Mich. court gives judges say in witnesses’ dress


In some places, Muslims capture Americans who are innocent of any crime (just because they’re Americans) and cut their heads off with a butcher knife. Yet here we are in the United States, in a court of law, and we need to respect some tribal superstitious BS from these same Muslims because of respect for religion… Amazing!!!

America, home of the brave; land of the free. We’re not going to be free much longer if we allow other people to step all over us. And it always seems as if religion gives people an opportunity to do just that. TGO

Refer to story below. Source: Associated Press 

By DAVID EGGERT, Associated Press Writer David Eggert, Associated Press Writer

LANSING, Mich. – The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday voted to give judges authority over how witnesses dress in court after a Muslim woman refused to remove her veil while testifying in a small claims case.

A statewide court rule letting judges regulate the appearance of witnesses – such as asking them to remove face coverings – was approved by a 5-2 vote. The dissenters said there should be an exception for people whose clothing is dictated by their religion.

Justices heard last month from a Muslim woman who sued because her small claims case was dismissed when she refused to remove her veil.

Hamtramck District Judge Paul Paruk told Ginnnah Muhammad he needed to see her face to judge her truthfulness. The 45-year-old from Detroit kept her niqab on during the 2006 hearing.

Some Muslim leaders interpret the Quran to require that women wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not their husband or close relative.

After Muhammad sued the judge, the Michigan Judges Association and Michigan District Judges Association got behind a court rule giving judges “reasonable” control over the appearance of parties and witnesses to observe their demeanor and ensure they can be accurately identified.

The two justices who voted against the rule Wednesday said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.

Muhammad originally went to court to contest a $3,000 charge from a rental-car company to repair a vehicle that she said thieves had broken into.

The Detroit area is home to one of the country’s largest Muslim populations. Legal observers have said the veil flap is a cutting-edge issue that will arise elsewhere in the United States.

One response

  1. She should be grateful to live in a country where she has the freedom to sue in small claims court. She should go back to where she came from so that she won’t have a problem wearing her veil.

    Like

Comments please...

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Cbmilne33's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Hoboduke Nonsense

Respect the rights of all to be free!

filimages

A quoi servent les images que l'on ne montre pas ?

GhostRider & Friends - architects of consciousness

Consciousness, Religion, Politics; In search of Truth.

Erotixx

An eclectic mix of erotica.

I Want Ice Water!

And Other Pleas From The Bowels Of Hell On Earth

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 131 other followers

%d bloggers like this: