Muslim woman held in contempt of court for headscarf
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Muslim woman held in contempt of court for headscarf
A Muslim woman in GA was held in contempt of court for refusing to remove her headscarf at the courthouse security checkpoint. She was sentenced to 10 days, but was released before then.
Story
I am appalled. I believe in making people go through security, even when it is a total PITA, like me having to fold up my double stroller and put it through the x-ray at the airport. I know we have to do it to at least try to protect ourselves, although many times it is just a facade of security. But this is this woman's religion, it is not allowed for them to show their hair in public, period. And the story says other Muslim women have had the same problem in GA courts. I think this is absolutely ridiculous, what happened to civil rights, and freedom of religion?! If it was absolutely necessary for the security guards to look under her scarf, there should be some kind of arrangement, like a female guard in a private room, or something. What do you think?
Appalling. Certainly going through the metal detector would ascertain whether she had anything under the scarf. I'll bet they don't make the nice church ladies take off their hats. A scarf is not "head gear" in the same way that a man's hat is. It is customary for men to take off their hats when entering a building, but women customarily keep their hats on in public places. This is just discrimination. One of these days someone will sue, the Georgia taxpayers will be on the hook for the damages for civil rights violations, and they will change the law. That won't, of course, change the underlying prejudice, but at least they won't be able to act it out.
By the way, what about orthodox Jewish women, who are similarly religiously barred from showing their hair in public? Would they make a Jewish woman take off her scarf (or wig, as many orthodox Jewish women wear wigs to cover their natural hair), or make a Rabbi take off his yarmulka?
I think those headscarves could hide any number of dangerous items and I agree with making them remove it. Did she offer to go somewhere private to remove it so they could see but she could still maintain her hidden hair/face? Or did she simply refuse? Steadfast refusal can indicate a threat, too.
Sorry, I didn't read the article which probably would have answered my questions! I will when I have time though. 
I kind of agree with Kate, in that she could be hiding whatever under there. But then I realized that it wasn't any different than clothes. If she was put through the metal detectors, she should be good to go. It isn't like they make us all strip to check us out.
Now if she beeped the machine and they couldn't find out why, and she was wanded to find out that is where the issue was. Then yes I think they should remove it. Just like if we set it off, and our belt sets it off, you have to remove it.
That's the thing, from the tone of the story, it wasn't a matter of her going through the security checkpoint, they require all head gear be removed in the courthouse, period. So, even if she had gone through security and put it back on, she would not be allowed to, because they require all head gear be removed in the building. That is discrimination, because their religious tenets require she wear it.
Well, the last paragraph states that she was actually turning to leave, then she uttered an expletive and then was arrested. So was she arrested for the expletive? Because to me, it seems that she refused to remove her headscarf, and then decided to leave after she was told she would not be allowed to enter.
As for the headscarf issue itself, I'm with Crystal. There should be a female available who can do a private search.
If you look at the picture, she is wearing a wrap-around head scarf that fully covers her hair, part of her forehead, and her neck, leaving her face fully visible. We are not talking about a burkha. (The burkha is the "over dress" item that women in Saudi Arabia, for example, wear. It is like a tent, covering the woman fully, including her face, with a small opening for her eyes.)
Maybe she was arrested for the expletive - if she did indeed utter an expletive. But if everyone who utters an expletive in a courthouse were arrested ... well, just think about it.
I still believe it is prejudice. There is a high level of anti-Muslim prejudice in the U.S. and always has been. It is greater since 9-11, of course, but it has always been around. It seems we just do not like people who dress differently or look different from us.
As to a search - what for? If she passed the metal detector (or was allowed to pass the metal detector - that isn't clear), what is the issue.
And, would the bailiff arrest a nice white church lady wearing a Jackie-O type hat? I'll bet there are lots of hat-wearing women in that courthouse every day.
Sorry but rules are rules and EVERYONE needs to respect them. Those scarves could hold anything up under there.
Rules are rules except when they are arbitrary, discriminatory, or just plain nonsense. The first time some group like the ACLU takes this one on, it will be held discriminatory, intrusive, and not having any security related purpose. If security is the issue, use metal detectors.
JTSmom... I flew when I was 6 months pregnant, in early 2002. Obviously, we were at higher terror awareness, right? Well, I declined to walk through the detectors, because of my pregnancy, and was given a pat down instead. Funny thing is I had a visible fold of money in my shirt, since I was wearing a shelf-bra tank top. I didn't realize it until afterwards, but from the size and shape, I could have easily sneaked a razorblade inside of it, and the security person didn't ask me to remove it or anything. Remember, this was in March 2002, the HEIGHT of our paranoia in airports. So they bend the rules from a pregnant woman, solely on my personal choice, but will not bend the rules for someone's religion? I suspect they refuse to bend the rules for the religion because the religion is Muslim. And as was mentioned earlier in this thread, what about Orthodox Jews? They are NOT permitted to show their hair either. For that matter, anyone with some ingenuity and hairspray could hide something in their hair. Don't you think the terrorists would adapt to using a person who didn't APPEAR to be a Muslim to attack us, know we generally profile Muslims now? (I am not saying it's right or wrong to profile either, I am just stating the reality.)
Oh, and remember, this is not just a thing they have to do to get through security, they are not permitted to wear their scarves in the courthouse, PERIOD. So, she would not have been permitted to put it back on after passing security.
Here's something interesting. Wearing the headscarf is not a religious rule, it's a cultural rule. The women are "encouraged" to wear one, but it is never stated in the Koran that a woman must wear one.
Just thought I'd throw that out there to see if anyone's view changed.
I know I believe differently than most people on this board but I personally feel like we have a right to be a little more cautious after 9/11. People forget things quickly. If it was due to her being of the muslim faith then so be it. Better safe than sorry. Those of us that are Christians are having to bend our rules everyday, like having "holiday parties" instead of what they are, CHRISTmas parties, not praying in public so we don't offend anyone and so on... I won't get on that soap box though. I am just saying that although I am not against anyone because they are Muslim, (I have a good friend were I use to work that is muslim) I don't mind the extra security. Hope I didn't offend anyone, that is not what I am trying to do. Just expressing my side.
I still think it is silly to not allow someone to wear something whether it is a cultural or religious thing. If it is a security risk then let them take it off in a closed room with only another woman to prove there is nothing there then let them put it back on and go on about their business. Why is it bothering anyone for them to have it on? I feel that if they are more comfortable or that is what the believe is best for them to let them dress that way. If it provides a security risk them address the risk not just say you can't wear it.
Actually, Nancy, the Koran has sections in it calling for women to be modest. In many Islamic cultures, this is interpreted that women should cover their hair - just as orthodox Judaism interprets scripture that married women should cover their hair except in the presence of their family, and adult Amish women cover their hair with the white gauzy cap.
But whether it is cultural or religious is not the point. The point is that in U.S. culture, men are encouraged to remove their hats when entering a building (except for active military, I believe, police officers, etc.) and women are not encouraged to remove their hats in any public place, including in buildings.
As for Christians having to bend their rules (our rules, as I am a Christian), the only rules we are required to bend are those that call on Christians to evangelize by preaching their faith to others and by public prayer. The bible, in fact, in one verse, strongly encourages private prayer. Specifically, Matthew 6: 1-6:
1 Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2 When therefore thou doest alms, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward. 3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4 that thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee. 5 And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites: for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have received their reward. 6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret, and thy Father who seeth in secret shall recompense thee.
The only place you can't have a "Christmas party" instead of a "holiday party" is in tax-supported institutions, such as public schools. You can have a Christmas party wherever you want as long as you aren't using the tax dollars of people who are not Christians. And you can pray wherever you want, as long as the prayer is not given under the cloak of authority to an audience which has no choice about being there or who are there for a non-religious event but suddenly have a prayer thrust upon them.
In my opinion, Christianity is not an oppressed religion in the United States. What has happened is that Christianity has, by rule of law and according to the Constitution, been made to give up its prior privileged position and has been put on an even footing with all other religions, beliefs, and non-beliefs in public, tax-supported events in the United States. I find it interesting, however, that according to all studies, there are more self-described active Christians, by numbers and proportionately, in the United States than in any country which has a state-supported Christian denomination. That would seem to say that when Christianity is legally made a opt-in rather than opt-out choice, it thrives.
I note, by the way, that President-elect Obama has chosen to have the Rev. Rick Warren (of Saddleback fame) deliver the invocation at his inaugeration. Hardly a sign of oppression of Christianity or evangelical Christianity.
Well, I do agree with that. Take it off to show that there is nothing there and then let the person put it back on. What harm would be done there? I only have heard a brief thing on the news about it but didn't this lady cause a problem with her attitude? I could be wrong, I only caught the tail end of it.
The only place you can't have a "Christmas party" instead of a "holiday party" is in tax-supported institutions, such as public schools. You can have a Christmas party wherever you want as long as you aren't using the tax dollars of people who are not Christians.
This might be a really stupid question... but who funds court houses?
Sorry, had to go do something quickly.....will finish my train of thought......
I am pretty sure tax dollars go to funding courthouses too. How is it a violation of her civil rights by not allowing her to express her religious views in a court house, but not a violation of my civil rights by not allowing my child to have a Christmas party at school? I am more just thinking out loud here... I am sure someone will have a reason.
Actually, Ginny, it is not specifically stated in the Koran, which is my point. And you further prove my point by stating what I stated, that the headcovering is a CULTURAL interpretation.
My husband's family is Muslim, so I consulted family on this one.
The thing is, you don't have to remove the cross you wear around your neck, or the Star of David that a Jewish person might wear, etc. Christians are not required by faith to wear such things, but choose to, to display her faith. Her religion, as her people interpret it (which is all ANYONE can do with their faith) is that her hair must be covered, and they are requiring she violate that.
Nancy, it might not be stated in the Koran, but there are plenty of things that different sects of Christianity interpret differently from the Bible. Muslims happen to interpret that the Koran stating the women dress modestly means cover their hair. The thing is, I don't necessarily agree with certain things that people believe, but here in America we have the right to practice religion how we wish. So, if you have the right to wear a cross to express your faith, in no way a requirement of your religion unless you count it as an evangilical action, then she has the right to wear her head coverings. It's like someone telling a Catholic that they HAVE to eat meat at work on Friday, Catholics believe they shouldn't do so, and are permitted to observe that. It doesn't harm anyone to allow her to wear it in the courthouse, it's not disrespectful, so it's wrong to require her to remove it.
Ginny, I don't know about all branches, but Army soldiers remove their headgear indoors, and my dad is a cop, but didn't wear a cap often, but I believe they also remove them indoors. You're right about women though, not socially expected to. Still, I think this courthouse rule probably came from "do-rags" and such, and I think any RELIGIOUS head coverings should be exempt. As soon as the ACLU steps in here, it will probably be changed to reflect that.
As for her attitude causing the problem, it probably didn't help, but think about how you might feel if you were in her shoes. This is, to her, the same as being asked to lift her shirt and expose her undergarments. Wouldn't you be upset? Regardless, it has happened to other Muslim women in GA, and they didn't necessarily have an attitude.
I definitely see your point, Crystal. I must say that you are wrong in stating that Muslims interpret from the Koran that women must cover their hair. Not all Muslims interpret it that way, but if they are in the Middle Eastern countries they will cover their hair or else...
Anyway, I do believe it was her attitude that caused the problem. If the security personnel had brought her before the judge and said, "Oh, I brought her here because she cussed at me it would have been ridiculous. The article stated that she was turning to leave, not turning to enter, therefore, she should not have been made to even stand before a judge.
I understand all about the anti Middle Eastern sentiment. You should see how we are all treated when we go to an airport. One look at our last name and we get sent to the "special" line, our luggage goes through "special" inspection, etc.
I do want to state that I do not agree with any of it. I do understand why there is so much caution.
Nancy, I understand what you mean about not all Muslims interpreting it that way, but that was my point as well... Not all Christians believe you have to be "saved" to go to heaven. Methodists (I was raised in a Methodist church) don't, and I hadn't even HEARD of being saved until I was a teen. So, the fact that *some* Muslims believe you have to cover your hair, just as *some*, but not all, Jews believe the same, means she should be allowed to.
Honestly, I think we're actually agreeing in some ways, and don't realize it. And it's a •••• shame your family (or any innocent people) are treated differently for the way they look, or how their name sounds. That sucks, and I'm sorry it happens. That's why I am torn on profiling... I don't think we should assume stuff based on appearances alone, but I also think if we see someone who looks Middle Eastern, and is exhibiting peculiar behaviors, we should not be considered racists for wanting to take a closer look at that person, rather than searching the bags of a mom and her young children. KWIM?
I know what you mean, Crystal.
I actually don't mind the extra time it takes at airports and whatnot. We always comply. What gets me is the air of superiority that folks doing searches at places like airports and courthouses, etc., display to those who are being held for extra searches. I think that's the most angering part.
And I think that's why the woman was arrested. The security personnel could have just let it go, since she was turning to leave anyway.
|
Members
