Comments on: Mich.: Witnesses May Have To Remove Veil

In Wake Of Muslim Woman's Lawsuit, State Gives Judges Discretion In Requiring Testifiers To Show Their Faces

[SusanStoHelit]

Are you illiterate, or just plain ignorant? The judges all the way through ruled she had to remove the veil, and she lost her court case for refusal to do so. Nice try at creating a false impression though.

[SusanStoHelit]

It's good that it did - this makes it the law throughout the land, no defendant can now say that the judge is violating their rights by telling a witness to remove the veil for testimony.

[gravyboat3000]

by TheMasses0003 June 17, 2009 2:30 PM PDT
The veiled person in the pic above looks like a ninja.
And should be waterboarded accordingly.
Is the Islamic Revolution coming to America too?
And what happened to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Turtle-Power anyone?

I miss Leonardo, and his jokes. Wait, or was that Mikey?

[TheMasses0003]

They can clear the courtroom of on-lookers and only have the necessary people in the room.
------------------------
Especially if she looks like a bowser!

[TheMasses0003]

She needs to be unveiled as she may be a robot or something.

[gravyboat3000]

by Observer1504 June 17, 2009 2:20 PM PDT
Muslims have said that they will take over America one small step at a time and for them, so far , so good. The ACLU is helping them every step of the way and it is the biggest enemy this nation has.

______
Still can't tell the difference between an Muslim, and an extremist/terrorist I see.

Just as you look upon the ENTIRE Muslim world as terrorists, we'll keep on looking at ALL Christians as terrorists who murder Dr.'s performing LEGAL PROCEDURES.

That said, someone above posted that in court, you have the right to face your accuser, and this Judge made the right call in this case. They can clear the courtroom of on-lookers and only have the necessary people in the room.

[TheMasses0003]

The veiled person in the pic above looks like a ninja.
And should be waterboarded accordingly.
Is the Islamic Revolution coming to America too?
And what happened to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Turtle-Power anyone?

[Observer1504]

Muslims have said that they will take over America one small step at a time and for them, so far , so good. The ACLU is helping them every step of the way and it is the biggest enemy this nation has.

[SusanStoHelit]

More illiteracy.

Why is it so many cannot read? As the story says - she lost the court case. And the Supreme Court case. They set the precedent that indeed you can be required to show your face while testifying.

[willcad]

I actually see both sides of the argument, and I think the answer should be a compromise that protects everyone's rights to the maximum amount possible.

Muslim women keeping their faces covered is a religious dictate; they believe that showing their faces in public, to any male who is not their husband or a close relative, is obscene and sinful. Similarly, many Christian woman believe that showing their breasts in public is obscene and sinful. This particular Christian belief, in fact, is the basis for the indecent exposure laws in the United States.

So long as a person's religious practices harm no one, nor do they infringe on anyone else's Constitutionally protected rights or freedoms, as far as I'm concerned, those practices should be protected by the First Amendment, including keeping one's face covered in public.

It's only when a religious practice infringes on someone else's rights or freedoms that it should be restricted or regulated. In this case, covering one's face while testifying in a court case seems to violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him". That's a debatable point, since the defendant IS being confronted by the witness, even though the witness' face is covered. But being able to see someone's face as they testify in court is important, since facial expression is a key component is deciding whether someone is being truthful or deceitful.

In a case like this, where one person's rights seem to be in conflict with another person's rights, the court had to make a difficult decision - whose rights should be restricted?

Since this was a civil small claims case, and not a criminal case, I'm on the fence about it. Whose rights are being violated worse - the guy being sued for $3,000, or the woman who is being compelled to do something that she judges to be obscene and unforgivably sinful?

The kneejerk reaction of slamming Muslim practices just because we see them as archaic and misogynistic disturbs me more than the question at hand. Frankly, I think the woman should have been allowed to keep her face covered in a small claims case, but in a criminal case or a larger civil suit where the defendant would be more greatly injured by not seeing the face of the witness, then she should be compelled to show her face.

I also think it's only fair that a Muslim woman should be allowed to testify privately in order to keep her embarrassment and humiliation to a minimum. Muslim woman are deeply shamed by being forced to show their faces to men other than their husbands, just as a Christian woman would be greatly shamed if she were compelled to show her breasts in court to prove an injury.

Imagine the outcry if a Christian woman were compelled to take off her top in open court in order to testify. In rape cases, such exposure is typically limited to photographs, not appearances in open court, and the photos shown only to the judge, jury, attorneys, plaintiffs, and defendants. In cases where a Muslim woman must be compelled to show her face, the court should be cleared of spectators and gawkers, and only the judge, jury, attorneys, plaintiffs, and defendants should be allowed in; this satisfies the Constitutional requirement of being "confronted with the witnesses against him", and also protects the religious freedoms of the Muslim woman, up to the point where they conflict with someone else's right to be confronted with the witnesses against him.

[SusanStoHelit]

The issue is being able to tell if she is lying by looking at her face - there is no other way to do it. Maybe you don't sympathize with the car guy - but losing a bunch of money because the person suing you can cover their face to help them lie successfully is not right - their rights are being severely violated. Show your face, versus having a greater chance of losing a lawsuit (that can, let's face it, put someone homeless on the street) that they shouldn't lose.

They have to show their face to a traffic officer, to the camera for a drivers license - I think this is a sufficiently similar situation - there is a compelling reason to require her to go against what she believes.

[budfrank1]

I think if we get taken over by Muslims and lose our law and our culture, people like you will bear the brunt of the responsibility. The same views have turned what used to be England into Englandistan.

[TNisgoodenoughforme]

Couldn't they have gone behind closed doors with the judge, attorneys & with her & husband or closest adult male family member? That would be meeting them more than 1/2 way without her taking it off in public. If her husband or male relation gives permission doesn't it make it ok?

[SusanStoHelit]

It might be an accomodation that some could make - but trials are supposed to be public - it's part of our justice system that you don't get to have secrets without some very good reason. This doesn't rise to that level.