Muslim Woman Charged with Contempt for not Removing Headscarf

[CCRunner]

Gist of the article:
A Muslim women taking her nephew to traffic court got stopped at security and told to remove her religious head scarf. She refused on religious grounds and was taken into custody and charged with contempt of the court.

When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.

This caught my eye. Based on this quote, it seems like she didn't even enter the court but the officer still arrested her!

First amendment violation or reasonable security measures?

Full article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28278572/

 

[theskald]

Traffic court? Didn't even enter the courtroom? 10 days in jail? No, not justified. Sounds like he just got personally offended by the expletive and the judge took a basic rule a little too far. I can understand face covering but a head-scarf? Please.

 

[Godwynn]

You can hide bombs in headgear.

 

[theskald]

That's a bomb? I thought the thing coming out of the top was a stylish tassel.

Incidentally Kurt Westergaard really needs to learn how to draw.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The article says there's a rule that forces everybody to remove their "headgear" before entering the courtroom. However, I fail to see how they can equate that to "security measures." How much would they carry on about "security" if it were a man's baseball cap?

This is like the problems experienced by Legions in Canada that discriminate against Sikh men who refuse to remove their turbans before entering the premises.

I say the woman's rights were violated. The contempt charge is ridiculous.

 

[bhsup]

The guard should be fired and DOUGLASVILLE, Ga should

1) Publicly apologize profusely
2) Buy her kid a brand new Dodge Charger
3) Be taken to the cleaners

 

[theskald]

The article says there's a rule that forces everybody to remove their "headgear" before entering the courtroom. However, I fail to see how they can equate that to "security measures." How much would they carry on about "security" if it were a man's baseball cap?

Honestly it seems like a ridiculous artifact of the 50s to me. Maybe earlier, I don't know or care, the obsession America has with hats and how disrespectful they are is mystifying and stupid.

 

[emzie]

The request shouldn't've been made. Once it had been though, the refusal was contempt. So justified in arresting her, not justified in creating the situation where he arrested her.

 

[Trajan12]

Clear violation of her rights if she was leaving the courtroom voluntarily. I could see if she stayed in the courtroom to curse the judge out, but this was just excessive.

 

[Labtec600]

Too damn bad they said she had to take it off. As far as being taken by the balif, well, there is always two sides to a story.

 

[History_Buff]

The request shouldn't've been made. Once it had been though, the refusal was contempt. So justified in arresting her, not justified in creating the situation where he arrested her.

Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

 

[warpus]

She wasn't arrested for wearing the headscarf, she was arrested for swearing.

At least, if the article I just read is to be believed.

 

[amadeus]

Separation of church and state.

Sorry lady, your nephew shouldn't have been such a dimwitted driver.

 

[Sharwood]

The woman should in no way have been charged with contempt. And we're just assuming the nephew is guilty now, are we? The gurad and judge should be charged with stupidity, and legally barred from entering a courtroom ever again, unless they're the ones being charged.

 

[woody60707]

The gurad and judge should be charged with stupidity, and legally barred from entering a courtroom ever again

I lol'd

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Separation of church and state.

Which means that the police officer had no business asking her take off her scarf. The contempt citation's a bit different, given that it's really more about the expletive. But she probably wouldn't have sworn if the officer hadn't been such a douchebag about the "no-headgear" rule.

And no, you can't hide a bomb under most headscarves, and even if you could and that was the concern, why didn't he say so to her? They could have had a woman officer check for illicit materials under the scarf (women who wear the scarf generally take it off when it's only women around) and that would be that.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Religious people being persecuted for sticking firm to their dumb beliefs and traditions always makes me crack a smile.

It puts a damper on my mood when I remember that we don't do that to Christians more often, though. It also kind of sucks that the guard's motivation was almost certainly something ******ed and different from mine. But at the end of the day, a stupid durka-durka broad got the kind of treatment she deserves, and that is good.

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[amadeus]

Which means that the police officer had no business asking her take off her scarf.

Nope, public safety measures taken within reasonable limits.

There's precedent for this. A Florida woman in 2003 refused to take off her veil for her driver's license photo. She subsequently lost her case in court with the judge writing the following:

"As long as the laws are neutral and generally applicable to the citizenry, they must be obeyed."

Given that anyone can wear a headscarf, I don't think this would be an entirely different situation, provided that the courthouse's policy does not permit headgear.

 

[h4ppy]

Damn cops, society would be better off without them.

 

[RoboPig]

They could have had a woman officer check for illicit materials under the scarf (women who wear the scarf generally take it off when it's only women around) and that would be that.

Wasn't the officer who arrested her a woman?