She's as muslim as I am Hare Krishna. She's got the sactimonious entitled look down, though.
Posted on 12/16/2008 3:12:04 PM PST by mdittmar
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate a series of incidents in which Muslim women in Georgia were prevented from entering courtrooms because they were wearing Islamic headscarves, or hijabs.
In the most recent incident, a Muslim woman was jailed today following a dispute over whether she could enter the courtroom while wearing her hijab.
According to the woman’s husband, she was seeking to enter the courtroom in Douglasville, Ga., to deal with a matter related to a nephew’s traffic citation. After she walked through the security area, a bailiff allegedly told her she would not be permitted to enter the courtroom wearing her religiously-mandated scarf. Frustrated at being prevented from entering the court, the woman reportedly uttered an expletive and sought to leave the area. As she attempted to leave, the bailiff reportedly handcuffed her and took her to the judge’s chambers where she was sentenced to 10 days in jail for “contempt.”
Members of the local Islamic community told CAIR that there have been at least two previous incidents involving Muslims being prevented from wearing religious attire in court.
One local Muslim woman reported to CAIR that she and her 14-year-old daughter were barred from the same judge’s courtroom last week because they were wearing Islamic scarves.
“We ask the Department of Justice to investigate these troubling incidents to determine whether the women's civil or religious rights were violated,” said CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper. “Judges have the right set standards of dress and behavior in their courtrooms, but those standards should not violate the constitutional right to free exercise of religion or block unencumbered access to our nation’s legal system.”
Last year, CAIR representatives met with city and court officials in Valdosta, Ga., to discuss policies regarding the wearing of hijab in local courtrooms. The meeting was prompted by a June 2007 incident in which a Muslim woman seeking to contest a speeding ticket was barred from a Valdosta courtroom because she wore an Islamic headscarf.
In a letter sent to the Georgia attorney general following that incident, CAIR said the judge’s actions violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.
CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.
If I wanted to enter a bank tomorrow with a ski mask on because it's freaking 16 degrees here,would they let me,no,It's a matter of security!
Hey Beetch...go back to where you came from...they’ll stone you to death for even going out of the house, you jerk!
What are Muslim women even doing in a court, especially without a male relative accompanying them? Quick, someone gang-rape them to teach them a lesson.
This judge and bailiff are heros! the women curses at the bailiff, but she’s ‘so religious’ she can’t remove her stupid head scarf? Puleeze. We need to support both the judge and the bailiff for doing the right thing and not letting this terrorist organization get away with making a case of this.
The Qu’ran makes no mention of women wearing a Hijab. But since women were treated like livestock by Mohammad, Allah must want them treated like livestock for all time.
Where was it..out in Cali I think..a chick got arrested for not paying the fare on a train and ending up getting paid $$$$$ after a lawsuit because they made her take off the Hijab.
So they still think that entering a security area with a face mask is a religious rite?
I would do the same thing in my court. No cell phones and no face coverings.
Send the ticket and a money order for the fine to the address on the back.
The nephew's a typical ROPer, sending a woman to deal with his problems.
If it was just the hijab which covers the hair and neck what’s the big deal with wearing it? On the other hand if it was a chador or something similar that totally covers the face then the bailiff had it right. Who’d know who was under it when they left the building.
Good for Douglasville.
Religiously mandated, no doubt.
HA!
A high speed chase was in progress in City of Atlanta/Fulton County a couple of years ago. The perp hit the brakes, jumped out of the car, and surrendered when he saw the sign "WELCOME TO DOUGLAS COUNTY".
The former sheriff over there was a Buford Pusser with a REAL bad attitude. The new sheriff is not as notorious a character as the old one, but apparently he's notorious enough that the criminals avoid Douglas County. And there used to be a couple of judges over there that you did not want to make unhappy, because very bad things would happen to you instantly.
CAIR would be wise to take the hint.
Hijab = babooshka = headscarf.
Niqab = veil = face bag.
Chador = one piece combo = face bag + body bag.
Her face was not obscured; her hair was covered.
Much as I can’t stand Muzziness, ask whether a yarmulke would be allowed for a observant Jew.
HOWEVER, if I know C.A.I.R., the expletive is what got her 10 days in the slammer, and rightly so.
Good point. A scarf that just covers the hair and ties under the chin is no big deal as long as the person’s whole face is visible.
A burqa or something that covers the face — no.
I can see both sides of it b/c I’d hate to see this adversely affect the Amish, Mennonites and anyone else who feels led to cover.
The judge / deputy / whoever can deny entry to anyone. That person has the right to say F*you as they are walking away.
To sentence that person for contempt is just a bit of judicial thuggery.
Liking that for a tagline....
Give them a full cavity exam.
A lot of it is not security related. If you go into most courtrooms wearing a hat the judge will tell you to take it off FAST.
I'm guessing these are of the "born in America and converted in prison" brand of muslims. Going back to where they came from means the housing projects they're still living in.
What Muslims need to learn is that in this country they follow OUR rules and regulations of get on back to their own sandbox.
Of course it would be allowed. . .if it didn’t cover the face.
Quick question, what is an “Abaya” then?
Thanks.
Based on her expletive laced response I would say she was back where she came from and converted.
The burqa is the body bag, minus the face bag, but with a hood attached in place of separate hijab...and usually worn with the face bag as an accessory.
The abaya is sort of like a caftan.
Abayas are worn in Arabia, while burqas are worn in Central Asia. Kaftan is Turkish, gondora is Morrocan. It’s all roughly the same garment, sometimes a gown on its own, other times a covering to be removed in private. Regional/cultural variations on head and face covering.
So I guess shooting the bitch is out of the question???
If she really wants to be treated like where she came from, why dose she think she can speak in public?
Many thanks.
I know that when men enter a courtroom they must remove their hat. Why should there be a difference for women?
She's as muslim as I am Hare Krishna. She's got the sactimonious entitled look down, though.
That’s not security it’s a hold over from when all men wore hats and you removed them when you entered a building and when outside removed them when you were in the presence of someone who was substantially your better (Lord, Judge, etc). In the 50’s and earlier when you were going between clients in the same building you put on your hat so you could be seen removing it when you entered the new clients office. Strange but true. While women covered their hair when entering a church men removed their caps. Same idea.
It is partly security and partly custom. Several articles in the local newspaper have covered the issue after a cancer patient was forced to remove her head covering and cried due to the embarrassment. Discussions about the security aspect followed. However, the judge who originally denied the woman rescinded his order after a public outcry. I believe that judge now does not require that head coverings be removed, although the Sheriff would prefer that they were.
Ya it is a respect thing. I was sitting in a courtroom once and a detective came up to the stand to testify in a little case, I forget drugs or weapons violation or something. Anyway the Judge BOOMS out at the detective “ARE YOU CHEWING GUM IN MAH COURTROOM?!!!”. The judge loses it and tells the cop to get rid of the gum. Later the defense attorney asked for suppression of evidence and dismissal. Judge agreed. Case closed.
As for security and hat/ hair coverings, there are some issues such as covert weapons infiltration (and other things) with small knives, razors and other items, but that should be hit by the metal detectors or wands at entry. As for “letter opener” carbon fiber/kevlar style edged weapons or even hair pins modified for gouging..those could be put in hats or hair coverings but those things could easily be put elsewhere on somebody (pants, taped to leg, *ahem* elsewhere) to get them in if the court security isn’t doing full pat-downs or using advanced scanning equipment to catch it at the entry points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.