Judges In Michigan Can Force Muslim Women To Remove Their Veils

tabby
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:02 pm: [report]

My state has a big problem with being rednecks. We might vote for Democrats, but that is just because we are pro-unions. I am sure that the vast majority of “regular Michiganians” will not even see a problem with this ruling and look at me like I am crazy when I complain about it. Which is also ridiculous as metro D has quite a large Arab population. So many things wrong with this ruling…

theattack
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:03 pm: [report]

Uhmm, hello, face recognition isn’t the only way to identify someone physically. Fingerprints and those retina scans that recognize the patterns in your iris. ( I realize those eye scans are top security and not typical). The courts should accommodate for the religious freedom of those in trial. If fingerprinting isn’t possible, they could just have a couple of female officers go into a different room with the person to see if she could do it in that situation. They didn’t even attempt to uphold her right to her religion.

msu.umich
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]

@tabby, totally on point.  The Michigan Supreme Court is literally the most conservative in the country.

spatula
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:06 pm: [report]

I rememeber hearing a few months back that France was trying to ban the wearing of burqas for much the same reason, citing the fact that you can’t tell who’s under there, or what they may have on them.  Which is a good point, but so is the one about religious insensitivity. I’m divided, personally. I understand the safety and proof of identity issues, but I also see how it could feel like an infringement (sp?) of one’s rights.

Coral
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:08 pm: [report]

I don’t think this is wrong. It’s true that facial behavior and simply face recognition can help conceal or reveal certain things such as lying, etc.

moonblossom
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]

Not really sure how I feel about this. I think I’m leaning towards siding with the court.

There are female judges who could hear these cases. Not sure how realistic that is given the caseload in the courts, but its an option.

Facial behaviors DO contribute to communication and how humans evaluate credibility. Study after study has confirmed behaviors we consciously and subconsciously exhibit when we lie. So, I agree, the finder of fact needs to be able to evaluate the credibility of a witness/party in court.

I guess this lady should be happy she’s allowed to go to court and file her own case. Some countries where ladies wear headscarves a lot don’t even allow women to have a legal identity.

I’m all for religious freedom, but I have a problem with religions that relegate women to second class status. I think being told by your religion to cover your face/hair while men don’t have to is second class status. I have a sneeking suspiscion god (or however) doesn’t really care what is on my head…I’m hoping she has more important things to worry about.

tabby
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:25 pm: [report]

@Coral, so instead of a jury of peers, we should have facial movement experts decide the fate of our court system? And instead of holding up the First Amendment, we should be more concerned with whether someone may or may not be lying on the stand and thus committing perjury?! Isn’t the point of having good lawyers to use actual evidence to prove or disprove a case and not rely solely on the physical appearance of a plaintiff, defendant, or witness? Isn’t the idea of justice being served based on the facts of the case and not whether or not one person looks nicer/better/prettier/smarter/kinder than the other? Because that is the logical conclusion when we base the law on what someone looks like. Her ID could have been confirmed in numerous other ways and her evidence is either good enough to win her case or it is not. No amount of minute muscle twitches is going to change that.

spatula
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:28 pm: [report]

@tabby I think you are over-exaggerating a touch. NO ONE is suggesting basing the law on “what someone looks like”. It’s simply being suggested that perhaps BEING ABLE TO SEE SOMEONE and verify that they are who they say they are, is necessary for our legal system.

Coral
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:34 pm: [report]

@tabby: I think a jury is fine—I never said that we need facial movement experts. And of course, our first amendment is important—but sometimes, I think we have a little TOO MUCH freedom. No one wants innocent people going to jail, and most people don’t want people to feel wronged for obeying and practicing their religion. BUT a court of law is different than everyday, public life. Certainly unveiling oneself won’t harm anyone physically, and if it is necessary in cases in order to have a fair case for all parties involve, then maybe that’s the way it should be.

tabby
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:37 pm: [report]

@spatula, My point is that it is a slippery slope. Once you start taking away people’s rights, it is easy to take away more rights. She offered to prove her identity to the court in a manner that would respect her personal and religious rights and the judge refused. Just like the Wayne Co. judge (that is Detroit proper for you non-Michiganders) who bullied a woman into removing her head scarf in a separate case. These judges are violating rights, rights they are supposed to uphold. Neither woman refused to prove her identity.

Again, either she has a good and strong case or she does not. Wining or losing should never be based on anything but the law and the evidence.

tabby
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:41 pm: [report]

@Coral, Muslim women do not wear niqabs as a fashion statement. It is a deeply held personal conviction. It is not necessary to make them remove them, it is racism. Or at the very least, an willful act of ignorance. Necessary is having an interpretor for someone who speaks another language in order to be clearly heard. Necessary does not mean violating a person’s convictions.

kw1223
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:41 pm: [report]

I don’t think it’s any different than when a judge requests someone to remove their sunglasses in the court room.

spatula
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]

@tabby: sure, but what they are saying is that BEFORE you can even state your case, you must prove who you are. Which, when your face (the EASIEST and most reasonable way to identify someone) is visible, is not even an issue. But when your face is covered, it’s an issue. Period. No one is trying to base the OUTCOME of the case on anyone’s facial features, for crying out loud. Just proposing that proving your identity become a necessary part of our legal proceedings.

GreenAura
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]

@tabby: it has nothing to to do with someones looks.  It has to do with 2 things:
- the persons demeanor
- confirming they are who they say they are

And yes, it is very important for a jury to judge the persons demeanor.  They may not be “facial experts” but they are going to take in account how a person is reacting to the case at hand.  Look at the Scott Peterson.  Many of the jurors stated that his demeanor is one of the things (besides evidence) that sealed the deal with them.

Coral
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]

@tabby: You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that a niqab is a fashion statement. And secondly, it’s not racism to remove an article of clothing. It’s about religion, not race. I’m not going to even bother anymore, because you can’t clearly read my words, and you put words in my mouth.

spatula
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 12:44 pm: [report]

EXACTLY, @kw1223!!

AgentBeryllium
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:01 pm: [report]

I understand. But there could be a compromise: What about wearing hijab? They still have their head covered but you can see their face.

Moonflower and kw1223 have very valid points.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:02 pm: [report]

As long as it is applied evenly to all faiths, I don’t see the problem with this.

To look at it from the other side, could you make an argument that you were not allowed to face your accuser if a woman refused to removed her niqab?

Also, I think people are allowed to swear on the Qur’an or the Torah.

Coral
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:05 pm: [report]

I think it’s surprising that we still swear on a bible of some sort. Supposedly, we live in a country that has a separation of church and state.

theattack
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]

Some of you are acting as if removing her headscarf is not a big deal. It is definitely not the same as removing a pair of sunglasses. Just because our culture defines indecent exposure as basically just exposing genitals, doesn’t mean that other people feel differently. Showing all of her face in public could be equated to her it would be for us as having to show our breasts or stomachs or hips in public by force.
And just because you don’t agree with her religion or you think it suppresses her, it’s what she chooses. It is hers, and you can’t expect everyone’s rights to be based on what YOUR opinions are.
Of course identification in court is important, but so is not subjecting someone to humiliation (as she could have possibly felt) and upholding their rights as a human being who owns her body. That’s unnecessary when there are other options.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:14 pm: [report]

@Coral I think people tend to take that separation too seriously. Compared to places that have a state religion, places that see active religious persecution, and places where the state is the religion, we have it pretty sweet.

theattack
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]

**doesn’t mean that other people DON’T feel differently.

Oopsies.

PinkRanger
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:18 pm: [report]

@theattack: nice! I also hate this attitude people have about muslim women so often, this “we know what’s best for you, you’re oppressed and we’re saving you” kind of tone. Let these women make their own decisions about what they feel is degrading and what isn’t!

Coral
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:22 pm: [report]

@william.paul: Yeah, I mean I agree that we have it really nice, it’s just that religion and government seem to blend too much and then there are cases like this where some want their to be a clear line of what’s not acceptable and others want full religious rights.

EnfantDeLune
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:24 pm: [report]

thankfully, some states are starting to do away with swearing on a bible - and in most states you can opt to swear your oath without it.
at first i was a little torn on this article - but i think after consideration, i side with the court. separation of church and state is the best argument here - the courtroom should be secular.

I Go To 11
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:24 pm: [report]

*sigh* I’m not surprised my home state would do such a thing. As another poster put it, the fact that there’s a large Muslim population in the metro Detroit area (especially around Dearborn) doesn’t mean jack when it comes to the backwards thinking of people from other parts of the state. Kinda makes me glad I left, to be honest with you. :(

theattack
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]

@PinkRanger: Exactly! I hate that attitude so much. You can’t decide what’s best for everyone. That would be like deciding that since women CAN be white collared workers now, EVERY woman should be a white collared worker. Or just because women CAN vote, it doesn’t mean we should all be forced in a court of law to do it. Forcing someone to live their life by your ideals is forcing them to agree to you, and THAT’S what’s oppressive.

writergirl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:27 pm: [report]

Out of curiosity, what’s the requirement for women wearing a niqab who are leaving the country?  Do they have to remove them to verify they are who the passport says they are?

*sam*
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:29 pm: [report]

If the major contention is that there’s no way to identify the person in the headscarf, wouldn’t it just make sense that the ruling be applied in the sense that they must remove the piece that covers their face just long enough for the judge and and lawyers (and maybe a third party witness or something??) to verify that it is in fact, the person that’s supposed to be there??? This way the courts don’t have to worry about finger prints or eye scanners (both of which are incredibly impractical)...

I completely understand the need for identification, but the ‘problem’ about being able to judge one’s demeanor is, I think overblown. Yes, a person’s facial expressions do help a jury determine whether or not the person is telling the truth, but so does one’s tone of voice. and in all honesty, if a person of such deep religious faith wishes to cover their face and possibly risk jury empathy or whatever (b/c let’s face it there are juries out there that would feel threatened/scared of a woman in a full headscarf), then, isn’t that their right???

IMO, until swearing on any form of ‘holy’ book is outlawed, it’s completely unfair to be insensitive to certain religious customs while harboring others…

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:30 pm: [report]

@william.paul - we take it too seriously?  Try telling anyone who carries a gun that they’re taking their ‘right to bear arms’ too seriously.  To some of us, separation of church and state/freedom of religion is the very foundation of freedom.  Just because we’re leaps and bounds above other places/governments doesn’t mean that marrying church and state just a little is ok.

notaslacker
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]

Is it just me, or does the judge’s quote have nothing to do with verifying the woman’s identity?  The way I read it, the judge needs to be able to see what this woman’s face looks like when she’s testifying, and that seems reasonable to me. 

Evidence law expresses a preference for live, in court testimony when possible.  The jury is allowed to take into account not only the things the witness says, but also how they look and act on the stand.  I don’t see a difference here.  This woman wanted to testify at a bench trial, and the judge wanted to be see if this woman looked like she was telling the truth; and this woman’s truthfulness was no doubt in issue while giving testimony. 

I’m a crappy liar, and if i ever had to testify in court, and I wanted to lie, I’d love to be able to cover my face.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:45 pm: [report]

@joyy yes actually. I think there are those who look at the seperation of Church and State to mean that there should not be any sort of mention of god in government. I believe that as long as the government does not force a specific religion down our throats and allows for the equal worship of all religions, then they’re sufficiently separate.

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]

@william.paul - But government acknowledgement of a god is government endorsing religion (usually of the Judeo-Christian sort).  Some religions are not centered around the idea of a god, and some people do not believe in god.  I am happy to live somewhere that my complaints about state/religion are this ... minor ... but I don’t think that negates the validity of pointing out that we do have religion in government and that it ultimately does, if even in a minor way, undermine freedom of religion.

writergirl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 01:56 pm: [report]

@william.paul—but they do force a specific religion down our throats.

Bush banned stem-cell research because it went against *his* religious belief as a fundamentalist Christian.  Senator Santorum fought against abortion and sex education funding—a won a large part of the time—because it was against his Catholic religion.

So people in power in goverment use religion to their benefit all the time.

Separation of Church and State means that I will not impose my religious beliefs on you.  The country isn’t there and the Republican’ have there way, we never will be.

*sam*
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:02 pm: [report]

@writergirl: umm, not all Republicans… only the bush-esque ones.

(FTR: there *MUST* be something wrong with me this week… defending republicans TWICE this week on here, and it’s only WEDNESDAY!! ugh, I need to get out of NC, stat!!!)

writergirl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:08 pm: [report]

@sam—I meant the party as a whole which is being run by the conservative Christian Right.

*sam*
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]

@writergirl: ah, yes, OK, I can at least see your point on that  

though, I’m still starting to scare myself…

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:12 pm: [report]

@*sam* - come visit AZ, we’ve taken red to a whole new level of ridiculous and indefensible that should cure that nasty habit right up!

writergirl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:12 pm: [report]

@sam—I can understand that.  I’d be scared too if I was defending the party and technically, I am one.

*sam*
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:16 pm: [report]

HAHA! yeah, you’d THINK all of the shady ‘white trash’ types around here would cure that, but, honestly, I think it’s the line of work I do that’s getting to me… I have to be like, *super* accepting of EVERYONE and have therefore lost my ‘edge’ I think.

my teenage self is out there somewhere, completely ashamed at who I’m becoming. lol

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:16 pm: [report]

@writergirl Yes, *individuals* will try to use government as a platform to promote their beliefs, but that is not a black mark on the government itself.

Don’t you think that there are people out there who denounce Obama overturning the ban on stem cell research and who view Santorum as a hero for his defense of “Christian” values?

@joyy by that logic, if the government denies the existence of a god, they would be endorsing atheism.

Karmatir
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]

Ages and ages ago I took Arabic from a very nice Iraqi/Saudi Arabian woman. She did not wear a niqab or even a head scarf of any kind. She told us that the headscarf is used solely so that the women blended away in society and before the eyes of God. It makes everyone equal as well as unnoticed. A headscarf gets noticed here in the USA and yes, there is still even a lot of prejudice about it. Since that lovely teacher of mine years ago I’ve thought about this off and on and have come to agree with her. Elsewhere the scarf may be a good idea, but here in the USA it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. And in a court of law that can really hurt your case against a jury where your dealing with people’s very real prejudices. There are plenty of ways to comply with actual religious Muslim law that does not involve the headscarf - again at least according to my teacher.

onionne
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:24 pm: [report]

@notaslacker - you’re right on point.

Seeing someone’s face while they testify is absolutely essential to being able to assess their credibility.  Seeing as credibility is one of the big hearsay exceptions (read: a way you can get otherwise inadmissible out of court statements into evidence) I can fully understand this decision.  Issues of a witness’s (or party’s) credibility (and the corresponding weight that a jury should give the testimony said witness is giving) are just that fundamental to our legal system.

writergirl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:29 pm: [report]

@william.paul.

Yes, it is individuals, but they still have a significant impact on a large segment of the population.  My point is, separation of church and state also means removing your religious beliefs when making policy.  SOmething that is hard to do I will admit because religious beliefs often create and underscore moral beliefs.

And yes, I do think that there are people who denounce Obama and view Santorum as a hero.  But my guess would be that they view the matter of separation of church as state differently than I do.  They believe that the leaders of the country should use his/her faith to guide them in policy decisions.  I don’t.

Locke—who conceptualized the idea of separation of church and state stated that government “lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience”. 

We, as a nation aren’t doing that.  We tried to under Bush legislate people’s morals.  Abortion.  Stem Cells—these were attempts to legislate MY morals based on their beliefs.

It isn’t a new concept (Prohibition anyone) but it has definately become more prevelent with the past administration and even during the Clinton PResidency because he had a Republican Congress for six out of eight years. 

Obama is changing that, but I didn’t hear him bring religion into the debates.  The conservatives did.

Raugiel
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:36 pm: [report]

@ Tabby - As a lawyer, I can tell you that the validity of facial evidence is ingrained into the law, because it is one of the factors that any finder of fact (whether that is judge or jury) uses to determine WHETHER someone is committing purjury or even whether their statements and perceptions are simply incorrect or clouded by emotion. In fact, it is a basic rule of law that the trial court gets a great deal of deference in the determination of facts precisely because the trial court and trial jury get to see the testimony, where an appelate court only reads the paper transcript.

I would have to support the court’s decision here. Not only is it a practical necessisty, but allowing some people to cover their faces and not others would create an appearance of bias in the court that degrades faith in the system.

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:38 pm: [report]

@william.paul - I never said the gov should deny an existence of god, because even as someone who personally doens’t believe in god, I see that as equally bad/imposing.  Leaving religion out of politics is what I want.  No endorsement or denial of an existence of any deity.  If we were to simply remove mentions of god from our currency, pledge of allegience, our policy making (re: writergirl’s comments) etc (as many of them were originally), that would not be a denial of an existence of god.  It would be the state concerning itself with matters of the state.

_jsw_
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 02:55 pm: [report]

Ah, freedom of religion. Always a fun topic.

The First Amendment does not, contrary to popular belief, allow complete freedom of religion when the religion involves practices contrary to our laws. Otherwise, one could be a polygamist, one could be a cannibal, one could ritually sacrifice virgins, and so on.

In this case, the interests of the state trump the practices of the religion. The need to see a witness’s face is paramount in these situations, as described above. The law does not force Muslims to do anything it doesn’t support Christians and atheists and Jews and so forth to do, so it does not discriminate (I agree completely, on a related topic, that swearing on a bible should go away, as I do find that to be discriminatory and unessential for legal purposes).

A uniform national dress code would be unconstitutional. However, the ruling to force witnesses to make their faces visible is not. The interests of society, in this case, supersede those of the individual.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:09 pm: [report]

@writergirl I agree it is entirely because of individuals. But I don’t think you can hold the state accountable for the bad policies of a few individuals. It’s like hijacking a train: blame the people who took it, not the train itself.

@joyy I re-read that comment, I think I see how you meant it now. The challenge remains the same though, if you can argue that the government making any mention of god is an endorsement of religion then people will argue that having the government remove all references to god is an endorsement of agnosticism or atheism.

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:13 pm: [report]

@william.paul - just because some people will argue that doesn’t mean it’s valid

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:18 pm: [report]

@joyy How would you say it is invalid? Are you going to go after the conclusion or the initial assumptions?

PinkRanger
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:38 pm: [report]

@_jsw_: I agree with you, but I feel that consideration could be made here, at the very least a woman should not hve to show herself to room full of strangers, these women should not be made to feel indecent and humiliated. Hell, that could even show through in their testimony. I just think there are ways here to tastefully avoid offense.

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:42 pm: [report]

@william.paul - I am saying that though some people might argue that the gov. removing mentions of god from official things was an endorsement of agnosticism/atheism, that doesn’t mean that it would actually be true.  Not mentioning god doesn’t equal saying there is no god.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:48 pm: [report]

@joyy So, government not mentioning a god does not equate to an endorsement of agnosticism/atheism, but “government acknowledgment of a god is government endorsing religion”?

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 03:58 pm: [report]

@william.paul - yes, actually.  As I mentioned earlier, government acknowledgement of god (i.e. in god we trust, one nation under god, etc) puts the assumption out that we all believe in god.  Some religions don’t center around a “god” and some people are simply don’t believe in it.  Not mentioning god is different thatn saying there is no god.

william.paul
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 04:29 pm: [report]

@joyy and the counter to that remains that removing all instances of “god” from government puts the assumption out that we do not believe or that we deny (to be honest, it isn’t really fair to lump agnostics and atheists in the same group).

If you’re going to claim that the government simply acknowledging god puts the assumption out that we all believe, then you have to be open to the possibility that the obverse is true as well. By your logic, if government mentions X, then they are endorsing X. I’m simply carrying it through: If the government completely removes X, then they are endorsing completely removing X.

joyy
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 04:33 pm: [report]

@william.paul - Yes! Completely removing god from the government is what I’m going for.  Separation of church and state.  Not removing god at all from those who want/seek/have god in their life.

lawyrgrl
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 06:09 pm: [report]

A witness who is allowed to “testify” with their face covered is no different than testimony submitted via deposition or other “non-live” means.  That is NOT the best way to evaluate credibility and is available to an attorney only when the person giving the testimony (the declarant) is genuinely unavailable (basically that they are dead or out of the country) and the testimony is absolutely necessary to the case.  Even then the judge can give limiting instructions.  The jury MUST be able to determine who is telling the truth, who is lying and who is being emotional.  Allowing a witness - and in this case the actual Plaintiff - to testify without looking the jury in the eye would truly be blind justice!

moonblossom
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 09:14 pm: [report]

@pinkranger - regarding the “I know what’s best for you” attitude. Just to clarify my position - I think those women in the texas polygamous cult are just as repressed by their [christian based] religion as muslim women who are told by their husband/family/religion/community that they have to cover themselves. IMO any religion that dictates some second class status on women through clothing, politics, rights, etc is a religion that discriminates against women. I am not sure what god I believe in, if any, but I am pretty sure my god doesn’t care about clothes.

BlueVibe
wrote on August 26 2009 @ 09:32 pm: [report]

People are not forced to swear on the Bible.  You can swear on other texts, and you can affirm that you are telling the truth if your religion discourages swearing (Quakers frown on swearing on the Bible because it implies that they might lie otherwise if they weren’t forced to tell the truth in court).

aries3_04
wrote on August 29 2009 @ 08:43 pm: [report]

UGH, I’m glad I moved.