Article

2006-10-22 Home Front: Culture Wars

Muslim woman refuses to remove her veil in court, so judge tosses case

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2006-10-22 00:17|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 CAIR in 5.....4.....3.....2.....

Posted by Huponter Omomoling2139 2006-10-22 00:24|| 2006-10-22 00:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 00:27|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 01:09|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2006-10-22 01:10|| 2006-10-22 01:10|| Front Page Top

#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|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-10-22 01:13|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2006-10-22 01:14|| 2006-10-22 01:14|| Front Page Top

#7 Tough Titties biach.

Posted by 3dc 2006-10-22 01:24|| 2006-10-22 01:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 01:37|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2006-10-22 01:46|| 2006-10-22 01:46|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 05:01|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 05:32|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 07:14|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 08:24|| Front Page Top

#14 As long as she has to pay that $, I'm good with that.

Posted by Raj 2006-10-22 08:41|| 2006-10-22 08:41|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 09:13|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 09:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com ]">[http://azjetsetchick.blogspot.com ] 2006-10-22 09:29|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 10:36|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 10:47|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 10:54|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2006-10-22 10:59|| Front Page Top

#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">Steve White 2006-10-22 12:32|| 2006-10-22 12:32|| Front Page Top

#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">Zenster 2006-10-22 23:24|| 2006-10-22 23:24|| Front Page Top

23:56 Zenster
23:56 djh_usmc
23:54 trailing wife
23:53 Zenster
23:51 gromky
23:50 Slutch Thraviper4354
23:46 Zenster
23:45 anon
23:44 facta non verba
23:44 anonymous2u
23:42 anon
23:41 JohnQC
23:37 Hyper
23:34 Zenster
23:32 anon
23:31 SwissTex
23:31 facta non verba
23:30 gorb
23:24 Zenster
23:24 facta non verba
23:20 JohnQC
23:17 trailing wife
23:14 anon
23:09 facta non verba