Bikerbernie's Weblog
WordPress.com weblog Acting Locally Affecting the World Globally a Little at a Time!

$ Signs Seen After the Fact

I am quite tired of frivolous lawsuits in this country. A judge in Southfield, Michigan told a woman in his court "No hats allowed in the courtroom."

She replied while touching her head scarf "This one?" "Ah, OK. It doesn't matter."

Then she later sues him for not allowing her to practice her religion. I suppose that Circuit Judge William Callahan is supposed to carry mind reading credentials to practice law. If she (Raneen Albaghdady, 32) had an objection, how could he know of she did not voice it?

This is not a violation of the First Amendment because she did not make it clear that her hijab had religious significance. She felt humiliated. Well she certainly did not sound it in court now did she? It was unnecessary for msmbc to attempt to slant empathy toward Albaghdady by saying that the scarf did not cover her face because Callahan said "hats."

There are no hats that I know of that cover the face. It also does not matter if many Muslims in the U.S. wear them because rules are rules and if head coverings are not allowed in court that rule should apply to everybody. Callahan is lenient with the rules which is fine because it is his court. He said had he known the significance of the hijab, he would have allowed Albaghdady to wear it.

There are two points to be made here and that is this country does not have to change for any immigrant, the immigrant has to change for this country. All our forefathers did it now in the interest of PC which is nothing less than a direct attack on, a serious national security issue, and causing the down fall of our country PC wins over the law? Ridiculous! . They left their country for a reason and that is because they know their lives would be better and not perfect here. This means that you have to accept our rules or you are free to move back to your own country or find another country in which to live.

The msnbc article further tries to gain empathy for Albaghadady by stating the following:

“Following tradition

Albaghdady, a native of Iraq, said Wednesday she was intimidated by Callahan and feared she would be arrested if she refused to remove her hijab.

“I come from a country where you can’t say no to a judge in a courtroom,” she said.

Some Muslims believe Islamic law requires women to wear a headscarf, veil or burqa in the presence of a man who is not a close relative.”

If you agree with msnbc on this then you would have to agree with all of what “some” Muslims believe is Islamic law and allow them to practice their religion to its fullest. Correct? Is this reasonable? No, it is not!

I further assert that if you agree with msnbc and Muslim right to practice their religion according to their laws you are a hypocrite because “some” Muslims believe that Islamic laws require the parents of a child that converts to Christianity, to kill that child. So if you do not agree with letting them practice their religion on this aspect you are a hypocrite.

Our country, our rules. Enough said.

b

MSNBC ARTICLE

Advertisements

8 Responses to “$ Signs Seen After the Fact”

  1. Stupidity is no excuse before the law. How is ignorance of religion an excuse for the judge?

  2. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because then there would be no justice because everyone could claim they did not know. Although a daunting task all American law asks you to do is to know every American law, what you are asking of the judge is to know all customs of all peoples and all religions of the world. This is not required, what is required is that people take responsibility for themselves and speak up under such circumstances and not say OK to something that is not.

    b

  3. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of the custom is not allowed in this case. The judge, as an instrument of the state, may not impose a burden on this woman’s religion.

    The judge violated the law, plainly and simply. There is no excuse, under the law.

  4. Ed,

    Sorry, the judge did nothing wrong because he is not responsible to know every custom in the world. Remember also that she complied without objection. You are confusing having to know the laws of the land with the customs of the world which is simply wrong. Had she said this is a religious custom and he still insisted then I would say he was wrong, not until then. I need you to show me where it is written that a judge must know all the customs of the world. Furthermore, there are many cases that if their religion conflicts with our laws, they cannot demand to preform them, plain and simple.

    b

  5. The judge is responsible to follow the law in the U.S. Under U.S. law, he was in error. Whether he knew it or not, his duty is to follow it, and his ignorance is not an excuse. He should be held absolutely liable.

    You are confusing polite waiving of religious ignorance with the law of the U.S.

    You need to show me where the First Amendment doesn’t apply in this judge’s courtroom. There are not many cases where religion conflicts can’t be accommodated — and the law is that if accommodation is easy, it should be done. In this case, accommodation is easy.

    The judge can’t get off the hook because he bullied the woman. The judge’s job is to make sure people aren’t bullied, to make sure they may practice their faith. He wasn’t doing his job.

  6. Ed, Ed, Ed,

    You show me first where it is written that a judge must know every custom in the world. I am not going to argue with you much longer because you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend or understand our laws.

    You said

    “Stupidity is no excuse before the law. How is ignorance of religion an excuse for the judge?”

    . . . because knowing religion is not the law, simple really.

    He bullied no one and would have said the same to anyone wearing anything on their head which demonstrates he is not prejudice. He also said that he would not have taken issue (to spell it out for you he would have accommodated her) with her wearing the hijab (that looked like a scarf.) Did you even read the article?

    You do realize that our laws are also based on intent, right? In other words to convict him the accuser has to prove the judges intent to violate her First Amendment right. That has not been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt. If a person hits someone with the intent to injure it is assault, if it is a thing of passion and a person looses control then it is only harassment. If he had no intent to discriminate against her religion then there is no foul, sorry. The only thing he is in error of is not the law but a custom which he is not responsible for knowing as stated before, and this is not punishable by law.

    I am not sure how else to explain this to you.

    b

  7. Start with the First Amendment. That woman has an almost absolute right to keep her head covered. The Judge lacks all authority to ask that she uncover it, whether she complains or not. Under the law — something I suspect you’ve never studied — judges do not have discretion to waive the Constitution if it suits their immediate purposes. Her right to wear hijab is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

    As an office of the law, as a judge, he has an absolute, unwaivable duty to see her rights are protected — whether she protests or not. This is one of the “unalienable” rights Franklin inserted into the Declaration of Independence. You don’t have to tell the judge of your religious faith in order for his duty to attach — his duty is absolute. If you are unconscious, and a Jehovah Witness, and he gives you a transfusion, he is still liable for the violation of religious right, even if it saves your life.

    This law is not based on intent. You’re confusing scienter, a principle of criminal law, with religious right. They are not the same thing. This law is not based on intent in any way. There is no scienter requirement.

    This is not a criminal case. There is no “beyond the shadow of a doubt” standard. There is a much higher standard that the judge should live up to, however, as a judge and attorney. He is sworn to protect citizens, and that includes citizens’ rights, especially in his court, and even when he is unaware of the religious significance.

    You don’t have to carry a neon sign on your forehead that says you’re Mormon. If someone forces you to drink alcohol, that’s a violation of your religious rights. You don’t have to carry a sign that says you’re Jewish or Moslem — no one can make you eat pork without violating your religious rights.

    If it were an act of passion, criminal law might be called in to play — but this was not an act of passion. That doesn’t excuse the judge in any way. In fact, it makes it worse.

    He very carefully and soberly trashed her faith.

    His excuse is that he is an idiot? Let him resign, then. We don’t need any more idiots on the bench.

    I can’t help it if you don’t comprehend the law. You can cure that simply. Take the LSAT, enroll in law school, graduate, take the bar. It’s pretty simple, really.

    His saying, after the fact, that he wouldn’t have taken issue with her wearing the hijab, does not excuse his taking issue with her wearing the hijab. He had a duty to protect her rights, but instead he violated her rights.

    There’s no big punishment anywhere. But he’s not excused for being an culturally illiterate oaf.

  8. Since you seem to be avoiding answering me directly and keep making attempts at emotional appeals that have NOTHING to do with what I have said I will have to address what you have said point by point.

    Start with the First Amendment. That woman has an almost absolute right to keep her head covered.

    Where is it that I or the judge said that she did not have the right to keep her head covered for religious reasons? In fact we both agreed that she had the right.

    The Judge lacks all authority to ask that she uncover it, whether she complains or not.

    Incorrect the rule in the court is that no hats allowed which can include any head covering. He did not say no religious head covering.

    Under the law — something I suspect you’ve never studied

    Pal, I could say the same about you.

    — judges do not have discretion to waive the Constitution if it suits their immediate purposes.

    Who said they did? He just said no hats allowed in the courtroom

    Her right to wear hijab is absolutely protected by the First Amendment.

    Again who said otherwise? Just because he said “no hats allowed” did not mean he told her to remove a religious hat.

    As an office of the law, as a judge, he has an absolute, unwaivable duty to see her rights are protected — whether she protests or not. This is one of the “unalienable” rights Franklin inserted into the Declaration of Independence. You don’t have to tell the judge of your religious faith in order for his duty to attach — his duty is absolute. If you are unconscious, and a Jehovah Witness, and he gives you a transfusion, he is still liable for the violation of religious right, even if it saves your life.

    You are kidding right? You cannot be that obtuse. You are so wrong here. Trust me on this I have been in the medical field for 26 years and was involved in the law for 23. His only crime would be if he acknowledged the unconscious person as injured and took no action that is abandonment. If he acted in good faith and gave a transfusion NOT KNOING he is a Jehovah Witness he is NOT liable. This is called IMPLIED CONSENT. This applies even if a conscience person in distress says they do not want help then falls unconscious you now have their IMPLIED CONSENT to help them. My God man now you are expecting people to believe that because a person is a judge his is supposed to know what the religion of every person in the world is. This clearly shows that you are nothing but a troll.

    This law is not based on intent. You’re confusing scienter, a principle of criminal law, with religious right. They are not the same thing. This law is not based on intent in any way. There is no scienter requirement.

    Um, that is only partially correct. Again, it is unreasonable to expect a judge to be omniscient, so the person affected must speak up.

    This is not a criminal case. There is no “beyond the shadow of a doubt” standard. There is a much higher standard that the judge should live up to, however, as a judge and attorney. He is sworn to protect citizens, and that includes citizens’ rights, especially in his court, and even when he is unaware of the religious significance.

    Again, it is unreasonable to expect someone to protect someone from something if it is not known that any wrong doing is happening, that is simple.

    You don’t have to carry a neon sign on your forehead that says you’re Mormon. If someone forces you to drink alcohol, that’s a violation of your religious rights. You don’t have to carry a sign that says you’re Jewish or Moslem — no one can make you eat pork without violating your religious rights.

    You are dead wrong and to a degree you do have to carry a sign or open your mouth, again it is a matter of reasonability and responsibility for oneself. Furthermore, he did not forcer her to do anything she willingly complied, why can you not understand? If you order dessert in a restaurant and they make it with lard and you are Jewish and you did not ask if they make their dessert with pork lard they did not violate your religious rights because it is your responsibility to ask.

    If it were an act of passion, criminal law might be called in to play — but this was not an act of passion.

    I did not say it was, I gave a specific example in the law how thing are not always what they seem to the public, I did not use this case as the example.

    That doesn’t excuse the judge in any way. In fact, it makes it worse.

    Wrong, and it does.

    He very carefully and soberly trashed her faith.

    You are saying that he did this intentionally, you could not be further from the truth. One who has to lie about the facts to make their case has no case at all.

    His excuse is that he is an idiot? Let him resign, then. We don’t need any more idiots on the bench.

    He is an idiot because he does not know everything? Come on now troll, be realistic.

    I can’t help it if you don’t comprehend the law.

    How clever of you using what I said about you in my last comment, can you not be original?

    You can cure that simply. Take the LSAT, enroll in law school, graduate, take the bar. It’s pretty simple, really.

    No need. As messed up as the law is at times there is one rule that is common. This is if it seems unreasonable, or does not make sense it is usually not the way the law is meant or enforced.

    His saying, after the fact, that he wouldn’t have taken issue with her wearing the hijab, does not excuse his taking issue with her wearing the hijab. He had a duty to protect her rights, but instead he violated her rights.

    Again, just like the Jehovah that you were so wrong about, you cannot violate their rights if you do not know. Be reasonable.

    There’s no big punishment anywhere. But he’s not excused for being an culturally illiterate oaf.

    Again, you are making the claim that culturally inferior because he does not know all cultures? You are an unreasonable absurd person that must know everything about everything. How tough it must be to be you.

    I grow tired of repeating myself ad nauseam.

    b


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: