Muslim Woman Jailed Over Head Scarf

[John99]

Bells, why dot you start trouble in your own country? mkay?

 

[John99]

oh, and Bells in case you missed the other post - it is not allowed at universities in Turkey. Turkey is what 90% Muslim?

 

[distantcube]

Stunning indeed..

Indeed. I'd argue that asking someone to remove a headscarf as a security measure is quite reasonable, and demonstrates no religious prejudice. Unless you feel that individuals of particular religions deserve special treatment?

Valentine said she would have had no problem with allowing a female officer to check under her head scarf to make sure she did not pose any danger.

Valentine said that when she told the judge what had happened, he sentenced her to 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

The key words being 'Valetine said'. Why are you willing to accept this woman's testimony as gospel? Because she's black? Because she's Muslim? Ahh, your bias is becoming crystal clear.

But it wasn't for a security check.

Which is why she was asked to remove it at a *security checkpoint*? Gee, it couldn't have possibly been for security reasons, it *must* have been because the officer (and judge) were bigots, right? Again, it's clear that your interpretation of events and motives is pretty biased.

It was because of a 'no headwear' rule the judge had..

But didn't you post an article stating that the judge did *not* have a 'no headwear' rule, and did indeed allow people with special needs wear headgear in the court?

but what the security officer did not seem to understand or know is that she actually was allowed to wear it in the court

Which doesn't change the fact that she needs to remove it, at least temporarily, as a security measure.

Actually no. The innocent woman you just referred to as a "silly bitch" had done nothing wrong

No, sorry, the woman was not innocent, and had indeed done something wrong. Which is why she was arrested and held in contempt of court. At first I was a little sympathetic, because I thought that the judge was being a cock by getting anal over the 'no headgear' rule. But when I discovered that this occurred at a security checkpoint, any remaining sympathy faded away.

Lastly, the scarf worn by the woman is called a 'hijab'. And referring to Muslims or Arabs as "ragheads" is racist and offensive. But it is interesting to see how you lean..

How do I lean? Where did I claim that the woman was a raghead?

 

[countezero]

Lets keep things in perspective, shall we?

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL0583906420080605

That article is pretty old.

AK actually wasn't disbanded, and Erdogen, the fellow who founded it, is a pretty legit leader -- though, he has said some stupid things in his zeal to embrace all things Islamic. He famously told Muburak, for instance, that he admired the Muslim Brotherhood. Muburak told him that if he liked them so much he could take them back to Ankara with him.

As a test case, the head scarf issue and Turkey are exceptions. Ataturk specifically banned them when he created the Turkish state. He also cracked down on Islamic parties. Subsequent generations have done the same. Turkey, being Muslim, should probably have Islamic political parties, as banning them and whatnot has radicalized many who otherwise would be centrist, but the issue there is complicated. The military is very secularized, and they are the ultimate gatekeepers in Turkey.

 

[Bells]

Indeed. I'd argue that asking someone to remove a headscarf as a security measure is quite reasonable, and demonstrates no religious prejudice. Unless you feel that individuals of particular religions deserve special treatment?

And as the article pointed out, a female security officer could have taken her aside and 'checked' if there was anything underneath said hijab and then contacted the Judge for the religious allowance to be made for her. But the security guard failed to do so. She was ordered to 'take it off'.

The key words being 'Valetine said'. Why are you willing to accept this woman's testimony as gospel? Because she's black? Because she's Muslim? Ahh, your bias is becoming crystal clear.

The police department who investigated the whole saga seem to believe and agree with her. Do you think they're doing it because she's black and a Muslim? Are you going to accuse them of bias as well?

Which is why she was asked to remove it at a *security checkpoint*? Gee, it couldn't have possibly been for security reasons, it *must* have been because the officer (and judge) were bigots, right? Again, it's clear that your interpretation of events and motives is pretty biased.

Had you read the original article and many posted since then, you would have realised that she was asked to remove the hijab because the security guard manning the "check point" did so because of the judge's rules. Had you actually read the words in the articles provided, you would have realised that while the Judge had a 'no headwear' rule, he had in the past made special allowances for religious and medical reasons. What is clear is that the police department have seen that a bias did exist since they are sending the police officers involved, the security guards and the judge to special sensitivity training. What does that tell you of their interpretation of the events?

But didn't you post an article stating that the judge did *not* have a 'no headwear' rule, and did indeed allow people with special needs wear headgear in the court?

Reading and comprehension tend to go hand in hand. You should try it sometime.

The Douglasville police news release said that although Rollins prohibits head coverings in his courtroom, he "has also made an accommodation for those people who, for legitimate health, religious or other serious reasons, either cannot remove the headgear or, where doing so, would subject them to violating religious tenants or suffer extreme embarrassment or distress."

------------------------------------------------

Rollins would have made that accommodation for the case of Valentine's nephew, but the officer "did not affirmatively provide information on that policy," according to the news release.

​

Which doesn't change the fact that she needs to remove it, at least temporarily, as a security measure.

But security was not the reason cited for its original. Do try to keep up my dear.

Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court, police said after they arrested her Tuesday.

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.(Source)​

And it would seem that a special allowance would have been made for her if the over zealous security guard had advised her of it. But she was not told any of that, was she?

No, sorry, the woman was not innocent, and had indeed done something wrong. Which is why she was arrested and held in contempt of court. At first I was a little sympathetic, because I thought that the judge was being a cock by getting anal over the 'no headgear' rule. But when I discovered that this occurred at a security checkpoint, any remaining sympathy faded away.

The judge seemed to think she was innocent enough after the police investigated the matter and he was advised of their findings. So much so that he released her immediately and the contempt of court charge against her dropped. I guess he must have been a tad surprised that she had not been advised of the simple fact that he did make allowances for religious 'headwear' if applied to do so. But she was not advised of that right. In fact, the police investigation cleared her of all wrong doing and found that the security guard had failed to advise her of her rights on the matter.. hell, they're going to be undergoing sensitivity training so that it never happens again. Again, why do you think that is? Or did you miss that little fact?

How do I lean? Where did I claim that the woman was a raghead?

I don't particularly care how or where you happen to lean. And I was merely pointing out that referring to Muslims or Arabs as "ragheads" is offensive and racist after you commented that the judge had not referred to her as such. Again, do try to keep up..

 

[Ghost_007]

None of us has any right to tell someone how to dress.

Thank you. I hope Michael is reading.

But lawmakers and judges do. In this case, the judge imposed a rule that this woman decided to flaunt. She paid the price. End of story.

The story is far from over. The actions of the judge were unjust and I hope they launch an investigation and expose him. Telling a woman to remove her headscarf is a lot different to telling someone to remove their hat or jacket.

Furthermore, if you think the headscarf is largely about religion, you're mistaken. Most Muslims do not wear them. It's a political statement.

You're basing that on what exactly? Its possible for the headscarf to be a political statement, its also possible that women decide to wear the scarf in order to follow the teachings of Islam. Different types of headscarf are worn throughout the Muslim World, they are worn throughout all Arab countries, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Most Muslims do wear them.

 

[John99]

That article is pretty old.

AK actually wasn't disbanded, and Erdogen, the fellow who founded it, is a pretty legit leader -- though, he has said some stupid things in his zeal to embrace all things Islamic. He famously told Muburak, for instance, that he admired the Muslim Brotherhood. Muburak told him that if he liked them so much he could take them back to Ankara with him.

As a test case, the head scarf issue and Turkey are exceptions. Ataturk specifically banned them when he created the Turkish state. He also cracked down on Islamic parties. Subsequent generations have done the same. Turkey, being Muslim, should probably have Islamic political parties, as banning them and whatnot has radicalized many who otherwise would be centrist, but the issue there is complicated. The military is very secularized, and they are the ultimate gatekeepers in Turkey.

Its from June 2008.

Like i said, I dont care what anyone wears. Was\is the judge a little stupid? maybe\maybe not but if i had a dollar for every stupid lawyer or judge i can retire in any country i would want to. I would come out of it with about 9 million or more.

 

[John99]

How do I lean? Where did I claim that the woman was a raghead?

You didnt. But it does not matter. You are discussing this with the same person who wrote a diatribe about his neighbor playing Christmas (one day out of 365) songs and how he went after them. Search for it from last year, trust me you wont believe your eyes.

So much for freedom.

 

[Michael]

How do you know?

What right do you have to tell women or anyone how to dress? You have no right whatsoever. People will dress as they want, regardless of what others say. If some people (particularly Islamophobes) are opposed to this most basic freedom, so what? They have no power to do anything. And the more they rant about it the more they demonstrate they are the real threats to social harmony and integration.

Lots of people say they don't like to see people wearing a Burka.

I personally find it insulting.

I suppose if I were to ear a T-Shirt with a neon light that showed Mohammad taking it deep by BinLaden while giving Ali a reach around - you'd be the first to rush to my defense.

Secondly, we do tell people what they can or can not wear, you can not walk around naked in public. It's not legal. You can not walk around only wearing a G-string either. That's also illegal. If given the chance to vote and make Burka's illegal, I'll cast my vote to say yes. I think face covering burka's should be made illegal.

In regards to the women in the court case. I think no overt religious symbols should be allowed in court. It may skew the jury.

That's the whole thing about a republic, we get to vote. As you welll should know by our cool as POTUS elect

MII

 

[leopold]

How do you know?

What right do you have to tell women or anyone how to dress? You have no right whatsoever. People will dress as they want, regardless of what others say. If some people (particularly Islamophobes) are opposed to this most basic freedom, so what? They have no power to do anything. And the more they rant about it the more they demonstrate they are the real threats to social harmony and integration.

yeah, well if muslims are so hung up on not showing their faces in public then they need to stay at home and hide under the bed.

this "face covering" concept can serve only one purpose and that is crime.
what other real purpose does it serve?

 

[(Q)]

None of us has any right to tell someone how to dress. But lawmakers and judges do. In this case, the judge imposed a rule that this woman decided to flaunt. She paid the price. End of story.

No, this has nothing to do with being told how to dress.

You appear to have missed the story all together. She swore at the judge in the court room. That's called, "Contempt of Court" Ever hear of it?

"A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

Furthermore, if you think the headscarf is largely about religion, you're mistaken. Most Muslims do not wear them. It's a political statement.

Yet, we've heard Muslims argue it is a religious symbol, when it suits their agenda, like this article for example.

This is a perfect example of the double standards of Islam and the hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of Muslims.

 

[(Q)]

Telling a woman to remove her headscarf is a lot different to telling someone to remove their hat or jacket.

No, it isn't. There are religious groups with religious hats and jackets.

You're basing that on what exactly? Its possible for the headscarf to be a political statement, its also possible that women decide to wear the scarf in order to follow the teachings of Islam.

And there it is, the hypocrisy and double standards of which Muslims abuse at their discretion and when it suits their agenda. Thanks very much, Ghost.

Different types of headscarf are worn throughout the Muslim World, they are worn throughout all Arab countries, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. Most Muslims do wear them.

So what? Women have to eventually take them off, don't they? Do they bathe, sleep, have sex with these headscarfs on? Then, there should be no issue if a judge asks it to be removed.

Of course, that would depend if this had anything to do with a headscarf, which it doesn't. The woman swore at the judge, moron.

 

[Ghost_007]

Lots of people say they don't like to see people wearing a Burka.

I personally find it insulting.

I suppose if I were to ear a T-Shirt with a neon light that showed Mohammad taking it deep by BinLaden while giving Ali a reach around - you'd be the first to rush to my defense.

I find Man Utd shirts offensive. I also hate guys wearing those skinny jeans, I hate the jeans, t-shirt and blazer look, its irritating. My disgust doesn’t mean those matey’s shouldn’t be allowed to wear those items of clothing. What they wear is up to them, part and parcel of living in a free society. There are people who wear the exact same things that resistance fighters in Afghanistan wear, salwar kameez, the traditional dress for men in Pakistan and some parts of Afghanistan, is this offensive?

Where do you draw the line?

Secondly, we do tell people what they can or can not wear, you can not walk around naked in public. It's not legal. You can not walk around only wearing a G-string either. That's also illegal. If given the chance to vote and make Burka's illegal, I'll cast my vote to say yes. I think face covering burka's should be made illegal.

Apples and oranges.

In regards to the women in the court case. I think no overt religious symbols should be allowed in court. It may skew the jury.

That's the whole thing about a republic, we get to vote. As you welll should know by our cool as POTUS elect

No overt religious symbols? No headscarves (Muslims/Christians)? No turbans (Muslims/Sikhs), skullcaps (Muslims, Jews) etc. Next you’ll try to ban beards. It would seem you are trying to target Muslims however once you go down the right-wing authoritarian route of trying to ban all religious symbols you shoot yourself in the foot as you affect a wide range of people – not just Muslims.

If no religious symbols should be allowed in court, should they also not stop people being from being able to swear an oath on a Bible, Quran etc.

 

[John99]

"If no religious symbols should be allowed in court, should they also not stop people being from being able to swear an oath on a Bible, Quran etc."

Good idea, it does no good anyway.

 

[leopold]

I find Man Utd shirts offensive.

there's lots of stuff i find offensive, some of it is posted right here on sciforums.

I also hate guys wearing those skinny jeans, I hate the jeans, t-shirt and blazer look, its irritating.

i'm willing to bet you find those girls in their teeny weeny shoestring bikinis very enticing. we all love and hate things.

What they wear is up to them, part and parcel of living in a free society.

the question isn't what but of where.
the only true privacy you have is inside your house.

There are people who wear the exact same things that resistance fighters in Afghanistan wear, salwar kameez, the traditional dress for men in Pakistan and some parts of Afghanistan, is this offensive?

don't be offended if you start being treated like your a resistance fighter from afghanistan then. how else do you expect to be perceived?

No overt religious symbols? No headscarves (Muslims/Christians)? No turbans (Muslims/Sikhs), skullcaps (Muslims, Jews) etc. Next you’ll try to ban beards. It would seem you are trying to target Muslims however once you go down the right-wing authoritarian route of trying to ban all religious symbols you shoot yourself in the foot as you affect a wide range of people – not just Muslims.

why does it smell like feet all of a sudden? nevermind, i'm spazzin'.

If no religious symbols should be allowed in court, should they also not stop people being from being able to swear an oath on a Bible, Quran etc.

where should the courts draw the line?
if it was me then no religious objects at all would be allowed into the courtroom. (except evidence)

 

[milkweed]

Quote from article:

"When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge."

Sounds to me like she was arrested for the expletive. Anyone can be arrested for using expletive language. Do it on the street and you can be arrested for disorderly conduct. Do it in a courthouse and its contempt of court.

"Last year, Aniisa Karim, a Muslim, was barred from a Valdosta court unless she took off her scarf. In Lawrenceville, Jasmeen Singh Nanda, a Sikh, was told he could not address his traffic violation in court until he removed his turban.

Rabbi Binyomin Friedman of Congregation Ariel in Dunwoody said he has been asked to remove his kipa, a skullcap also known as a yarmulke, when entering a courtroom."

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/12/21/muslim_veil_court.html

So it appears its not a single religion being targeted.

What I do find troubling in the above is the lack of due process. If she was accused of a crime, she had a right to a lawyer, and several other processes before being handed a 10 day sentence. Bailiffs should not be able to drag persons from a hallway before a judge and a conviction/sentence handed down on the spot. This is what is wrong with this picture. Unless this isnt the whole story.

 

[leopold]

i love it!
this woman goes into a courtroom wearing her religious artifacts for religious purposes to show how religious she is then cusses because she is asked to remove it.

i hope they throw the book at her.

 

[Ghost_007]

there's lots of stuff i find offensive, some of it is posted right here on sciforums.

i'm willing to bet you find those girls in their teeny weeny shoestring bikinis very enticing. we all love and hate things.

Not at all. I don't look at women dressed like that (not that I get the oppurtunity around here).

the question isn't what but of where.
the only true privacy you have is inside your house.

So you only truly get to wear what you want when you're at home? How does that work?

don't be offended if you start being treated like your a resistance fighter from afghanistan then. how else do you expect to be perceived?

You misunderstood me. The Taliban wear the clothing of people that live in Pakistan and some parts of Afghanistan, the people of these countries are not going their dress just because others might perceive them to be members of the Taliban.

where should the courts draw the line?
if it was me then no religious objects at all would be allowed into the courtroom. (except evidence)

You have to be more clear. Would nuns be allowed to wear their traditional dress in court. Would Rabbis or practising Jews be allowed in with their religious hat? What about mateys with a standard crucifix on a necklace? Religious beards? Sikh turbans?

And I take it you don't want any religous books in there either?

Its just not feasible.

 

[Michael]

Where do you draw the line?

Apples and oranges.

I think its apples and apples. We, as a society, decide what is acceptable and what is not. That's the freedom we enjoy. The freedom to make rules to govern ourselves over that of having a dictator/king decide for us.

We draw the line at people walking around nude. We could also draw the line at people walking around in a tent. Seems easy enough, you know, the will of the people and all. I believe France made some religious symbols illegal to wear in certain public places.

The USA has worked so well in regards to religious tolerance because we leave that superstitious bullshit at home. Bring it into the public domain, expect to get a public response. It's that simple.

No overt religious symbols? No headscarves (Muslims/Christians)? No turbans (Muslims/Sikhs), skullcaps (Muslims, Jews) etc. Next you’ll try to ban beards.

Yeah, that's right, no skullcaps, not turbans, no burkas, etc... IN the court house. Simple enough rule.

If no religious symbols should be allowed in court, should they also not stop people being from being able to swear an oath on a Bible, Quran etc.

Couldn't agree more

 

[TW Scott]

Yes, it would. You would go bankrupt trying to bring a suit against me for a rule, that applied to all men and women - no trouser wearers allowed in the restaurant. Dresses are ok. Kilts too.

How is that discrimination? Just because I deign to apply it only to this particular judge, means you have to prove I applied the dress code discriminately, I discriminated against this old white dude. It would get expensive.

Disease you made a fatal error unfortunately. You expressed that initally your dress code would apply to old white southern gentleman. Meaning you were particualrly discriminating against said people. The only person who would be finding the lawsuits expensive is you.