Does she have a driver's license? or a State ID card? Both of these require photos of your face. Can you get a driver'license without a photo? What about when you go to bank or use a credit card, they (the banks and stores) ask for photo Id's. The last time I rented a car I was asked for photo ID. It would seem to me in order to function in America, one would need to show one's face at some point, right? Court may well be one of those places. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1666 Registered: 11-2003 |
As this case was filed in the Federal court, her appeal, if the case is dismissed without a hearing or if she loses after having had a hearing, would be to the Federal Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, and not to the Wayne County Circuit Court. I have not seen her Complaint, but I doubt if she is seeking money damages from the District Judge. Agreed, the judge has immunity if that is her claim, but I gather she is seeking relief "only" from the standpoint of her contention that her Federal(Civil) rights have been violated. I do not see the Federal Judge imposing sanctions on her attorney (Federal Rule 11 in my day) even assuming her day in court results with a dismissal of her action. I was a defense attorney for 36 years handling civil rather than criminal litigation before I retired, am probably a tad biased toward the defense and have seen my share of frivilous litigation ( at least so in my eyes), but I don't think the Federal Judge would look upon this case as being in that catagory. I have been away from the court room for 6 years now, so there are undoubtedly more able attorneys than I on this Forum who can better address the issues presented. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 591 Registered: 01-2005 |
T_r: Maybe I wasn't clear enough. She filed her lawsuit in the local MI District Court. Judge Paruk dismissed her lawsuit for failing to remove her veil. Her appropriate remedy was to appeal that decision to the Wayne County Circuit Court. Her lawyers should be sanctioned. | ||
_sj_ Member Username: _sj_ Post Number: 1775 Registered: 12-2003 |
What about the other parties freedom from her religion? Or the sixth-amendments right to face accuser in criminal court, it could be anyone up there. | ||
Oladub Member Username: Oladub Post Number: 22 Registered: 08-2006 |
English Quakers used to get tossed into jail for not doffing their hats to rich gentlemen. Amish Americans get into occasional trouble for their religious practices. The Quakers left England and the Amish are pretty much left alone in remote rural areas. Neither the Quakers nor the Amish intimidate anyone. Suing a judge, in this case, or the Flying Imams who may sue airline passengers for questioning their behavior, on the other hand, is intimidating. On the whole, I prefer neighbors who wear funny hats. Some western countries are considering a parallel sharia court system, as an alternative to constitutional courts, to accomodate their growing and dissatisfied Muslim populations. Of course, in some countries with sharia law, women can't drive cars. This plaintiff was in small claims court regarding her rented car. In Saudi Arabia, her court attire would would have been correct but she would have been dragged away by the religious police for driving a car. You can't win. | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 766 Registered: 11-2003 |
Assessing witness credibility is a fundamental element of fact-finding in a court of law, whether the factfinder is the judge or a jury. The factfinder is entitled to assess the entire demeanor of a witness, including facial expressions, in order to determine credibility. Our country is governed by statutory and common law, not religious doctrine or beliefs. If one wants to take advantage of our civil justice system, the same rules must be followed by all participants. Religious beliefs do not supplant the judicial rules of procedure and evidence. If not, where would one draw the line? The Klu Klux Klan claim certain religious foundations to their belilefs. Shouldn't they be able to wear their hoods into court? Certainly any judge needs to exercise sensitivity in these situations, but I just don't see how Judge Paruk was wrong in his handling of this case. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 321 Registered: 10-2003 |
Freedom of religion is fine and good, but it doesn't give you "extra rights" that others can't have. If I can't completely cover my face in court, than neither can anybody else. Play by the rules or find somewhere else to live. This country is more than tolerant of other cultures and religions. We do not need a seperate court system. If you don't like it, don't live here. Nobody is forcing you to leave here, but we are forcing you to show your face to those you would file a lawsuit against. (Message edited by johnlodge on March 30, 2007) | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 1282 Registered: 01-2005 |
Well said, Johnlodge. I concur 100%. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 35 Registered: 02-2007 |
I seem to remember reading something about this case long before the Judge threw it out last week. If my memory is correct, the lady in question is an American citizen, born here, raised here. She "converted" to her new religion in her adult life. That's fine, whatever floats your boat...but, in America we have laws that we are all required to abide by. No where else in this world is there such a free society. No where else does a country cater to the wishes and whims of others. We bend over backwards to accomodate people from other ethnic backgrounds. Press "1" for English, Spanish signs in Sears and Pennys. Would other countries accomodate us in the same way? I don't think so. Diane Sawyer had to wear a scarf when she interviewed the President of Iran, she has to dress according to rules that are applied to women when she visited countries that restricted women and what they wear. ONLY IN AMERICA would there even be this argument. How did this woman get a driver's license? How did she rent a car if she had this veil on? How does she function in her everyday life when she refuses to provide proper id? Is this REALLY the woman who rented the car in the first place (since she is refusing to show her face). She could conceivably rob, kill, defraud, break the law in any way, shape or form and who could identify her? She says her "constitutional rights" are being violated because a Judge, a respected juror, says she has to remove the veil and there's even a discussion amazes me. ONLY IN AMERICA!!! | ||
Southwestmap Member Username: Southwestmap Post Number: 765 Registered: 01-2005 |
Apropos of this discussion, the WSJ reports today on a trial in Turkey of an assassin of a Judge who had ruled that a Turkish kindergarten teacher's demotion for wearing a illegal head covering was legal. Turkey restricts veils in public buildings, including the courts, because it strictly enforces a secular government. From the BBC last May: "A gunman has killed a prominent judge and wounded four others in Turkey's highest administrative court in an attack he said was in retaliation for a recent ruling against a teacher who wore an Islamic-style headscarf, officials said. One of the judges, Mustafa Yucel Ozbilgin, was shot in the head in Wednesday's attack and died later in hospital, officials said. Four of the judges -- including Ozbilgin -- had voted in February against the promotion of a school teacher who wore an Islamic-style head scarf outside work. The fifth had voted in favor." The scenario is a little complicated. Evidently, she donned the veil each day while leaving work and was thought to be making an inadvertant political statement and impressing her students with the idea that being veiled is the better cultural thing. She refused to stop wearing the veil in sight of her students and was suing to overturn a subsequent demotion. | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 283 Registered: 08-2006 |
Evidently, shes not the only Muslim who is suing........ Guess theres easy money to be made. Get it while you can? Jane http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70330/ap_on_re_us/passengers_r emoved_lawsuit | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 592 Registered: 01-2005 |
How does this woman get through Security at the airport, where one must show a photo I.D? I'm on at least 80 flights a year and one frequently sees women in burkas and all are required to pass though w/ lifted veils. (I have a Saudi friend who claims that one may request a female security guard to check hr ID in an enclosed area w/o a veil but the TSA is under no obligation to accomodate a woman if they're too busy etc.) Well said Swingline and Johnlodge (and others.) Jtl: I know your comment was tongue in cheek but I liked yor use of the word "assimilate" and I wanted to follow up on your point whether serious or not. | ||
Pistonian_revolution Member Username: Pistonian_revolution Post Number: 84 Registered: 05-2006 |
im pretty shocked by the intolerance i am reading on this forum. it seems that many of you are not simply critical of her choice but also showing xenophobia and contempt for islam and arabic culture. who says that a person has to give up their cultural and religious traditions in order to assimilate to america? what does assimilation even mean? that they ought to become totally anglo-americanized, adopt christianity, wear nikes, dolce & gabbana, eat mcdonalds and practice intermarriage? i myself would be proud of living in a country that is tolerant and accepting of all religions and cultures. it seems that i unfortunately don't live a country such as this. for all of the readers from abroad who frequent this forum: this type of discriminatory attitude does not reflect the views of all detroiters, nor even a majority of detroiters. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9329 Registered: 10-2003 |
Jt1, You are correct. Not all people of muslim faith or whatever faith anyone wants to believe in. Just those who continually try to bend the rules and regulations to fit their agenda. N. American society isn't saying "don't wear the burka in public". Just like the person who wouldn't scan the pork. From my perception, if a person can't do the job as described then that person forfeits the right to that job. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 388 Registered: 03-2006 |
Pistonian_revolution - For Christ sake, how could you even tell the woman is the right person in court? Anyone could show up in her place and nobody would know. Is it intolerant to ask that someone show their face? You do not speak for all Detroiters or even most Detroiters so your last statement is pure speculation. | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 284 Registered: 08-2006 |
i myself would be proud of living in a country that is tolerant and accepting of all religions and cultures. it seems that i unfortunately don't live a country such as this ---------------------------- I think it was 3 years ago when the 2 Christian girls were held against their will because their hotel room was searched and a bible was found to be in their possesion in a Muslim country. I think they were both from Pennsylvania. Pistonian, they were then held against their will, and accused of trying to convert Muslims , which was untrue. Reread your statement please... Also, pistonian revolution, you have to have rules and regulations, PERIOD. What are the rules, what are the regulations. If we just allowed everyone to act as they feel, then you would have chaos. I think you are the one who needs re evaluate your last comment. What are the laws, what are the requirements in the judicial and court systems? If a person thinks a law is discrminatory, then they should seek to change it. If it is unfair, then it should be changed. You just cant do as you want and then whine when you dont get your way. Jane (Message edited by janesback on March 30, 2007) | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 36 Registered: 02-2007 |
Pistonian_revolution...you bet I am critical of her choice...not her choice of religion, but her choice to disregard the laws of our land. If she were black, green or red, it wouldn't matter. You don't go into a courtroom disguised or veiled unless you're in the witness protection program. A Muslim country would definitely NOT ALLOW an American to keep any of their cultural and religious traditions. Not only would they not allow it, but they would probably arrest you (or worse) if you don't. If I am not correct on this I would appreciate someone with any knowledge of Muslim culture to tell me otherwise. America IS a tolerant country, more tolerant than any country in the world. We have given in to many foolish demands and have changed many things in order to accomodate others. You do live in an accepting country...do you really think this forum would be possible somewhere else? Please don't speak for me. . | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 593 Registered: 01-2005 |
P=rev: You don't speak for the majority of Detroiters. If anything, you speak for a very small minority of fuzzy thinking, PC people who have no pride in the fact that this is the most tolerant country on the planet. It will never, however, be satisfactory to people like you, with your heads in the clouds. Now, fess up. You weren't serious were you? But, you got us all going. | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 57 Registered: 02-2007 |
What law did she break? I keep seeing she broke the law or "rule" or "regulation"? Just because someone doesn't fit your way of thinking and custom does not mean that they have broken any laws. If it's her custom to not show her face in public, then the court should respect that. There are better ways to handle this, and throwing the case out based solely on her garb was not one of them in my opinion. Couldn't they have taken her in private and asked to see her face for identification? | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 285 Registered: 08-2006 |
If it's her custom to not show her face in public, then the court should respect that ------------------------------ ------- lol, I was just thinking about the robbers and thugs that use a ski mask when they rob gas stations and convenience stores. I guess they can use the same type of attitude when it comes time to standing in line for a witness to pick them out I can just hear it now "But judge, I need to wear my ski mask because it follows under my beliefs" The belief that if he were to remove it, he would be picked out of the line. The things people do. I understand her religious beliefs to a degree, but we have to adhere to who is in charge of the court room, whether it is a security guard, a baliff or the judge. I know for a fact that a judge can ask a man to remove his hat if he does indeed wear one in a court room. I also know that they can ask you to remove your sunglasses. I dont see men screaming about this . Again, I am with American buyer on this. I think shes using this to make money . I too also thought it was against the muslim beliefs for women to drive cars in the first place. So just how religious is this woman? Jane | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1261 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Because she feels it is part of her religion, it is not just an article of clothing. quote: Where did it say anything about money in either of the articles linked to? quote: It does not mention suing for damages. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 389 Registered: 03-2006 |
Pam - You seem to missing the fact that a person who has made a choice to adopt an extreme version of a religion which is totally incompatible with American laws and values. Why should the AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM make exceptions for her? Maybe she should emigrate to a country that embraces these values. To allow her to cover herself opens up a tremendous can of worms. It starts us down the path of allowing a different system of justice based on religion or nationality. Today it is the right to wear the veil, tomorrow it is Sharia Law for Muslims in the USA. Don't laugh, it is already happening in Europe. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 810 Registered: 01-2006 |
From the The Volokh Conspiracy blog. http://www.volokh.com/posts/ch ain_1166121763.shtml The transcript from the first trial. And some other thought on this matter. Makes for a interesting read. | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1223 Registered: 02-2005 |
You're right about witnesses Therock, and I'm a couple of more years removed from the law than you. Other than cases where the witness' life may have been in danger because of his/her testimony (such as in testimony against a criminal), I'm not aware of any other cases where someone was allowed to testify without exposing their face. As I understand the article, she was the defendant in the original case with Enterprise where the judge refused her testimony. Do you think your analogies about witnesses would also apply to parties in the case? BTW, I have no problem with the judge's decision. It will be interesting to see in her suit, if the judge has his 6th amendment right to face his accuser. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 390 Registered: 03-2006 |
Mthouston - Thanks for the link to the transcript. I think the judge was being reasonable, he wasn't denying her justice, he was merely saying he wanted to observe her facial expressions in order to ascertain her credibility which in a "he said, she said" kind of case is one of the few methods you have. Most religious people that are reasonable know that there are times when they have to suspend certain customs of their religion in certain situations. God understands. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on March 30, 2007) | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 594 Registered: 01-2005 |
She was the Plaintiff. Enterprise was the Defendant. Thanks, Mthouston, for posting the transcript. The judge was very tactful and reasonable. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 37 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: Just because someone doesn't fit your way of thinking and custom does not mean that they have broken any laws. Okay, maybe the judge should make the exception and allow her to wear her veil because of her religious beliefs. Then why not allow others who believe it's alright to bury women up to their necks and stone them to death because they committed adultery. Or, why not allow women of certain cultures to circumcise their female daughters because IT'S their religious belief. Where do you draw the line people? If an American goes to Iraq, Iran, Mexico, Africa, wherever....they lose certain privileges and rights. In most countries, Americans HAVE NO RIGHTS. We have bent over backwards to accomodate people of all cultures and we are giving our country away in the process. Where are MY rights? (Message edited by Buyamerican on March 30, 2007) | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 58 Registered: 02-2007 |
""Where do you draw the line people?"" With our judicial system, All Americans have the same rights and we all have to abide by the same laws. I'm not an attorney, don't even play one on the internet, I would think burying anyone up to the neck against their will would wind one up in the slammer. Just a wild guess. ""If an American goes to Iraq, Iran, Mexico, Africa, wherever....they lose certain privileges and rights. In most countries, American HAVE NO RIGHTS."" Well that tends to happen when we leave the US. Different country, different laws. And we aren't a CITIZEN. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 38 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote: Well that tends to happen when we leave the US. Different country, different laws. And we aren't a CITIZEN. You just proved my point. Of course, burying a woman up to her neck is ridiculious, but it's a religions belief of some. If we give in to one, we give in to all. When in America, different country, different laws. You come here, you abide by the laws, plain and simple. It's not too hard to understand. If she doesn't like removing her veil for the judge, or doesn't like to have photo i.d. taken of her, then my suggestion would be go to the country where her religious beliefs are appreciated and forget driving a rental car because women have no rights, period! She doesn't know how good she has it. (Message edited by Buyamerican on March 30, 2007) | ||
Sstashmoo Member Username: Sstashmoo Post Number: 59 Registered: 02-2007 |
Quote "When in America, different country, different laws. You come here, you abide by the laws, plain and simple."" Oh I agree 100% The problem with that is she wasn't breaking any laws. I keep seeing references made to the middle east. This lady is an US citizen. What they do over there is irrelevant. All Americans are protected under the constitution, even her. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 329 Registered: 11-2006 |
So, I could go to court covered in black from head to toe with only an opening for my eyes and that would be acceptable? I'm a U.S. citizen. Is that my constitutional right? Am I protected too? Sure would save me the hassle of finding the right outfit to wear on the stand! | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 41 Registered: 02-2007 |
If a judge "asks" her to remove the veil and she refuses, then he "orders" her to remove her veil and she refuses, she is in contempt of court. The judge did the proper thing by throwing this case out of court. She was not willing to testify, face to face with her accuser, and that is a right as an American that she should cherish. Instead, she is making a mockery of the courtroom. I, as an American citizen, would never consider disobeying a judges orders while in a courtroom, I have too much respect for the system. She is an American citizen and therefore, she should know what the rules of a courtroom are. Actually, I am beginning to thing that she has spent some time in a courtroom before and doesn't want anyone to recognize her. Does anyone know if she has a photo I.D.? How did she get a drivers license? Is she even the person involved in this case in the first place? Could it have been someone else? Did the car rental company rent the car to her while she was covered with the veil? How is anyone to know if she refuses to identify herself. Saying who she is and actually being that person leaves a lot to be desired. In her "adopted" country if I were a woman, I'd probably have my head lopped off, then they'd remove the veil and hang my head in the town square and that would be the end of that! | ||
Mike Member Username: Mike Post Number: 884 Registered: 11-2003 |
I keep reading about how that if this was in a muslim country etch etc, etc the point is that we are not... we are not those countries, and hopefully, never will be. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 43 Registered: 02-2007 |
....but Mike, (veiled) religious fanatics are in your face (pardon the pun) today, refusing to at least conform in a courtroom. It's very scarey to watch our country giving the store away and buckling under pressure for "their" rights when, in fact, they only have rights in America because we've allowed them to be here (unless they are illegal). Become an American citizen, practice your religion, be a productive citizen...but don't expect the justice system to let you get away with breaking a law and then label it a "religious belief" and expect to get away with it. | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 331 Registered: 11-2006 |
Buyamerican, I concur! | ||
Ccbatson Member Username: Ccbatson Post Number: 249 Registered: 11-2006 |
First, what are the actual laws on the matter (regardless of this case, religion, etc). If you can't cove your face, why? If reasonable and within the authority of the court to demand it be removed, then so be it. If it is not prohibited, or the reason for its' prohibition can be effectively satisfied within the law, then freedom of expression and religion should prevail. It is not to say that the courts endorse a person's beliefs (or not), it is that our system endorses and protects a persons' rights (whether they are popular or not). | ||
Royce Member Username: Royce Post Number: 2150 Registered: 07-2004 |
The question I ask in cases like this is, "Which comes first: following the laws of one's religion or following the laws of one's country?" My answer is usually: following the laws of one's country. If someone's religion says that it's OK for them to sacrifice a child during a religious ritual, then are they exempt from murder because under their religion that law is acceptable? Or does the laws of the country, which state that murder is wrong supercede the laws of that person's religion? In the case of murder it's a no brainer: the laws of the country supercede the laws of someone's religion. Now, can this reasoning be applied to every case? I don't see why not. (Message edited by royce on March 31, 2007) | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1263 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: If she was in contempt then he could have charged her with that. That is not the same thing as totally throwing her case out. According to the transcript, she said she would take the veil off in front of a female judge. Would it really have been that big of a deal to postpone and try to find one? A lot of cases get venue changes for various reasons don't they? What do you say Rock? quote: I thought freedom of religion was an American value. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 595 Registered: 01-2005 |
There are rules and criteria governing changes of venue, which is at the discretion of the judge. As the judge pointed out, SHE chose the venue. | ||
The_rock Member Username: The_rock Post Number: 1668 Registered: 11-2003 |
The plaintiff and her atty were on CNN last night,her gripe seemingly being that the court bailiff first told her it would be alright going into the courtroom wearing her garb, and then when she got her hearing before Judge Paruk, he had a different view. She repeated the bailiff-envolvement story again during her interview. She was really "covered" from head to toe, even wore matching black gloves. All I can say is that she seemed articulate, had a soft, almost childlike voice. Her interview was followed by a 3 panel member debate which was the usual made-for-tv debacle, with each of the panelists constantly interrupting each other, each trying to slam their point home. I switched over to the Red Wings game. Wings lost, I don't know who "won" the debate. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 811 Registered: 01-2006 |
quote: Yes, it is a "American value". However America values do not supersede the rule of law. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 44 Registered: 02-2007 |
I am sure she is a very articulate woman, but she needs to remember where she is. First and foremost, she needs to remember that had she been living in her adopted country, there would be no problems with a rental car because women (except under strict permission) are not allowed to drive, let alone show their faces, so she's lucky to be in America and lucky to have the option to change her religion and practice it. I am not a lawyer and have only been in a courtroom as a member of a jury, but am I mistaken or is there such a thing as being able to "face" your accuser? I wish I knew the entire story, did she wear her veil while renting the car, did she have proper photo i.d. that the agent could verify, did she, in fact, rent the car or have another person represent her to rent the car. Did she have auto insurance that would have most certainly covered this. In my experience with a rental car, you have to produce insurance or purchase it from the rental agency, therefore it would have been covered. | ||
Rjk Member Username: Rjk Post Number: 660 Registered: 11-2003 |
"According to the transcript, she said she would take the veil off in front of a female judge. Would it really have been that big of a deal to postpone and try to find one?" Is it right that a very small group of people can request a different judge while everyone else is subject to having to deal with the judge who was randomly selected for their case? You're basically giving this woman or her lawyer in certain situations a choice as to whether they want the current judge or they want to shuffle the deck and try a different judge. Clearly this woman wants a different judge, but I don't know if it's a good precedent to set by giving a person a choice once they walk into a courtroom. If I'm being sued or suing this woman I want a judge who was randomly picked, not one that fits her specific needs. Also what about the person(s) from the rent-a-car company who showed up to court and was ready to have the case heard? (Message edited by rjk on March 31, 2007) | ||
Swingline Member Username: Swingline Post Number: 767 Registered: 11-2003 |
I've said earlier in this thread that I believe that the woman is wrong in her belief as to what Michigan law provides for someone in her situation. But I also agree with what Pistonian_revolution has said quote: P_rev is correct, these kinds of attitudes are xenophobic and intolerant: quote:Our focus should be on what our law requires for people in her situation, not suggesting that people like her should go the fuck back to where she came from. (she's American born as I understand) That's the kind of ugly American attitude that has contributed to our pariah status in much of the Third World. | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 46 Registered: 02-2007 |
Swingline, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The same analogy applies to this woman. There comes a time when everyone needs take responsibility for their actions. She's trying to avoid the REAL reason she is in court by making this a "religious belief" issue. She owes Enterprise money, pay it and be done with this. Also, some of the quotes you pointed out are very true. None of us could pull this in a Muslim country. Would a Muslim country permit me to carry a bible inside one of their courtrooms? If anyone, American or otherwise, doesn't agree with things here, the great thing about America is...you have the freedom to leave and pursue your beliefs elsewhere. | ||
Mthouston Member Username: Mthouston Post Number: 812 Registered: 01-2006 |
quote: I think it might be spelled out in the Forth Amendment. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. How can one confront his or her's accuser if they are veiled? | ||
Janesback Member Username: Janesback Post Number: 286 Registered: 08-2006 |
Would a Muslim country permit me to carry a bible inside one of their courtrooms? ------------------------------ --- BuyAmerican, you are correct in what you ask. I think it was a few years ago when the 2 girls from Pennsylvania were held and accused of trying to convert Islams to Christianity. They were held for a while and quite shaken up when their hotel room was searched and a bible was found. It was pretty scary for these young girls. I think you are correct, if someone doesn't like the laws of a country, they can leave. Look at France, there was recently a murder when a judge said it was illegal for a teacher to wear her wrap/veil to teach in the classroom. Some deranged Islam fanatic came back and shot the judge and 3 other individuals, killing the judge. I guess if they dont like something they can always attack the subway systems and burn cars like they have recently done. So much for progress.... Jane | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 47 Registered: 02-2007 |
God Bless America...it's not perfect but I wouldn't be anywhere else in this world. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1264 Registered: 11-2005 |
Qutoe from the Freep link: quote: Hey an actual legal expert thinks her case might have merit. Why are most of you so quick to judge that she is in the wrong? I think it is bigotry. Just because she is different or looks "funny" or is one of "those people" or whatever other ridiculous reasons given here doesn't mean she has no rights. We will have to wait and see what the decision is. (And what other countries' legal systems are really has no bearing either. That will not affect her suit, so who cares?) | ||
Chuckles Member Username: Chuckles Post Number: 76 Registered: 02-2007 |
This Muslim woman and people like Pam,carrying her water, are why America is in such a state of moral decay today... regards | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 336 Registered: 11-2006 |
swingline and pistonian, I've been looking at the picture of the woman and, dang, she is scary looking in all that black. If I saw her driving a car or shopping I would naturally do a double-take! "Luke, I'm your fahtha". I think she has personal issues that compel her to draw attention to herself. Muslim or Christian, I bet she has some hidden 'issues' that, if we found out more about her, would make us say, "oh, she's a bit nuts!" | ||
Kathinozarks Member Username: Kathinozarks Post Number: 337 Registered: 11-2006 |
Oh, and what is Sandra Bulluck doing in that picture? | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 1267 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: I thought the reason was ignorance and intolerance. We should all care if in fact her civil rights are being denied. Next time it could be you. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 391 Registered: 03-2006 |
Wow, it took longer than usual for the libs to start calling everyone that doesn't agree with them racist. I am glad to see everything is back to normal, I was afraid we were on the verge of having an actual intellectual debate. I hate to burst your bubble Pam, but the Muslim religion is not tolerant at all. Just look at anywhere in the world where it is in the majority. These are some of the most intolerant and oppressive nations on earth. The USA, on the other hand is pretty damn tolerant, which is one of the reasons millions seek to emigrate here every year. I have to question your credibility, your first instinct is to criticize your own country and its citizens as intolerant, yet you totally ignore the fact that this woman would have virtually no rights at all if Islam were in the majority here. People like you are always trying to advertise their moral superiority by claiming to support "civil rights" even though you know damn well that asking that someone to reveal their face in a court of law is totally reasonable. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on March 31, 2007) | ||
Buyamerican Member Username: Buyamerican Post Number: 48 Registered: 02-2007 |
Pam, I don't remember saying the lady looked "funny" or "is one of those people", correct me if I am wrong. My stand is that she, like all Americans, must abide by the laws of the land, even if she doesn't like them. There are many rules, regulations, laws, do's and don't do's that I am not crazy about, but I obey them. You found one opinion on one link that supports your beliefs and that is good. If you read the transcript of the case, you'll see that the judge was very fair with the lady, told her that he had encountered people in his courtroom with various religious beliefs before then he gave her an option. She chose to stand by her religion and he dismissed the case. I do have a very strong feeling that this lady is hiding something or from someone...sorry, that's the "image" she is projecting. | ||
Mml665 Member Username: Mml665 Post Number: 5 Registered: 02-2007 |
I would like to add that the Islamic religion does not teach intolerence. In fact the issue shouldn't be the Islamic religion at all. The lack of equal rights in the mid east is due more to politics and lack of progress in society. These parts of the world are not changing with the times they are resisting and that is the problem. The fact that the predominant religion is Islam has nothing to do with the civil, social or political issues within these regions. The Islamic religion itself does not teach all of this hate the people keep bringing up, it is just the fact that a few jackasses choose to manipulate the teachings to gain followers and brainwash people is another hill of beans. | ||
Chuckles Member Username: Chuckles Post Number: 78 Registered: 02-2007 |
BS..... In America we have separation of Church and State. In the Middle East it is mostly Church (Islam) controls the State. Pure and simple... regards | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 392 Registered: 03-2006 |
Mml665 - You are extremely naive in your assessment of Islam as it is being practiced around the world. Even many Muslims in Western nations state they would prefer to live under Sharia Law. Here is just a small excerpt of what that would mean, straight from the Quran: * Wine-drinking and, by extension, alcohol-drinking, punishable by flogging * Unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging for unmarried offenders and stoning to death for adulterers * False accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, punishable by flogging * Theft, punishable by the amputation of a hand * Highway robbery, punishable by amputation, or execution if the crime results in a homicide. (Message edited by perfectgentleman on March 31, 2007) | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 640 Registered: 09-2006 |
"Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." It does not state explicitly how this confrontation takes place just that it must. There would still be a confrontation veil or no veil, according to the language of that amendment nothing is out of order in this case. It is more so our custom that she is offending by wearing her veil in court than any actual law, seeing how she hadn't been charged with anything. Mind you I could be wrong in my interpretation of this amendment I am not a lawyer yet. "I hate to burst your bubble Pam, but the Muslim religion is not tolerant at all. Just look at anywhere in the world where it is in the majority. These are some of the most intolerant and oppressive nations on earth. The USA, on the other hand is pretty damn tolerant, which is one of the reasons millions seek to emigrate here every year." I believe you are mistaking culture in the Islamic regions with the religion itself. Nothing in the Quran specifically states that women must wear the veil, it is strictly Arab culture the same Arab culture that has a tendency to be intolerant and oppressive, at least in our views, of other citizens. Not the religion. PG, lets not act like America is the bastion of tolerance because surely it isn’t. Our track record of intolerance is just as long as some of these countries you are bashing. We are in fact being intolerant by enforcing this attitude of assimilate or relocate that has been repeated frequently in this thread. I see no harm personally with this woman wearing her veil, it does not violate law and it don’t see how it can put the opposition in a court case at a disadvantage since the outcome of the case is supposed to be decided by the facts and nothing more. Stating how middle astern countries are so intolerant compared to ours and how she should be lucky to even be allowed to drive as some posters have is pointless. This is America, the land of the free, she is not lucky to have these rights she is supposed to have them, these are not luxury options these are standards. We are supposed to set the example for other countries to follow not harp about how they don’t do it so why should we. I think all of this is only a issue because the Muslim is the American boogey man of today. Their culture their religion is all feared by the majority Anglos just like the blacks before them they will continue to be ostracized until a new boogey man is created. | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 641 Registered: 09-2006 |
Provide us with the specific text in the Quran that backs up your assertions PG. | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 393 Registered: 03-2006 |
Mayor_sekou- Are you actually saying that the "culture" in Islamic nations has nothing to do with Islam? Is it a coincidence? This is the most amazing rationalization I have ever heard! | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 325 Registered: 10-2003 |
Perfectgentleman, Sorry this quote is from so far back, but this thread has been HOT. "Most religious people that are reasonable know that there are times when they have to suspend certain customs of their religion in certain situations. God understands." Wow, I think that pretty much says it all. Best statement on the whole thread if you ask me. | ||
Patrick Member Username: Patrick Post Number: 4187 Registered: 10-2003 |
All women are beneath men in Muslim society. Guess that's why they are forced to wear those stupid veils. Islam has a long way to go...long way! | ||
Mayor_sekou Member Username: Mayor_sekou Post Number: 642 Registered: 09-2006 |
That is a great statement Johnlodge that’s how I'd act. PG, Did the past cultures of slavery and the holocaust have something to do with Christianity? Or is there a difference in the teachings of Jesus and the culture of those who allegedly follow them? |
