Western Resistance

« UK: "All Must Have Prizes" - Gordon Brown's Adventures In Wonderland | | UK: Dominic Whiteman On Islamism »

May 14, 2008

US: The "right" to wear a Muslim veil in court?

In Detroit, on Monday, Muslim woman Ginnah Muhammad lost her appeal. Ms Muhammad (pictured) had worn a face veil in a court case in Hamtranck in October 2006. The judge at that case, Paul Paruk, had ruled that Ms Muhammad should remove her face-covering.

At the time, Muhammad was claiming that Enterprise Rent-A-Car, a car rental company that charged her $3,000, had wrongly charged her its fee. The rented car had, Muhammad claimed, been broken into by thieves.

Muhammad refused to remove her face-veil or niqab. She even refused to remove it in front of a female judge. As a result, her case was thrown out in March 2007. Judge Paul Paruk had said that he needed to see her whole face while she gave testimony, to judge her truthfulness.

Muhammad decided to sue Judge Paruk, and on Monday US. District Judge John Feikens ruled that there was no case to answer. Judge Paruk's attorney, Margaret Nelson, had argued that the original decision to see Muhammad's face was not based upon religion, but upon a need to "fully observe" her features.

44-year old Muhammad ironically has a business selling skin-care products. Ironic in that so little of her own skin is visible. Her lawyer, Nabih Ayab, described the ruling as "unfortunate", and suggested he would take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The situation here is not about religious rights - but about people trying to "make history" by upsetting a system that has worked admirably well. I would go a step further and say that it is more about politics than about "religious rights".

No-one has stopped Muhammad from being a Muslim. If, on the street or in her home, Muhammad chooses to cover her face, that is her right. But in a court of law, visibility of both a defendant and a plaintiff is paramount. If it were any other way, there would be no need for plaintiffs and defendants to appear in court.

Would a judge have ruled any differently if a Klansman appeared in court wearing his white robes and with his face concealed, claiming his "religious rights" should be upheld?

Americans should not be under any complacent illusions that the situation where a judge can expect to see someone's face will remain that way. In Britain, judges used to have the right to expect to see a person's face. That right has been thrown away, sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

On November 8, 2006, a British immigration hearing at Hanley, Stoke-on-Trent was stopped when an attorney appeared in court with her face entirely covered by a niqab. Judge George Glossop aked for the woman lawyer to remove her veil. He said it prevented him from hearing her properly. The Judge stopped the hearing while he sought guidance from above.

Later, in April 2007, Britain's Judicial Studies Board issued a statement by its Equal Treatment Advisory Committee. The ruling claimed that in Briatin face-veils can now be worn not only in civil cases, but in criminal cases too.

I sincerely hope that if this case does go to the Supreme Court it is thrown out. It would be caving in to pressure from those who wear their religion publicly like a political statement. Such individuals are not acting to support rights to justice, but serving their own ends.

I wonder how Judge Judy would rule, faced with a similar situation?

News details here:

Wood TV, Associated Press and Michigan Live

Posted by Giraldus Cambrensis at May 14, 2008 11:32 AM

Comments

Post a comment