Pages

Friday, 28 August 2009

Face-off

There’s to be a lawsuit in Michigan that seeks to prevent judges in courts from requiring women to reveal their faces when taking part in proceedings.

“The lawsuit seeks an order declaring the practice of ‘forcing Muslim women to remove their hijab as a precondition to appearing in court’ unconstitutional and illegal. It asks that the judge and Wayne County not be allowed to ‘take similar unconstitutional actions’,” says a story on the CNN website.

This came about when a woman – Raneen Albaghdady, of Wayne County – said she’d sue a judge for making her take off her face covering. Some details of the case can be gleaned from the link, but the important thing here is, surely, that we in the West are in danger of allowing people to appear in court with no visual cue as to who they are.

Even if something is enshrined into law to say they can do it only if their religion forbids them to take off the garb – which would, anyway, be entirely wrong – there is surely a security issue here.

All the more reason for getting religion out of the public sphere altogether. If someone has to be identified in court, before a customs officer, in a passport photograph, whatever, then, quite simply, religion should have no say. If you and I have to show our faces in certain circumstances for purposes of ID, then so should everyone.

However, a statement from the judge and his circuit officials says he would have allowed the garb had he been told it was for the purposes of religious delusions. Or, as CNN quotes the statement:

“Judge Callahan and the court have the greatest respect for spiritual practices and all religious preferences. Had he been informed that the head covering had some religious significance, the judge would have permitted Ms Albaghdady to continue wearing it in court,” it [the statement] said.

So much for a separation of state and religion.

1 comment:

  1. How do these women get operator licenses to drive a car?

    We've got our own little Muslim problem here in the United States and we'd better do something about it as soon as possible.

    ReplyDelete

We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.

We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.

Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.

Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.