You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Muslim woman refuses to remove her veil in court, so judge tosses case
2006-10-22
Ginnnah Muhammad of Detroit was looking for her day in court. Instead, she said she felt as if a judge forced her to choose between her case and her religion in a small-claims dispute in Hamtramck District Court.

A devout Muslim, she wore a niqab - a scarf and veil to cover her face and head except for her eyes - Oct. 11 as she contested a rental car company's charging her $2,750 to repair a vehicle after thieves broke into it.

Judge Paul Paruk said he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness and gave Muhammad, 42, a choice: take off the veil when testifying or the case would be dismissed. She kept the veil on.

"I just feel so sad," Muhammad said last week. "I feel that the court is there for justice for us. I didn't feel like the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I just feel I can't trust the court."

The wearing of a niqab has spurred increasing debate, particularly in Europe. In 2004, France banned the wearing of it and other religious symbols in public schools. It has sparked controversy in the United States as well. A Muslim woman from Florida unsuccessfully went to court in an effort to overturn the state's order in 2001 that she reveal her face for her driver's license photo.

In metro Detroit, which has one of the country's largest Muslim populations, a small minority of Muslim women - primarily those of Yemeni descent - wear the niqab, said Dawud Walid , executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Paruk said that as a fact finder, he needs to see the face of a person testifying. Michigan has no rules governing what judges can do regarding religious attire of people in court, so the judges have leeway on how to run their courtrooms. "My job in the courtroom is to make a determination as to the veracity of somebody's claim," he said. "Part of that, you need to identify the witness and you need to look at the witness and watch how they testify."

Paruk said he offered to let Muhammad, who was born in the United States and converted to Islam at the age of 10, wear the veil during the proceedings except when she testified. He said this was the first time someone had come before his court wearing a niqab, and he noted that many Muslims do not consider it a religious symbol. "I felt I was trying to accommodate her as best I could," he said.

Walid said Paruk still violated Muhammad's civil rights. "Although a niqab is donned by a minority of Muslim females, it is still a bona fide religious practice," he said.
And they're working to make it a majority practice.
Hamtramck, once almost entirely populated by residents of eastern European descent, now has a large and growing population of Muslims. "There definitely needs to be greater sensitivity toward the growing populace in that municipality," Walid said.

Judges should seek to strike a balance between running their courtrooms and respecting the religious views of those appearing before them, said Steve Leben, a Kansas trial court judge who is president of the American Judges Association. "I'm not trying to be critical of the judge because it is difficult to make decisions on the fly," Leben said. "But if it's a person's legitimate religious belief, we have a duty to try to reconcile these competing interests."
Which the judge tried to do.
Mark Somers, chief judge of the Dearborn District Court, which covers the bulk of the Detroit area's Muslim population, said he could not recall an instance when a woman who wore a niqab came before his court to testify. But he said he would not require a woman to remove her veil during a civil case. "To me, it would not be an issue," he said. "I simply as a matter of personal policy would never ask someone to do that."
Posted by:tipper

#23  Women have only had the vote since the turn of the century. All that I take for granted is fragile, temporary and not guaranteed. I could not help but to look at them and understand how easily it could all be taken away. Overnight my status in life could change from a woman to less than that of a favored dog or a horse!

So it is to be that the veil is to be the symbol by which we all can grasp the conflict that "faces" us.

It's good to know that you truly appreciate just how fragile so much of the West's recent progress is. This is why I continue to maintain that even in the absence of terrorism, Islam's institutionalized abused of women would still discredit it as any sort of acceptable filth faith.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-22 23:24  

#22  Thanks for the update, Zen, when I looked at it I thought it was the personal number for his office.
Posted by: Steve White   2006-10-22 12:32  

#21  by the way this isn't the middle east where you have too have the veil so you don't get raaped or such for punishment
Posted by: sinse   2006-10-22 10:59  

#20  "I feel that the court is there for justice for us. I didn't feel like the court recognized me as a person that needed justice. I just feel I can't trust the court."

The court couldn't recognize you at all, under that veil. As for not recognizing you as a person? That's what your religion won't do and that's why it demands you be hidden.
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412   2006-10-22 10:54  

#19  "I have to admit that it surprised me how visceral my reaction was. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really do understand that these women are individuals who should not be made into symbols. That is wrong and unfair. Yet they represnt the gravest threat that I have yet faced."

Anon: I could not agree more. But I think it is important to remember it the ideology of the niqab that turns these women into symbols, not our reaction to it.
Posted by: Flea   2006-10-22 10:47  

#18   They have them for Wiccans, Scientologists, etc. Swearing to tell the truth on a shlock scince fiction writers ramblings? At least the Wiccans appear to be to be moral if IMO slightly wacked out.
Posted by: Cheaderhead   2006-10-22 10:36  

#17  Oztralian, if she wanted to, yup, she could swear on a Koran. But most jurisdictions don't use a Bible, anyways. That's pretty much a Hollywood thing. You just promise to say the truth, etc.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-10-22 09:29  

#16  Actually, most States have all sorts of ways of swearing before giving testimony, not just the Bible. There is even an atheist oath that can be given in a lot of places. They have them for Wiccans, Scientologists, etc.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-10-22 09:26  

#15  So, since she is a Muslim, does she still have to 'swear' on the bible or does she get to 'swear' on the Koran instead?

Ya know.. the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth...
Posted by: Oztralian   2006-10-22 09:13  

#14  As long as she has to pay that $, I'm good with that.
Posted by: Raj   2006-10-22 08:41  

#13  The judge should have given her 30 days for contempt of court. That's what he'd do if I didn't take off my hat. And that's what it is. The law of the land is the supreme law in this country. Those unwilling to acknowledge it should be prepared to pay the price.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-10-22 08:24  

#12  Kudos to Judge Paruk.

The judge was absolutely right to require removal of the veil. Observing someone's facial features can indeed be a guide to their credibility.

For example, until the day she passed away, if asked an incriminating question by my mother I was doomed if she could watch my face and were I to responded with less than the complete and unvarnished truth.

Simply put: How can you see their lips fall off if they're wearing a veil?

Dawud Walid says there needs to be "greater sensitivity toward the growing muslim population". BS. It's the obligation of the muzzie to accomodate the culture and customs of the USA, not the other way around.

Dhimmi Award for the week goes to Judge Mark Somers, chief judge of the Dearborn District, who says that as a matter of personal policy he wouldn't require a woman to remove the veil. Again, that's BS. Credibility is always any issue in a trial. If my case turned on the credibility of a muzzie I'd want the muzzie to testify without the veil. If my request to have the veil removed was denied by the judge, I'd feel I was unable to get a fair trial.

Judge Somers says that, to date, he hasn't had to address this issue in his courtroom. It's only a matter time before he does. It's an issue coming sooner rather than later. We now know how the coward Judge Somers will respond.

The muzzies appear to be feelin' a bit uppity these days. It's well past time for some much needed cultural push back.

Posted by: Mark Z   2006-10-22 07:14  

#11  Lol, 3dc!

anon - I understand your reaction. The first sight of a Band of Ninjas or a Mob of MBO's (Moving Black Objects) shuffling down the street, appearing to almost float sometimes, is, um, unsettling and an eye-opener. When you see signs on the two entry doors to every restaurant, one saying "Families" and the other "Single Men", you will know you have arrived in Sharia Hell. The Muzzy "men" are cowards and chickenshits who are worried they'll lose control of their chattel. Ol' Mo sure did a number on them - foisting all of his personal fears and quirks and hatreds and superstitions and perversions upon the billions that followed. Waaay twisted.
Posted by: .com   2006-10-22 05:32  

#10  ok... wow. I have to admit that my surprise meter is really pegging tonight. Someone here said that it will not be a nuke or bomb - but an emotional issue that will trigger the shift. And whoever you were - feel free to take the credit - right you were.

You probably didn't hear it from me first, but you are hearing it from me now - the veil will be it.

And when I think about it logically, it is not a surprise in any way shape or form.

I was in Walmart today there were a significant number of tall, black women covered from head to toe in dark, heavy flowing fabric. Among the pumpkins and smiling Casper ghosts, I could not help thinking of how much they looked like ghouls.

I have to admit that it surprised me how visceral my reaction was. I really, really, really, really, really, really, really do understand that these women are individuals who should not be made into symbols. That is wrong and unfair. Yet they represnt the gravest threat that I have yet faced.

Women have only had the vote since the turn of the century. All that I take for granted is fragile, temporary and not guaranteed. I could not help but to look at them and understand how easily it could all be taken away. Overnight my status in life could change from a woman to less than that of a favored dog or a horse!

So it is to be that the veil is to be the symbol by which we all can grasp the conflict that "faces" us.
Posted by: anon   2006-10-22 05:01  

#9  Steve, from what I was able to gather, the contact information is for the actual municipal office of the court and not the individual's personal residence (which I would most definitely not list). The same identical address and contact information was shown for other officers of the court. Unfortunately, there was no email address which is what I really wanted to post.

Here is the link that I used:

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1452536_2?noconfirm=0
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-22 01:46  

#8  I like to think: What Would Judge Judy Do?

In this case, I believe the WWJJD principle would be to ask the alleged female to remove her facial covering.

Good, glad she got chucked out. Next she'll be demanding the sharia court because our justice system 'fails muslims'
Posted by: anon1   2006-10-22 01:37  

#7  Tough Titties biach.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-10-22 01:24  

#6  Here is the judge's contact information:

Hon. Paul J. Paruk
Firm: State of Michigan District Court District 31
Address: 3401 Evaline Ave
Hamtramck, MI 48212-3315
Phone and fax deleted. AoS.


Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-22 01:14  

#5  I wonder if these asshats would like the US court system to honor another islamic religious custom, under wich a womens testimony has half the weight of a males?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-10-22 01:13  

#4  Judge Paul Paruk said he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness ...

"... I didn't feel like the court recognized me as a person that needed justice."

It's hard to recognize you with that stoopid veil on, nitwit. The judge even extended you every courtesy of his court and you demanded that the bench follow your dictates anyway. Wow! Where have we seen this shit before?

Hamtramck, once almost entirely populated by residents of eastern European descent, now has a large and growing population of Muslims.

Muslim outrage over being forced to live in a city with a haram name like Hamtramck in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

"But if it's a person's legitimate religious belief, we have a duty to try to reconcile these competing interests."

A coutroom is a dispensary of law, not scripture. Certain conditions must be met in order for justice to be rendered correctly. One of them is appearing before a judge who evaluates the merits of your case. While in court, I am required to remove my hat despite belonging to the Church of Stetson, so these assholes can remove their headcoverings as well. Don't like it? Go back to your Islamic hell hole utopia and whine about it there.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-10-22 01:10  

#3  Some states have anti-mask laws meant to marginalize the Klan.

There could also be sixth amendment issues in a criminal case where a defendant has a right to confront his accusor face to face. Courts work around it in cases of mob informants who get special permission to hide behind a screen for their own safety, but wearing a mask to court is going to raise legal issues. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2006-10-22 01:09  

#2  Finally, a judge with more than two functioning brain cells. This is precisely the way to handle this stupidity. Don't wanna play by the rules. Dismiss the case. Bravo !
Posted by: SpecOp35   2006-10-22 00:27  

#1  CAIR in 5.....4.....3.....2.....
Posted by: Huponter Omomoling2139   2006-10-22 00:24  

00:00