A Muslim woman on Wednesday sued a Michigan judge for telling her to remove her headscarf in his courtroom, claiming he violated her First Amendment right to practice her religion.
Raneen Albaghdady, 32, says she felt humiliated when Wayne County Circuit Judge William Callahan ordered her to remove her hijab at a June 16 hearing in his Detroit courtroom. The headscarf, which does not cover the face, is worn by many Muslims in the U.S.
“This is the country and the land of freedom, and we’re not supposed to be treated like this for the scarf,” the Dearborn Heights woman said at a news conference Wednesday at the Southfield headquarters of the Council on American-Islamic Relation’s Michigan chapter, which joined in the federal lawsuit against Callahan and Wayne County.
I’d tend to agree. I understand not allowing scarves that cover the face, but unless the judge thought the woman was hiding a weapon in her hijab there’s no reason for this. I’m not sure if a civil suit is the way to go on this, however…can someone more informed about disciplining judges weigh in?
It’s been a common practice for many, many years to require removal of head coverings in courtrooms – surely you’ve seen at least one courtroom scene in a film and heard the judge say “Sir, take off your hat.” The hijab is completely analagous to a bowler, straw boater, biker kerchief, or anything else worn on the head. If it were to be ignored or treated differently, a strong case could be made for sex discrimination (enforcing a rule against men but not women).
It’s not analagous, because bowlers, boaters, and kerchiefs are not religious garb. It would be analagous to asking an orthodox Jew to remove his yamulke — I wonder if the judge would have done that?
Would an Orthodox priest or bishop be required to remove his headgear in court? I don’t recall that being a requirement, and I see the issue of this lady’s hijab as being any different.
Uh Clint – not sure if this applies, but as far as custom goes, ladies were always allowed to wear their hats inside while gentlemen were to remove theirs. I believe this applied to courtrooms as well, as ladies’ hats are seen as part of their ensemble as opposed to merely a head-covering, as men’s hats are viewed. (Don’t thing it applies to ladies wearing baseball caps, though 🙂 )
I have to agree with the mahejaba (head-scarf wearing woman). If she’d had her face covered, the judge would have been right. This way, he’s wrong.
Hats off to the judge.
Cennydd, would an orthodox layperson be required to doff his hat to the judge? You or me? I think so. This woman is apparently a layperson not an imam. She needs to get an American court procedures manual and follow it. A judge might make an exception for a bishop, or imam, I do not know. Suing the judge will probably go nowhere.
The judge acted in a disgraceful manner. Would you be so supportive #7 and #8 if a nun were required to remover her veil?
Judge Callahan should not have told Albaghdady to remove her headscarf.
As recounted in the rest of the article, he did not order her to remove the scarf. But she says (quite plausibly) she came from a country where you don’t say no to a judge. Judge Callahan asserted (implausibly) that he had no inkling that she was wearing the scarf for religious reasons.
Note that the judge did not, in any event, need to rebuke Albaghdady in front of an audience. He could have had a clerk or bailiff speak privately with her or her lawyer. That person could then have reported back with Albaghdady’s reason for wearing the headscarf.
9. archangelica wrote: The judge acted in a disgraceful manner.
Wait just a minute. It was the woman who acted in a disgraceful manner. Graceful manners require head coverings be removed when before a judge. Graceful manners require all to rise when the judge enters the court room.
Graceful manners require removing shoes before entering a mosque. When I went into mosques in Cairo I took off my shoes To do less would be disgraceful and would have most likely seen me removed from the mosque.
What is Judge Callahan to do when the snake-handling Christians of the Smokies assert their “right” to practice their religion of snake handling in his court room. I don’t think so.
#12
Your argument of straw is a false dichotomy.
Snake-handling Christians do not wear snakes on their head as a sign and symbol of religious devotion, belief or consecration.
Again, would you suggest an Anglican or Roman Catholic nun should be required to remover her veil when appearing in court before a judge as a sign of “graceful manners”?
Yes, if the judge says do it — also their shoes if they go into a mosque. The imam will expect no less.
The point I was trying to make is that the judge sets standards of behavior in HIS courtroom, he is not trying to impede the practice of religion outside it. We are being graceful when we follow the patterns and standards of the place in which we find ourselves. When one pleads for a benefit from a judge, it is a really good idea to find out and conform to the standards of his place, graciously.
I have navigated through the thicket of local customs on every continent and have passed the tests of people speaking 100 languages. Those Americans who did not pay due attention to the customs of the places they went were refered to by the locals as: “The Ugly Americans.”
#14
The “content” of your argument makes me happier than I’ve been in a long time to remain a member of TEC.
Ireneaus brought up some interesting points. However, from the article:[blockquote]”No hats allowed in the courtroom,” Callahan told her.
“This one?” she asked, touching her scarf. “Ah, OK. It doesn’t matter.”[/blockquote]
She says she comes from a country where it may be dangerous to disobey a judge. I don’t think the judge needs to be responsible for that; he was dealing with the culture of Michigan, not Iraq. I’m not sure she’ll win this one.