Chesler Chronicles

June 29th, 2009 9:08 am

Islamic Face Masks: Banned in Michigan Courtrooms

In 2006, in a small claims matter in Michigan, a Muslim woman, Ginnah Muhammed, refused to take off her face mask (niqab) while she testfied. Judge Paul Paruk dismissed her case. Muhammed sued, the ACLU backed her. They argued for a “religious exception” to courtroom attire. Although Muhammed’s small claim case was against a car rental agency, here is what Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan stated:

“The Michigan Supreme Court should not slam the door of justice on a category of women just because of their religious belief…Under the proposed rule, women who are sexually assaulted do not have their day in court if they wear a veil mandated by their religion.”

Sexual assault was not at issue nor was the victim afraid that testifying might lead to her death. Leave it to the ACLU to always get it wrong.

Finally, earlier this month, on June 17, 2009, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 vote, ruled that a Judge had the power to “require witnesses to remove head or facial covering as (the witness) was testifying.” A Judge has the right to see a witness’s “facial expressions” to determine her “truthfulness” while she testifies.

Expect many more such cases. Indeed, expect Ginnah Muhammed to appeal this right up to the Supreme Court.

Both the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) have gone to court in Florida (2002), California (2005) , Michigan (2008), and Oklahoma (2008) to fight for a Muslim woman’s right to cover her hair or face—whether it is while being photographed for a driver’s license or for a police mug shot; or while working at McDonald’s or Abercrombie Kids. In 2007, CAIR wrote a letter on behalf of a Muslim woman in Georgia who refused to remove her headscarf in order to enter a courtroom to plead “not guilty” to a traffic ticket. In 2004, the Justice Department supported a lawsuit brought on behalf of a sixth grade student in Oklahoma who wanted to wear hijab in her public school. That same year, the school reviewed their policy, amended their dress code, paid the student an undisclosed sum, and allowed her to attend classes wearing hijab.

Religious Muslims are outraged that Christians can wear crucifixes, nuns and priests can wear habits, Jews can wear skullcaps or wigs and head coverings, Sikhs can wear turbans, Hindus can wear veils and saris–but that Muslims cannot wear burqas or niqab.

Of course, only the Islamic female religious attire masks all five senses and makes human interaction almost impossible. Hijab (a headcovering) is another matter entirely and is not under discussion here.

Many conservatives and religious people do not want the government telling them how to dress or limiting their private religious practices. Most progressives, including feminists, view the burqa, (full face and body shroud), niqab, (face mask plus head and body covering), and hijab (headcovering so that no hair shows), as either a Muslim woman’s religious right or as her culturally sanctioned expression of modesty. In addition, they may see the ban on the burqa as a form of “racial profiling,” or as “Islamophobic.”

I appreciate but respectfully disagree with both views. I believe that we must ban the burqa and niqab not only for reasons of national security, (something that Daniel Pipes has already argued), but also for health-related reasons–and on the grounds of women’s rights and human rights.

I will develop this argument at length in the future.

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

30 Comments

1. Tony DeCarlo:

The Michigan court has it exactly right. How is the court to know if the individual wearing a veil or a burqa is actually the plaintiff or defendant, or perhaps a stand-in. I have no real problems with a head covering (hijab) since many religions have similar customs. I think our society should draw the line at full or partial face covering for those interacting with governmental agencies. Interestingly, Sarkozy of France has recommended that burqas be outlawed in any context in his country. He correctly suggests that it places women in an inferior role since there is no such requirement for Muslim men.

Jun 29, 2009 - 11:16 am 2. George Jochnowitz:

Historically, most religions–maybe all–have placed women in an inferior role.

I believe that female genital mutilation is illegal in the United States. Does anybody have information about the legality of circumcizing boys who are not babies without using an anesthetic?

Jun 29, 2009 - 11:33 am 3. Larsen E. Whipsnade:

2. George J: “Does anybody have information about the legality of circumcizing boys . . .”

George, how on earth did you manage to leap from face coverings to circumcision? Is there somewhere a requirement to show our dicks in order to confirm our identity?

Jun 29, 2009 - 1:17 pm 4. Norman Simms:

Yes, we have to call a halt to the spread of fanaticism and abuse under the disguise of human rights. It is time to dig our heels in and say no, no, no–enough is enough.

Norman

Jun 29, 2009 - 1:29 pm 5. George Jochnowitz:

Larsen,

I am talking about different ways in which Islam causes problems–for both men and women.

Jun 29, 2009 - 1:34 pm 6. Lisa:

Does anybody have information about the legality of circumcizing boys who are not babies without using an anesthetic?

*****

First of all, equating FGM with circumcision is false comparison.

Secondly, both of my boys had locals for their circs and were not distressed at all.

Thirdly, I’m not sure there are laws regarding anethesia for minor surgeries.

Jun 29, 2009 - 1:57 pm 7. Louis Santacroce:

I guess I have no problem with the hijab, but only in the same way I have no problem with NAMBLA; i.e., just as allowing the existance of NAMBLA allows us to keep tabs on child molesters, allowing the hijab allows us to keep tabs on 50% of the potential terrorists in the United States.
But, if we MUST allow muslims to foul the air we breathe (and we won’t be breathing it much longer, as long as we allow them to live here) then, as Phyllis points out, the burqa and niqab must be outlawed (with stiff penalties not only for women who defy the law, but even stiffer penalties for the men who insist — on penalty of death — that “their” women wear them) both for national security reasons and for those of health, women’s rights and human rights.

Jun 29, 2009 - 2:19 pm 8. David W. Lincoln:

Hegemony instead of equality. That is the end game of those who insist on equality.

What about the hampering of lawyers who want to ask the covered up female questions, but they are denied proof that they are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Sorry, ain’t buying that.

Jun 29, 2009 - 2:53 pm 9. Reclass:

This is a real slippery slope upon which to step when judges can have the power to tell people how to dress.

Moreover, as reported in the article, the rationale given by the justices pertains to their ability or inability to judge the truthfulness of a witness by examining their face. I believe that the ability to determine veracity in such a fashion is not a common talent and probably not one that the vast majority of jurists in this country possess.

Finally, I think we need to question the implied equation here between women’s liberation/equality etc and womne’s freedom to expose their bodies! That’s another slippery slope that ends in Ms. Spears.

Jun 29, 2009 - 3:19 pm 10. Anita Hope:

I am sorry, if she came to this country to become part of our society, then she must adhere to the rules of our court system. If fearing reprisals from her family then they should not be living in America. We have made this country a haven/sanctuary from these attracities and if we allow them to be played out here then we should not attempt to go into other countries and attempt to stop them their.. The ACLU needs to review their legal interventions and
stop allowing foreigners to use them to abolish our laws to meet their needs. We our a Nation of People that escaped persacution and we don’t want it here.

Jun 29, 2009 - 3:37 pm 11. Marion L.:

I have not examined each and every ruling made by the ACLU. However, as an American feminist, I am very thankful for the existence of this organization. It proctects the freedom of expression that makes this blog possible.

I’m not a fan of niqabs. I hope that eventually women will stop wearing them. However, if a woman’s voice can be heard clearly enough for the court report to transcribe her remarks, then I think she should be allowed to wear it while testifying.

Jun 29, 2009 - 4:38 pm 12. Evil Pundit:

“First of all, equating FGM with circumcision is false comparison.”

True, in the sense that female circumcision is unacceptable in our matriarchal Western society, while male circumcision is acceptable.

Jun 29, 2009 - 5:10 pm 13. fred:

Covering one’s face where financial transactions are permitted should be forbidden. The penalty being the immediate loss of insurance cover by the organization permitting it. (Note: this should include medical facilities as they wish to get paid) If you want to cover your face, fine, but you forfeit participating in certain parts of western culture.

Having recently gone through citizens’ initiatives on the definition of marriage, perhaps it is time for parts of the USA to consider one on the acceptability of covering one’s face in public………. male and/or female……

It does seems that security laws are not adequate to that task.

Jun 29, 2009 - 5:58 pm 14. Juliet:

If she did not want to remove her face covering then she should have dropped the case. That would have solved the problem. As for driving that is a privelge not a right; keep face covering no license.

Jun 29, 2009 - 7:42 pm 15. Reclass:

Anita @10

Actually I believe jurisprudence has thus far prohibited courts from mandating dress for witnesses/defendants. Please see, for example, the Ryslik decision and the Fergerstrom decision, both of which seem to intimate that there are limits on the courts ability to proscribe dress. In the Ryslik case, one of the issues revolved around the right of the court to order that a cleric be forced to remove his clerical clothing before testifying. Other court decisions have been reversed after witnesses/defendants etc have been forced by the court to remove objects of religious clothing such as yarmulkes. (I believe America has become a “haven” for such religiously persecuted groups as the Jewish peoples, hasn’t it? Did they then “abolish our laws.?”)

Jun 29, 2009 - 7:43 pm 16. Delia:

Phyllis, I give up. I tried to post my post three times! UGH.

Jun 29, 2009 - 9:25 pm 17. tramky:

This is total nonsense. There can be NO justification for hiding behind veils and masks when dealing with legal matters. The certainty of personal identity trumps ANY other alleged justifications for permitting individuals from covering their faces.

It is patently absurd for individuals to be permitted to cover their faces when sitting for driver license photos and mug shots. In fact, it is so absurd as to be laughable. Where such is required after outrageous ACLU lawsuits, no photo of the individual should be taken; instead the photo of the individual should be replaced with an image of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban. Then the person’s identity remains hidden while a message about the person’s true intent is made clear to those who require that the photo ID be presented.

Jun 30, 2009 - 2:52 am 18. SYD:

Linking you in my blog today, Dr. Chesler:

http://syd4.blogspot.com/2009/06/muslim-woman-speaks-out-about-her-right.html

Following this issue with interest.

Thanks again.

SYD

Jun 30, 2009 - 3:42 am 19. m. tomlinson:

A fine article but I would quibble with your description of the niqab as a “religious dress.” Having read the Koran in Arabic, I assure you that the only requirement is that “women cover their chest/breasts.” Let us be very clear, the hijab, burka, niqab are not religious symbols. They are political ones.

Jun 30, 2009 - 4:20 am 20. mark:

It is my understanding that the Islamic “requirement” for the burqa, nijab, et al. is not mandated by Islam, but is rather a cultural requirement based on Islamic male traditions of denigrating females.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:27 am 21. Lynn B.:

I, personally, have zero problem with head coverings. But, I am reminded of crimes commited by men in burqas and veils, ie bank robberies. Another reason for banning the damned things. Women are NOT walking vaginas, no matter what Muslim men think. This whole issue is not about modesty, it is about power, control and superiority.

Jun 30, 2009 - 6:31 am 22. agn:

It is MUSLIMS who are sexually fixated, not Westerners in general.

Within Islam, women ARE basically walking vaginas licit for male penetration unless she is properly hidden away.

BOTH MUslim men and women are fixated on sexuality, and this is the basis for Muslimahs’ defence of covering along the lines “I want to be judged for what type of person I am, not for my looks. Therefore, I cover myself”.

In such a statement, the Muslimah fully sanctions and endorses the view that UNLESS she is covered, she can’t expect to be treated than anything but a piece of licit meat.

Thus, she is being deeply offensive to
A) all women who choose to dress whichever way they want, and YET demands to be treated as a person.
B) All males who are perfectly capable of seeing a beautiful (or ugly) woman and YET treat her as a person, rather than a piece of meat.

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:17 am 23. Tina Trent:

The circumcision discussion is embarrassing for this forum — forcibly removing females’ genitals is neither similar to the circumcision performed on male children nor a source of humor. Frankly, take it somewhere else, or educate yourself minimally before speaking — whatever it takes. I’ve seen cases up close and in photographs (while seeking urgent gynecological/obstetrics care, and in lobbying for outlawing the practice). It is torture and mutilation, and not obscurely so. Picture somebody severing your penis, then sewing the base shut so that only part of the remaining portion of the urethra is functional: that is the appropriate anatomical comparison, horrific as it may be to state bluntly.

Jun 30, 2009 - 7:26 am 24. David Thomson:

I hesitate to advocate for the complete abolition of face covering in American society. In many respects, however, I realize that I am engaging in a bit of mealy mouth double talk. By the time I allow for exceptions—the law, as a practical matter, would forbid covering one’s face in the vast majority of instances! At the end of the day, the ultra-traditionalist Muslim female would barely be allowed to walk outside her home and get into the car to attend religious services.

Jun 30, 2009 - 9:38 am 25. Lauren:

How does one develop an argument against such utter stupidity? I’m looking forward to your updated post.

Jun 30, 2009 - 10:54 am 26. Cicereaux:

The law in Louisiana prohibits masks in public (with exceptions for Mardi Gras and Halloween). This law was originally intended to fight the KKK. I wonder of Louisiana law applies to Muslims niqabs too.

Jun 30, 2009 - 11:23 am 27. Omar:

“Moreover, as reported in the article, the rationale given by the justices pertains to their ability or inability to judge the truthfulness of a witness by examining their face. I believe that the ability to determine veracity in such a fashion is not a common talent and probably not one that the vast majority of jurists in this country possess. . . .”
_____________________

A jury (and in the absence of a jury, the judge) is charged with resolving factual disputes based on the veracity of witness. The entire structure of our 1000 year old legal tradition is based on the right to confront witnesses and weigh their testimony using every tool and sense at one’s disposal. A voice behind a shroud is NOT a reasonable substitute.

Jul 1, 2009 - 4:57 am 28. Evon:

In cases such as court where the judge must see the plaintiff’s face or when an officer is supposed to identify someone, heck check your driver’s license, there is no reason why showing one’s face should not be mandatory. And this whole driver’s license nonsense that she doesn’t want to remove her cover… Umm… Ma’am, it’s called an identification card; in order to ID you, we need to take a picture of your face. No face, no ID. You know what, it just crossed my mind that this might be a reason for women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive.

They say Burqa is to protect a woman. Well, Burqa makes me horny, now what say you? This very fact should make all the Burqa lovers to forgo of their cover to have their sanctity preserved because after all, we have to do away with attires that cause sexual tension. If you tell me that Burqa is simply a matter of my preference, my face was burnt so I wish to hide it, or perhaps it makes me look gorgeous, I accept your decision to wear such attire. As a matter of fact, the constitution allows anyone to wear whatever he/she wishes and I am fine with that. But when you reason with me that covering every inch of your body somehow wards off the predators or diminishes an unwanted wondering eyes (Allah forbid), you are simply not familiar with male psyche.

*sarcasm* I really feel for the rapists in Saudi Arabia. When they select their victim, they have to pray the one that walks into their trap fulfill their desire.

Another scary thought that comes to mind is to imagine if everyone was to cover their face. What kind of society would that be where people will never get a chance to watch each others’ facial expression? Why not just go ahead and enshroud flowers, skies, seas and whatever that remotely gives me a tingling sensation down my pants with black sheet of misery “just in case.” A long time ago, I got into an argument with a Burqa-convert woman whose rational behind the veil was that it signals a “Muslim woman” walking down the street. I am wondering to myself, how about make a beautiful green flower in your hair a sign of a “Muslim woman” walking down the street? Why do you have to go rogue on everything. Sheesh.

Jul 13, 2009 - 10:49 pm 29. Ayah:

Wow…. I am speechless as to the hatred that still exists in the west. I am a new Muslim of 5 months. I am an American Woman. Proud American Woman. I moved to the Middle East 8 months ago by choice. I converted by choice. I wear Niqab on occasion by choice. I wear hijab ALL THE TIME WHILE IN PUBLIC as we are to protect our modesty. I completely understand that the black women wear and the Niqab are cultural. I just wish people would understand that it is a choice that we make. We are not forced into anything.. Case in point, I am single. I have no husband forcing anything on me. No family here. So I have no father or brother telling me how to dress. I choose on my own. Islam is a wonderful religion which has given me hope and would love for everyone to leave us be. Stop with the hateful speech. It gets both sides no where. As for the woman who refused to take off Niqab. Her choice but I agree with the Judge on this one. It is NOT religious, it is cultural.

Aug 15, 2009 - 2:10 am 30. Ayah:

Correction…. I was referring to the “Black” Abayas and Shaylas that women wear in the Middle East as being cultural.

Aug 15, 2009 - 2:13 am