Muslim Woman Jailed Over Head Scarf

What if a person is wearing a wig? Do judges have the discretion to order bald people (chemotherapy patients too) to remove headscarves, wigs etc? What about people who are concealing injuries or burn scars?
The public and the judge have the right to know about the condition of everyone's bouffet?
 
spidergoat said:
Since this rule applies equally to everyone, it seems fair.
Click to expand...

I Knew it was coming, but you missed the important part of this news... let me help you,

"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.'


So, there were no fucking rules. But you had to make an excuse, I can understand that.. :)
 
spidergoat said:
Since this rule applies equally to everyone, it seems fair.
Click to expand...
What rule is that?

The rule is left to the discretion of each individual judge:

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.
Click to expand...

Who obviously is a bit of an arse, as well as many others:

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.
Click to expand...

If she had broken the law, she would not have been released as she was.

"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.
Click to expand...

Would he or the security at the court have forced a nun to remove her 'head wear'? My guess the answer to that would be a no.
 
disease said:
What if a person is wearing a wig? Do judges have the discretion to order bald people (chemotherapy patients too) to remove headscarves, wigs etc? What about people who are concealing injuries or burn scars?
The public and the judge have the right to know about the condition of everyone's bouffet?
Click to expand...

No it was only applicable on head scarfs, they dont care of you wear anything else.

Imagine if this would have been done to "Yarmulke", oh dear, it would have been a major news for months, judge, including all the people involved would have been fired and jailed for life for their "crime". It is all okay because it happened to head scarf.
 
spidergoat said:
Since this rule applies equally to everyone, it seems fair.
Click to expand...

It will also help you if you read the rest of the news... it states three more cases by same judge. Aparently it is not a problem for other judges, only this one, your beloved judge had this issues :)
 
skywalker said:
..it was only applicable on head scarfs, they dont care of you wear anything else.
Click to expand...
Oh, right.
Good thing chemo patients don't wear those headscarf things then,

How would this judge react, if he was told he had to remove his trousers before being allowed in somewhere?
 
Bells said:
What rule is that?


Would he or the security at the court have forced a nun to remove her 'head wear'? My guess the answer to that would be a no.
Click to expand...


Bells, no one will give you honest answers to your questions. Just watch people making excuses here, I see it all the time. It is hard for some people to admit the bigotry and racisim. GA got some serious racist history, so the roots are very strong, she wasn't only muslim, she was Black as well. It was like oil on fire.
 
It's up to the judge and the judge said take it off.

That might suck, it might not be "fair" and her religious "feelings" might be trampled but I can't help but yawn at the responses this has provoked. So she can't wear a scarf in a courtroom? So fucking what. . .
 
No kidding. And she was stopped and told politely, she was the one who continued on claming she could wear it in other courts. It doesn;t matter if the last judge let you tap dance while giving opeing statements, if this one doesn't want to he doesn't have to. Not to mention she did utter an expletive which is a contempt of court issue as well
 
So a US judge can be as big an asshole as he likes, in "their courtroom"?

I would certainly be telling this judge, if I owned a restaurant, to take off his trousers in "my restaurant", or he'll be thrown onto the street by security. Since the Muslim woman was required by him to do the equivalent of undressing in public, he should have no problem having to comply with my rules (which apply only to old men wearing trousers, who happen to also be US court judges from Georgia).
 
countezero said:
It's up to the judge and the judge said take it off.

That might suck, it might not be "fair" and her religious "feelings" might be trampled but I can't help but yawn at the responses this has provoked. So she can't wear a scarf in a courtroom? So fucking what. . .
Click to expand...

On one hand, I'd agree with you. I get a little tired of hearing Muslims whining about persecution when someone dares to enforce the law against them. I'm willing to bet that had it been a teenager wearing a baseball cap or a pair of sunnies, the judge would have ordered him to remove them as well.

On the other hand, I've gotten the impression that judges tend to be on a power trip, ruling like deities over 'their' (actually the peoples') courtroom. Was it really necessary to make this such a big issue? If the scarf is so trivial, why not just let it slide?
 
disease said:
So a US judge can be as big an asshole as he likes, in "their courtroom"?
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. I hate that attitude. "My courtroom". Uhh, no, it's not your courtroom, it's the peoples courtroom. After all, the peoples taxes paid for it. The role of the judge is to ensure due process, not to act like some sort of fucking Gestapo.

I still can't decide what is worse. A Muslim thinking they are entitled to wear a piece of headgear in a public place, or asshole judges.
 
Many judges are on powertrips, but whether they are and whether this is "trivial" isn't the point.

This woman was asked to remove her headscarf, she refused and the judge responded. The appropriate thing to have done would be remove it and deal with the issue (if she wanted) later. Going to jail achieved what exactly? Nothing. Strike that. Now she will play the race/Muslim oppression card and file suit. Likely, this will be the best day of her life as it will equal some payout for "damages."

And disease, your arguments carry little water. The judge has a right to incarcerate people and deal with security inside his courthouse so far as the law allows. If you own a restaurant, you can enforce a dress and behavior code of some kind, but you can't de-robe people. And to follow your foolish analogy even further, clubs and restaurants limit what people can wear all the time. Hats and other headgear are typically restricted, so what's the difference?

The freedom to practice religion is not a warrant to dress and behave anyway you like. Nudists, for example, are not permitted to practice this belief in public. . .
 
I can say to anyone I like, in MY restaurant, that they must obey the dress code. Which for old geezers from Georgia, is sans trousers. Any expletives will be met with detainment for obscene language in a public place. I have a right to expel people and deal with security inside my restaurant so far as the law allows. The law says obscene language in public is a crime, therefore I would detain, restrain with plastic ties, and hand any perpetrator over to the authorities, and file charges.

Would a restaurant, or a nightclub do this to a chemotherapy patient? Or someone who was wearing a scarf to conceal a nasty scar or whatever? That security in a courtroom would hang on headscarf wearing, seems just a little thin, don't you think?
 
It doesn't matter what I think. The judge made a decision.

And yes, if you have a "no hat rule" at a club, I doubt they will let bald guys claiming to be chemo patients inside with hats.

And no, you cannot demand "no trousers" because that breaks existing laws.

In sum, stop trying to needle the real scenario with faux comparisons.

Again, the Constitutional freedom to practice religion is not a warrant to dress and behave anyway you like.
 
It doesn't matter what you think about nudism either. I made a decision about trouser wearers violating the dress code, so sorry, trousers are not allowed, especially on judges from Georgia. I would tell the judge there are tablecloths, he could wrap one around his skinny white legs, if the nudity was too much. Except he would not be nude, just showing a bit of leg.

The Justice Act is not a freedom to enact arbitrary dress-code rules, though. Maybe that applies to restaurant owners. Maybe I would have to restrict the code to this one particular judge? Maybe if I owned a nationwide chain of restaurants, I could embarrass the shit out of this "lawman", who thinks that's what the Act allows him.

P.S. Can you explain how a lack of trousers, is a breach of laws? What laws?
 
Last edited:
And here I thought the Bill of Rights gave the people of the US the right and freedom to exercise their religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top