And as the article pointed out, a female security officer could have taken her aside
Perhaps there were no female security guards present? Perhaps she had not requested a female, or had done so in what the baliff felt was a uncooperative manner?
More importantly, why should Muslims receive special treatment because of their religious beliefs?
But the security guard failed to do so. She was ordered to 'take it off'.
And she didn't take it off. Worse, when she turned to leave, she 'uttered an expletive' (at the very minimum), which the baliff obviously felt was disruptive conduct. And disruptive conduct in any of the area of the courthouse is technically *drumroll* contempt of court. Ever seen a lawyer swear at a baliff, Bells, even when said lawyer was in the right? If so, what happened to them?
The police department who investigated the whole saga seem to believe and agree with her.
Speculation, and an appeal to authority. You're pretty quick to accept the Muslim's version of events, without having even heard the Judge/Baliff's response. *cough* Biased *cough*
Do you think they're doing it because she's black and a Muslim? Are you going to accuse them of bias as well?
So you think the police department is immune from bias? This gets better and better. It seems everyone you agree with is someone bias free, while everyone you disagree with is rife with bigotry and hatred.
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.
Where do any of your articles provide irrefutable proof that it was not done (at least partly) as a security measure?
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.
Which indicates to me that this was not a case of bigotry, but simply a response to a spectator extending their middle finger to the security and protocols, and causing a disruption in the courthouse.
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?
Again, appeal to authority logic fallacy. Their interpretaton of events is not necessarily the correct one, and may indeed subject to bias and political correctness.
Reading and comprehension tend to go hand in hand. You should try it sometime.
Perhaps your should take a course in critical thinking. If the judge had made accommodation for religious headgear in the past (as even you admit), this throws into question you labelling him a bigot. Think about it, Bells, good and hard. But don't hurt your brain too much while doing so.
But security was not the reason cited for its original. Do try to keep up my dear.
No official reason has been cited by the baliff or the judge. All we have is speculation. How does that saying go? When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. Except in this case, you're only making an ass out of you.
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?
*clap clap clap*
Again, I ask for a little critical thinking on your behalf. Let's assume events occurred as you said.
Judge makes allowance for religious headgear.
Judge doesn't tell baliff about the exceptions.
Baliff stops Muslim woman at security checkpoint, tells her to remove headscarf.
Muslim woman refuses.
Baliff turns her away.
Muslim woman utters expletive.
Baliff detains Muslim woman and takes her before judge.
*Following so far, Bells? Good*
Baliff explains events to Judge.
Judge demands that Muslim woman removes her headgear. She refuses.
Judge hands down 10 day prison sentence to Muslim woman?!
Interjection:
But hang on, as we have already been told, the Judge has made allowances for religious headgear in the past. So why didn't he simply explain this to his nephew, and allow the Muslim woman to take a seat in the audience? Why did he demand that she remove her headgear in the court?
That's not consistent behaviour, the series of events don't make sense. And when a version of events doesn't make sense, I wait for clarification.
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.
Again, appeal to authority logic fallacy. It's quite possible that the judge thought he was in the right, but didn't think the battle was worth fighting. The West doesn't need another Muslim martyr. Muslims have a tendency to whine and bitch so much these days, it's as if the West is suffering from a permanent case of tinnitus.
In fact, the police investigation cleared her of all wrong doing
Appeal to authority logic fallacy. Police investigations have been known to clear guilty individuals, and implicate innocent suspects. Police investigations have been known to be influenced by political intervention. Police investigations have been suspect to bias.
Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about the police investigation. The woman engaged in misconduct in the courthouse, and was (rightfully) arrested for it. The issue of the headscarf is a red herring.
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..
I suggest you follow your own advice and take a course in literary comprehension. If you bothered to read my post in context, you'd find I was parodying your interpretation of the judge's 'racist' motives.
