General Question

flo's avatar

Would this judge say "you're not suitably dressed" to a man wearing a turban or a kipa?

Asked by flo (12974points) February 28th, 2015
Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

18 Answers

flutherother's avatar

I think the judge got it wrong. There was no good reason to ask the lady to remove a headscarf that is clearly worn for religious reasons. Courts must respect people or people will start to lose respect for the courts and justice will be impaired.

osoraro's avatar

There is a case that is going to the US Supreme Court of a woman who was refused a job at Abercrombie and Fitch (sp?) for wearing a hijab.

dappled_leaves's avatar

I think it was very inappropriate for the judge not to hear her case. The secular charter proposed in Quebec a few years ago has encouraged this sort of comment, sadly. We’re going to be struggling with this sort of attitude for a long time.

flo's avatar

Unreal. The fact that judges can act like dictators is another thing too.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I’m the skeptic here. I don’t know the whole story – all I know is what the newspaper (quoted and linked above) said. I have the strong feeling that it is not as cut and dried as the article (and the comments above) portray it to be.

The judge may be in the wrong, maybe not.

I would want to know the following:

- what has this judge done when people of other religions (or other moslems) have appeared before her? Was this woman treated differently?

- what are the rules / laws of the province of Quebec? Are they different from Canadian (national) rules? THis was a local (Quebec) case – not a federal one. What are the regulations on the provincial level?

- was this woman a repeat ? Had she appeared before the court previously without a hijab? Was there reason to think her hijab-wearing was insincere, and perhaps a way of evading justice?

None of us know that. Not @flutherother , not @flo, not me.

But I have a difficult time believing that a judge is going to make this sort of statement without some history or background to the case.

Therefore, until I hear more facts – especially from the judge’s side – I’m not going to be quite so eager to castigate the judge.

stanleybmanly's avatar

How refreshing to discover that idiot judges are no longer restricted exclusively to backwater armpit jurisdictions in the United States.

flo's avatar

@elbanditoroso
“what has this judge done when people of other religions (or other moslems) have appeared before her? Was this woman treated differently?”

The OP’s title must have sounded to you that “Is this judge only being….to this woman who happens to be wearing a hijab? That it would be acceptable if she was doing it to men who wear things from other religions too? No, of course it didn’t mean that. It was just as an aside. It would be horrid too if she did. It just means that it is highly unlikely that she (or whoever is like her) would practice… on a nun with a habit on men with kipa, turban, etc. esp. who also happen to be rich. She is on the poor side, she is moslem, and she is a woman. The judge picked on her just like some people would only pick on the physically weak not the musclebound ones. According to some she is practicing hatred, (comapring a baseball cap to a religion-related item of clothing) Some say she is practising politics. instead of practising the law. People who are supposed to administer justice should be teaching it, no learning it on the job.

- “what are the rules / laws of the province of Quebec? Are they different from Canadian (national) rules? THis was a local (Quebec) case – not a federal one. What are the regulations on the provincial level?”
Even so,there is such a thing as a law, a rule being unconstitutional.

“wearing was insincere, and perhaps a way of evading justice?”
Are you confusing the face covering Niquab, and the hijab which exposes the face? Even then there must be procedures in the court that verify the identity of the key persons concerned * You’re imagining that that doesn’t happen that they just take whoever in without ID?

Did the judge find out the defintion of freedom of religion? It is about the state/people representing the state not being discriminatory, toward religious people who need their services. There is no need to study the Charter for this.

flo's avatar

Perfectly understandable when it comes to people having a problem with the Niquab not just in court. That is unfair to the rest of the population on the street even, not to know if that person is their stalker or worse.

dappled_leaves's avatar

Part of the problem is that the judge has discretionary power to decide what constitutes “decorum” in her courtroom. I’m not confident that any attempt to change the law to give people the specific right to wear religious symbols in a courtroom would be successful in this province, because the proposed secular charter (which never became law because the Liberals won the recent election) had a great deal of popular support here. The premiere has said the judge’s decision was “disturbing”, but I doubt he will risk trying to force such a change.

On the bright side, a crowdfunding campaign has raised $20,000 to buy this woman a new car, since she can’t get it out of the impound lot. But I’m furious that essentially, this case tells Muslim women that they cannot enter a courtroom. One of the biggest arguments people made for the secular charter was that it would promote equality – but obviously, Muslim women are not going to respond by taking off the hijab. If you ban the hijab in government settings, this means that Muslim men can enter, but not Muslim women. . So, what the hell does that do to empower women? Then they are marginalized by their government as well as their religion. That’s supposed to be an improvement?

flo's avatar

The degree of acceptability of the Charter of Values may be exaggerrated (I’m speculating). Also, some of the people who pro the charter are the criminals, the same way some of the millions who turned up for Charlie Hebdo in Paris are just racists.

David Butt said it last paragraph:
”...what she did in her capacity as a judge, she is, ironically for a secularist, no better than the fundamentalist religious dogmatists who try to exclude those with different beliefs from fully participating in, and benefiting from, essential social institutions.”

“What the judge did was profoundly un-Canadian. And profoundly wrong.”

dappled_leaves's avatar

Yes, exactly.

As to public support for the charter, it certainly waxed and waned during the PQ’s run, but this HuffPo article cites a poll that found 66% of Quebeckers in favour of such a charter. I think we were lucky that there were so many other important issues involved in that election.

flo's avatar

Anyway thanks all. @flutherother and @dappled_leaves Right on the money.
@osoraro But this is the legal field, not just a store, not even an essential store. @stanleybmanly This judge is giving ammunition to the terrorists.

flo's avatar

@dappled_leaves
I don’t know how much I trust the pollstaers. Unbelievable some of the biased/leading questions sometimes.

osoraro's avatar

@flo My point is that the case is being brought up in SCOTUS.

flo's avatar

@osoraro I saw what you meant. but when the judge/s doing the deed…

osoraro's avatar

@flo Absolutely, I agree. I wasn’t trying to say it’s a direct comparison, but that there are similar things happening in the US. What the judge did was bad, and I hope that she pays the price.

flo's avatar

Yes, or better yet, maybe she will see the light and come out to express regret, instead.

flo's avatar

@osoraro I understand, re.your fist statemet above. I was too fast in my respose

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther