Georgia judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf in court

Full story: Detnews.com

A Georgia judge ordered a Muslim woman arrested Tuesday for contempt of court for refusing to take off her head scarf at a security checkpoint.
Comments
601 - 620 of 644 Comments Last updated Dec 9, 2010

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#616 Jan 13, 2009
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you please cite that precedence or rather link me to a site where I may look at it, thanks.
Oh hell I knew you were gonna ask that. He was an expert for the defense the judge ordered him to remove his yama whatever and I think he complied but later sued. It was in the south probably GA who set records for stupid judges But I'll try to find it.
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#617 Jan 13, 2009
mike_lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh hell I knew you were gonna ask that. He was an expert for the defense the judge ordered him to remove his yama whatever and I think he complied but later sued. It was in the south probably GA who set records for stupid judges But I'll try to find it.
This one?

http://www.jlaw.com/Recent/yarmulkecourtroom....
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#618 Jan 13, 2009
http://allsupremecourtcases.com/goldman-v-wei...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

That's all I could find? And most cases require the removal of a yarmulke.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#619 Jan 13, 2009
lifes a beach wrote:
No but that was a damn good one. My joy at seeing judges rebuked is probably not healthy.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#620 Jan 13, 2009
yes thats it. I remember now I couldn't find the conclusion but I remember finding that in reference to the RFRA
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#621 Jan 13, 2009
mike_lee wrote:
yes thats it. I remember now I couldn't find the conclusion but I remember finding that in reference to the RFRA
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...
Indeed; however this is not a universal legal precedent and as such it remains at the personal discretion of the judge and county guidelines.

Judge David West, administrative judge for the Harris County District Courts, said there was ''absolutely not'' a county policy that would ban the wearing of religious symbols in the courtroom.''This fellow has as much right in the traditions of our courts to wear the garment he wore,'' Judge West said.''That's my personal opinion.''

Since: Oct 08

Glasgow

#622 Jan 14, 2009
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
What does one's gender have to do with anything? Plenty of females have been the perpetrators of suicide bombings. No, actually you will see the US is quite different in many ways from the UK, legally and even culturally. I have a question for you? Have you ever lived here? It is hard to explain such differences to a person who has never experienced them, that is why i ask. The fact is the courtroom guidelines state that headwear is not permitted (male or female). I personally don't like wearing shoes in the summertime but I respect an establishment's right to not allow me entrance if that violates their no shoes, no shirt, no service policy. Is there evidence that states that nuns or others were asked to remove their headwear and refused? Otherwise, that is mere speculation. She was not put in contempt of court for the headwear but rather for the swearing at a court official. If a nun who was asked to do the same thing, swore at a court official, I would hope the same penalty would be exacted. Equality is just that, meaning the guidelines apply to everyone entering the courtroom, don't like it? Then move.
As a Scot I would argue that the Americans vicous treatment of their own women is not something that would be tolerated as lightly in my country as it is in yours.

There is no way any woman in Scotland would have have her hands foreceably thrown behind her back, then handcuffed and brought before a judge just because she cursed at a man critcising her choice of fashion.

You Americans may make your excuses about your renknowned brutality towards women but that comes at the price of criticism from Real Men elsewhere in the world who dont give a monkeys chug about what our women choose to wear.

Your excuses are your own.
GGG

Sylvania, Australia

#623 Jan 14, 2009
IcebergLaddie wrote:
<quoted text>
As a Scot I would argue that the Americans vicous treatment of their own women is not something that would be tolerated as lightly in my country as it is in yours.
There is no way any woman in Scotland would have have her hands foreceably thrown behind her back, then handcuffed and brought before a judge just because she cursed at a man critcising her choice of fashion.

You Americans may make your excuses about your renknowned brutality towards women but that comes at the price of criticism from Real Men elsewhere in the world who dont give a monkeys chug about what our women choose to wear.
Your excuses are your own.
Scotsman, unless you have lived with it you do not understand what the point that is being made.
I assume that you do not have women dressed in burkas from head to toe, including the face and eyes, who then want to get a drivers licence, dressed with the burka, and when they cannot they claim the 'anglos" are being racist.
Go and walk thru some arab countries with a cross on, or a woman with short sleaves, she would be bashed and imprisoned.
Why, because she did not respect the law.
In the States, if the law is no burka, then respect it.
How dare she abuse the authorities.
About time the West stop being so sensitive to cliams of racism, and started applying some common sense.
Go the US

Since: Oct 08

Glasgow

#624 Jan 14, 2009
GGG wrote:
<quoted text>
Scotsman, unless you have lived with it you do not understand what the point that is being made.
I assume that you do not have women dressed in burkas from head to toe, including the face and eyes, who then want to get a drivers licence, dressed with the burka, and when they cannot they claim the 'anglos" are being racist.
Go and walk thru some arab countries with a cross on, or a woman with short sleaves, she would be bashed and imprisoned.
Why, because she did not respect the law.
In the States, if the law is no burka, then respect it.
How dare she abuse the authorities.
About time the West stop being so sensitive to cliams of racism, and started applying some common sense.
Go the US
I did not make any claims of "racism" even though the victim in this case has the misfortune to be a black-American.

And I do not respect the Law if it victimises women which is the case in these American Courts.

If these same courts refused entry to a Scotsman in traditonal Highland Wear, which includes the "skean dhu" (Dagger in sock) or the Sikh has to remove his turban then the world would be outraged at the "racist" prejudices of these American Laws.

But a wee American Lassie wearing a hair cover is considered to be a "threat", and an easy target for American Law who want to show us what big balls they have by victimising an American Woman.

What are the odds for any Real Men in America standing up for an American Womans right to her own private fashoin choices?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#625 Jan 14, 2009
GGG wrote:
<quoted text>
Scotsman, unless you have lived with it you do not understand what the point that is being made.
I assume that you do not have women dressed in burkas from head to toe, including the face and eyes, who then want to get a drivers licence, dressed with the burka, and when they cannot they claim the 'anglos" are being racist.
Go and walk thru some arab countries with a cross on, or a woman with short sleaves, she would be bashed and imprisoned.
Why, because she did not respect the law.
In the States, if the law is no burka, then respect it.
How dare she abuse the authorities.
About time the West stop being so sensitive to cliams of racism, and started applying some common sense.
Go the US
There was no burqas involved. I would support the judge in those cases.; This was a head scarf, like a chemo therapy patient might wear. Does he make chemo patients remove their scarves as well?
billw001

Locust Grove, OK

#626 Jan 14, 2009
Smitty in MD wrote:
<quoted text>
So the fact that our country was founded on freedom of religion, whatever that religion might be, matters not to you? So it is an odd religion. At least in our eyes, but that certainly doesn't mean that Muslims don't have the right to practice their religion. Frankly, all of the people here who have posted in favor of throwing people in jail for following their religion should be ashamed.
America, the land of freedom. Yeah right! As long as everyone believes and acts like you, right? You folks should check the definition of freedom.
I guess you don't care about the security of others or the law.
They can practice their beliefs, but they can also abide by the law when they enter a place such as this. THEY need to respect the rules.

You should take a reality check.
billw001

Locust Grove, OK

#627 Jan 14, 2009
IcebergLaddie wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not make any claims of "racism" even though the victim in this case has the misfortune to be a black-American.
And I do not respect the Law if it victimises women which is the case in these American Courts.
If these same courts refused entry to a Scotsman in traditonal Highland Wear, which includes the "skean dhu" (Dagger in sock) or the Sikh has to remove his turban then the world would be outraged at the "racist" prejudices of these American Laws.
But a wee American Lassie wearing a hair cover is considered to be a "threat", and an easy target for American Law who want to show us what big balls they have by victimising an American Woman.
What are the odds for any Real Men in America standing up for an American Womans right to her own private fashoin choices?
The law is the law. What part of that do you not understand.*OCH*!

Since: Oct 08

Glasgow

#628 Jan 14, 2009
billw001 wrote:
<quoted text>
The law is the law. What part of that do you not understand.*OCH*!
The American courts *och* discrimination against headcovers is not actual "Law" it is a single individuals religously prejudiced court ruling.

If you want a real *och* gob at bullying religious Laws imposing on the civil liberties of others you are more than welcomed to have a wee rant at Scottish Law:

www.topix.com/uk/glasgow/2009/01/scottish-new...
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#629 Jan 14, 2009
IcebergLaddie wrote:
<quoted text>
As a Scot I would argue that the Americans vicous treatment of their own women is not something that would be tolerated as lightly in my country as it is in yours.
There is no way any woman in Scotland would have have her hands foreceably thrown behind her back, then handcuffed and brought before a judge just because she cursed at a man critcising her choice of fashion.
You Americans may make your excuses about your renknowned brutality towards women but that comes at the price of criticism from Real Men elsewhere in the world who dont give a monkeys chug about what our women choose to wear.
Your excuses are your own.
I would have to argue, our women are also a bit more frightening when angry ;). Also, is Scotland a living bullseye for terrorism? Last time I checked the US had made some very dangerous enemies. Here, it is equality for better or for worse, I have seen women shoot officers just as fast as some men (not saying this is relevant to the above case, just stating some examples why men and women are treated the same).
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#630 Jan 14, 2009
mike_lee wrote:
<quoted text>
There was no burqas involved. I would support the judge in those cases.; This was a head scarf, like a chemo therapy patient might wear. Does he make chemo patients remove their scarves as well?
Interesting question. I wonder how many chemo patients would throw a fit about it though?

Since: Oct 08

Glasgow

#631 Jan 14, 2009
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I would have to argue, our women are also a bit more frightening when angry ;). Also, is Scotland a living bullseye for terrorism? Last time I checked the US had made some very dangerous enemies. Here, it is equality for better or for worse, I have seen women shoot officers just as fast as some men (not saying this is relevant to the above case, just stating some examples why men and women are treated the same).
Scotland was the first UK/USA country to be hit by Islamic extremists. In fact it seems we are the only world nation that had the grace last month to hold memorial services for the victims of Lockerbie on the 20th Anniversary of this appalling tragedy whereas the rest of the world seems to have completely forgotten Pan Am Flight 103. Two hundred and seventy innocent people lost their lifes that dreadful day, and even though it was 20 years ago we Scots still respect their memory.

And the victims relatives have no thanks to you panic-merchants America and your CIA for giving us Scots the wrong "suspect" to lock up and let the guilty barstewards walk free for that particular atrocity.

We Scots were also the targets of the latest terrorist bombing on UK/USA soil ie; the Glasgow Airport attack, which became a physical fight between the four terrorists, two unarmed cops and a few passers-by. Result. One dead terrorist and the rest locked up for life.

Despite being the first and last to take on these "Islamic" attacks the Scots are still calmly getting on with their lives. Mass panic and pant-pooing finger-pointing anti-muslim hysterics seems to be an uniquely American gig.

You're welcome to it.
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#632 Jan 14, 2009
IcebergLaddie wrote:
<quoted text>
Scotland was the first UK/USA country to be hit by Islamic extremists. In fact it seems we are the only world nation that had the grace last month to hold memorial services for the victims of Lockerbie on the 20th Anniversary of this appalling tragedy whereas the rest of the world seems to have completely forgotten Pan Am Flight 103. Two hundred and seventy innocent people lost their lifes that dreadful day, and even though it was 20 years ago we Scots still respect their memory.
And the victims relatives have no thanks to you panic-merchants America and your CIA for giving us Scots the wrong "suspect" to lock up and let the guilty barstewards walk free for that particular atrocity.
We Scots were also the targets of the latest terrorist bombing on UK/USA soil ie; the Glasgow Airport attack, which became a physical fight between the four terrorists, two unarmed cops and a few passers-by. Result. One dead terrorist and the rest locked up for life.
Despite being the first and last to take on these "Islamic" attacks the Scots are still calmly getting on with their lives. Mass panic and pant-pooing finger-pointing anti-muslim hysterics seems to be an uniquely American gig.
You're welcome to it.
Why should OUR CIA be responsible for YOUR country's safety? That is my point right there, take care of yourselves and then you won't have to worry about what US Americans do or don't do in terms of YOUR national security. I am sorry for your losses; however, in terms of numbers lets see...9/11 2,974 killed, I'm not even going into the people the marines killed in Afghanistan. In terms of numbers and threats, not even comparable. Btw, I am not anti-Muslim whatsoever.
lifes a beach

Northfield, NJ

#633 Jan 14, 2009
*the number

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#634 Jan 15, 2009
billw001 wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess you don't care about the security of others or the law.
They can practice their beliefs, but they can also abide by the law when they enter a place such as this. THEY need to respect the rules.
You should take a reality check.
That just sailed right over your head didn't it? This comes when our leaders disrespect our law. Because Bush thinks the constitution is just a piece of paper then the rank and files are OK with taking power from the people (democracy or self governance) and give it to the state (fascism). The people come first . It's what the people want that is important not what the state wants. I would rather die then let anyone take away our heritage. Our forefathers say this coming they would be shocked that it was the right who destroyed our country. And again you're not listening you're just thinks up a way to rebut regardless of what the truth might be.

“Play while you have hands”

Since: Feb 07

Backa, Sweden

#635 Feb 6, 2009
lifes a beach wrote:
<quoted text>
We can and we should. Period, end of discussion :). The difference between the majority of immigrants from Europe that immigrated here in earlier years were they were proud to assimilate into American culture and considered themselves for all intents and purposes American; sadly lately that trend in many new immigrants is sorely lacking. Many, not all, of course simply come here to take out of America what they can get (ie amass great amounts of personal wealth) and have no interest in actually giving back to America, as a citizen or otherwise.
We have a lot of Muslim immigrants here in Sweden and many of them (especially first generation immigrants) are more hard working than most Swedish people. Many of them make quite an effort trying to fit into our society. I know people from the middle east who have changed their names to common Swedish names just so their job application won't go straight into the bin, while I know people who make quite an effort so their application will be thrown in the bin so they can continue collecting the tax payer's money.
I have celebrated Christmas with my closest childhood friend who is Muslim as well as our New Year and their New Year.
When I studied there was a lot of Muslim women (with head scarves) who were more dedicated and showed more discipline than most of the Swedish students.(They're not as spoiled as people often are in western world countries)
In my experience the immigrants here are often doing a lot more with a lot more resistance than us Swedish people and if they want to keep some of their culture and if someone, for ex, wants to wear a head scarf I will respect that.
It would take a lot to convince me that Muslims in the US would be all that different. Especially as I hear the same kind of crap you're talking from some Swedish people (often with low self esteem and not much of an education).

I could hide something in my underwear just as easily (if not easier) in my underwear as a Muslim woman could in her head scarf. Using common sense and logic there is no more reason for her to remove her head scarf as it is for her to remove her bra.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 2 min Al Capone 4,354
It takes a LOT to make me throw up, and THIS al... 5 min Jeepers 7
Trying to Satisfy my Taste Buds 9 min Jeepers 2
Attention walmart customers! 12 min Jeepers 2
Right Wing News 16 min Jeepers 2
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 17 min KiMare 94,748
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 18 min smart atheist 733,955
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 25 min Stephania capitani 600,189
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 32 min KiMare 226,537
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 38 min Oxbow 539,546
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 1 hr An NFL Fan 118,130
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••