Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilianaean]

• ?????? ?? ????? ??? 2024 by Vilianaean
  [Today at 03:05:10 AM]
• ???????? ? ??????? 2024: ... by Victorgra
  [Today at 01:50:06 AM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:50:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:49:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:48:21 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:47:13 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4940
• Latest: DonaldStige

Stats

• Total Posts: 129570
• Total Topics: 7159
• Online Today: 277
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[Wunderkind]

U.S. judge jails Muslim woman over head scarf.

So, I can't decide how I feel about this and I thought it would spark an interesting debate.

Was it wrong of her not take off her head covering in respect for U.S. law?

Or was it wrong of U.S. law to ask her to do something that is considered immoral in her religion?

[xolik]

If you're in a foreign country, you should obey their laws. Remember the kids that got the shit caned out of them in Singapore?

I suppose it would be easier to just post "OMG OPPRESSIVE RACIST AMERIKKKANS" but I hate taking the easy way out.



Why, yes, I'd love some pancakes. Thank you.

[Vespertine]

Wunderkind, you're incorrectly stating "...in respect for U.S. law..."  Yes, it happened in the U.S.  But, this isn't a federal law.  Hell, for that matter, it's not even a law at all.  It's a "court policy".  She wasn't jailed for violating the law, she was jailed for contempt of court.  Which in this case is fairly interesting since she NEVER ENTERED A COURTROOM of her own free will.

As the tail end of the article states, "Hall said Valentine, an insurance underwriter, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge." 

She was stopped (and ultimately taken into custody) at the metal detector outside of the courtrooms (likely near the entrance to the building).  She had made the decision to leave rather than remove her hijab.  The bailiff cuffed her when she swore (at him? who knows...).

Despite xolly's distaste for the easy way out, it does sound to me like this particular case is possibly racially motivated.  At a minimum, it seems like the bailiff exercising what little power he had because someone didn't do what they were told to do and he was pissed off about it.  I don't suppose we'll ever really know whether her race was an aggravating factor for the bailiff.

[Wunderkind]

Yes, I saw that last part.

Yes, I am aware that the questions I posed weren't exactly the case at hand.

However, these two questions were the ones that I started thinking about when I read the case and are the exact questions I meant to ask. Where I may have used the wrong tense, I don't feel that I was incorrectly stating anything.

Would it be wrong of her not take off her head covering in respect for a U.S. law?

Or would it be wrong of U.S. law to ask her to do something that is considered immoral in her religion?

That was the debate I ended up having with myself by the end of the article. Those were the questions I intended to ask. I posted the link to give some reference to where I was pulling this from. I apologize for not making myself explicitly clear.

Had this situation actually included the breaking of a law (state or federal whatever flips your skirt up), how would you feel about it?

[Joe Sixpack]

If you're talking about some hypothetical law, it'd be pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion. 

If you mean some real circumstance where the head covering could bump up against a law, then it's something else. 
It might be a law that the head covering has to be removed for a Driver's License photo.  Then she can make the clear choice to get the license or to keep her scarf on.  As long as it's her choice, I see no problem asking her to either remove it or forego <insert privilege here>, within reason.  In this example it seems perfectly reasonable to remove it for an ID photo.

As an aside, I bet expletives are against her religion, too, but she didn't have a problem with that.

[xolik]

Wait....so nobody got caned this time? Whelp, if it's not an actual law like "No headgear of any kind is to be allowed within this courtroom and the chief constable shall have a swine of no less than 80lbs bestowed upon him the fortnight before Saint Swimmin's Day" then yes, we may have an issue.

I still think she looks like Aunt Jemima in that picture.

[Anthrax-Smoothy]

I don't see why wearing her hijab is a bad thing. Its a religious aspect, like the Sihk with their Kirpan, although that's probably a bit different. She's not doing any harm wearing her religious headdress, are they afraid she has a gun hidden in there? 

[12AX7]

  She could be hiding packets of  Anthrax!!

[pbsaurus]

or possibly even whole MP3s

[Anthrax-Smoothy]

  She could be hiding packets of  Anthrax!!

This is true. They're disguised at Ketchup, but much more deadly.