PDA

View Full Version : The courtroom is a secular place and a secular space



Rum_Pirate
07-08-2016, 01:16 PM
Muslim “Welfare Queen” Refuses to Remove Headscarf in Court… Judge Puts Her in Her Place
Muslim immigrant Rania El-Alloul had a rude awakening in a Montreal court when she showed up wearing her Islamic head covering (http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-woman-veil-in-public-1/).

Arrogantly assuming that the court would bow to her beliefs, she was told by Quebec Judge Eliana Marengo that if she wanted to be heard she would have to remove her hajib.

“The courtroom is a secular place (http://conservativetribune.com/obama-war-on-christians/) and a secular space,” said Marengo. “There are no religious symbols in this room. Not on the walls and not on the persons.” Full report http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-welfare-queen-judge/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-07-06&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons




Erm, if "the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” and “There are no religious symbols in this room. Not on the walls and not on the persons.”, did they do away/remove with the Bible and the requirement that witnesses have to swear to tell the truth on it? :rolleyes:

Just asking. Maybe somebody could advise/clarify.

Bobcat
07-08-2016, 01:30 PM
Full report http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-welfare-queen-judge/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-07-06&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons




Erm, if "the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” and “There are no religious symbols in this room. Not on the walls and not on the persons.”, did they do away/remove with the Bible and the requirement that witnesses have to swear to tell the truth on it? :rolleyes:

Just asking. Maybe somebody could advise/clarify.


In the United States, witnesses do swear, but no bible involved. There has not been any swearing on the bible for a long time. They have to swear or affirm that they will tell the truth

Captain Intrepid
07-08-2016, 01:37 PM
Quebec is a racist xenophobic place. It makes me quite sad. Eventually the courts will prevail here though, and allow that it is her right to wear her headscarf, as our supreme court isn't racist.

dbrown
07-08-2016, 01:37 PM
True. God has been removed from much of the western world. Isn't it ironic that followers of Allah are trying to overthrow western countries?

Bobcat
07-08-2016, 01:58 PM
True. God has been removed from much of the western world. Isn't it ironic that followers of Allah are trying to overthrow western countries?

One religion's god has no place in the secular courtroom.

Would you swear on the Koran to tell the truth if that's what the court required?

Osborne Russell
07-08-2016, 02:35 PM
Full report http://conservativetribune.com/muslim-welfare-queen-judge/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=PostBottomSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-07-06&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons




Erm, if "the courtroom is a secular place and a secular space,” and “There are no religious symbols in this room. Not on the walls and not on the persons.”, did they do away/remove with the Bible and the requirement that witnesses have to swear to tell the truth on it? :rolleyes:

Just asking. Maybe somebody could advise/clarify.


Conservatives are correct, some liberals think separation of church and state requires the infringement of free exercise.

Secular space/place is just more wretched liberal newspeak. The rights of individuals is the matter at hand.

Gun free zone, fat free zone, safe space -- the connotation is the government freeing you from anxiety no matter how trivial. Preventing it from even arising.

Osborne Russell
07-08-2016, 02:42 PM
One religion's god has no place in the secular courtroom.

In the souls of the believers present. You have no right to drive it out. That's a safe space, metaphorically. Goes with them wherever they go.

mmd
07-08-2016, 02:45 PM
Canada had quite a national debate over the wearing of the hijab recently, brought into sharp focus by the spectre of fully-concealed Muslim women refugees taking the Oath of Citizenship completely anonymously. It was decided that they have the right to cover themselves as they see fit in all places except when oath-taking or other legal activities require that they are easily and properly identified. This means in court. I believe that the hijab wearer may request that the courtroom be cleared of non-essential personnel prior to removing the hijab for privacy. In all other circumstances, they can wear a black bag with eye-holes all they want.

Norman Bernstein
07-08-2016, 02:54 PM
True. God has been removed from much of the western world.

Really? Hmmm.... I don't see any obstructions to anyone worshiping whatever God they care to pray to.


Isn't it ironic that followers of Allah are trying to overthrow western countries?

It's a bit more ironic that you'd say such an incredibly ignorant thing. Regardless, the Muslims who worship at a Mosque barely a half mile from my home aren't looking to overthrow anything whatsoever.

But then again, people like you seem to think that it's perfectly OK to generalize, for the sake of your twisted political views.

Bobcat
07-08-2016, 02:56 PM
In the souls of the believers present. You have no right to drive it out. That's a safe space, metaphorically. Goes with them wherever they go.

How does having a secular courtroom drive out what anyone believes in his or her soul?

ljb5
07-08-2016, 03:13 PM
Hmmm. Seems fishy to me.

I agree that the courtroom is secular, but I don't think that necessarily means no one in the courtroom can practice religion.

I'll bet Jews are permitted wear yarmulkes and tallits and Christians are permitted to wear crosses or carry a rosary. And I doubt anyone is telling Mormons they have to take off their special underwear.

If the woman's headscarf was interfering with the legal process (i.e, obscuring her identity), then I can see why the judge would order it removed, as they would do for anyone who was wearing any type of mask or disguise.

But not simply because it is a religious item.

Also, the reporting seems very odd. The links in the article all go to unrelated articles about different countries and none seem to link to an original source. Makes me think the reporters at "Conservative Tribune" are angling for an argument, rather than just telling the news.

It would be nice to see this reported by a competent news source.

Norman Bernstein
07-08-2016, 03:29 PM
Hmmm. Seems fishy to me.

I agree that the courtroom is secular, but I don't think that necessarily means no one in the courtroom can practice religion.

I'll bet Jews are permitted wear yarmulkes and tallits and Christians are permitted to wear crosses or carry a rosary. And I doubt anyone is telling Mormons they have to take off their special underwear.

If the woman's headscarf was interfering with the legal process (i.e, obscuring her identity), then I can see why the judge would order it removed, as they would do for anyone who was wearing any type of mask or disguise.

But not simply because it is a religious item.

Also, the reporting seems very odd. The links in the article all go to unrelated articles about different countries and none seem to link to an original source. Makes me think the reporters at "Conservative Tribune" are angling for an argument, rather than just telling the news.

It would be nice to see this reported by a competent news source.

You're being far too accommodating. The story might be bullsh|t... or it just might be one particular idiot judge who doesn't understand what religious freedom means... like we occasionally read about American judges. Regardless, it's extraordinarily offensive; I'm sure that Canadian law does NOT require people to remove their cross necklaces (if Christian), yarmulkas (if Jewish), or turbans (if Sikh).

mmd
07-08-2016, 03:32 PM
Bear in mind that Quebec - with its mostly Roman Catholic population (huge percentage in the hinterlands, not so much in major cities) - ran afoul of the Federal government over the display of Christian crucifixes in courtrooms, often over the judge's bench. This didn't sit well with non-RC folks who perceived a religious bias in the court. Feds said 'no display of religious affiliation in courtrooms', and the Quebec judiciary weren't too happy about that. They tried to flaunt the rule by wearing personal crucifixes, prominently displayed over their judicial robes. Feds said 'nope'. So, some Quebec judges (and the Quebec press) are a bit... umm, touchy on the topic of religious symbolism in their courtrooms.

But the hijab, unlike yarmulkes, personal crucifixes and Mormon underwear, concealed the woman's identity in a court of law, so the judge was right in ordering it removed in her courtroom. The judge and court officers can't be seen to display a religious affiliation, but defendants, lawyers, and observers are free to as long as it doesn't conceal their identity if the court asks them to swear an oath or be recognized by the court.

John Smith
07-08-2016, 03:34 PM
Hmmm. Seems fishy to me.

I agree that the courtroom is secular, but I don't think that necessarily means no one in the courtroom can practice religion.

I'll bet Jews are permitted wear yarmulkes and tallits and Christians are permitted to wear crosses or carry a rosary. And I doubt anyone is telling Mormons they have to take off their special underwear.

If the woman's headscarf was interfering with the legal process (i.e, obscuring her identity), then I can see why the judge would order it removed, as they would do for anyone who was wearing any type of mask or disguise.

But not simply because it is a religious item.

Also, the reporting seems very odd. The links in the article all go to unrelated articles about different countries and none seem to link to an original source. Makes me think the reporters at "Conservative Tribune" are angling for an argument, rather than just telling the news.

It would be nice to see this reported by a competent news source.

I agree.

mmd
07-08-2016, 03:36 PM
Please re-read the last sentence in my post above...

Paul Pless
07-08-2016, 03:37 PM
This story about the 'Muslim welfare queen' was from a year and a half ago; wonder how it played out.

Paul Pless
07-08-2016, 03:41 PM
The judge and court officers can't be seen to display a religious affiliation, but defendants, lawyers, and observers are free to as long as it doesn't conceal their identity if the court asks them to swear an oath or be recognized by the court.

This is how the 'Muslim welfare queen' was dressed in court. Do you feel that such attire went too far in concealing her identity?


http://i.cbc.ca/1.2977374.1427476288%21/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/quebec-hijab-dispute-crowdfund-20150228.jpg


In all other circumstances, they can wear a black bag with eye-holes all they want.

not exactly a 'black bag with eye holes', eh?

Paul Pless
07-08-2016, 03:45 PM
Hmmm. Seems fishy to me.Hmmm, skeptical of something political that 'Rum-I'm not a right winger-Pirate' posted eh? :D

ljb5
07-08-2016, 03:48 PM
But the hijab, unlike yarmulkes, personal crucifixes and Mormon underwear, concealed the woman's identity in a court of law, so the judge was right in ordering it removed in her courtroom.

This is where some competent reporting by the Conservative Tribune would have been helpful.

At one point, it is described as a headscarf, at another, it is a hajib, (which, according to wikipedia is a court official sort of like a chamberlain, not a head covering of any sort.) There is a link to a story about a different instance which mentions the burqa. The burqa is very different than the hijab.

The hijab only covers the hair and neck, leaving the face fully exposed and does not obscure the person's identity.

I think that's what she was wearing because, (according to the Conservative Tribune), the judge referred to it as a "head scarf", whereas something like a burqa would be considered more like a full-body dress.

The other interesting note is that the judge allegedly said she would do the same to anyone wearing sunglasses or a hat, which are not religious items. So either the judge was fibbing a little bit there, or the Conservative Tribune was trying to spin this as a story about religion when it clearly is not.

But that's conservatives for you.

Osborne Russell
07-08-2016, 04:35 PM
How does having a secular courtroom drive out what anyone believes in his or her soul?

When they infringe the right to exercise religion without a compelling purpose. People are in a courtroom by right. That can't be made conditional on the surrender of another right.

Osborne Russell
07-08-2016, 04:39 PM
Canada had quite a national debate over the wearing of the hijab recently, brought into sharp focus by the spectre of fully-concealed Muslim women refugees taking the Oath of Citizenship completely anonymously. It was decided that they have the right to cover themselves as they see fit in all places except when oath-taking or other legal activities require that they are easily and properly identified. This means in court. I believe that the hijab wearer may request that the courtroom be cleared of non-essential personnel prior to removing the hijab for privacy. In all other circumstances, they can wear a black bag with eye-holes all they want.

Take off the hood, take the oath, testify, put it back on.

Paul says it wasn't a hood.

dbrown
07-08-2016, 07:47 PM
Really? Hmmm.... I don't see any obstructions to anyone worshiping whatever God they care to pray to.



It's a bit more ironic that you'd say such an incredibly ignorant thing. Regardless, the Muslims who worship at a Mosque barely a half mile from my home aren't looking to overthrow anything whatsoever.

But then again, people like you seem to think that it's perfectly OK to generalize, for the sake of your twisted political views.

Ahh, Norman I love ya buddy.

dbrown
07-08-2016, 07:51 PM
This is how the 'Muslim welfare queen' was dressed in court. Do you feel that such attire went too far in concealing her identity?


http://i.cbc.ca/1.2977374.1427476288%21/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/quebec-hijab-dispute-crowdfund-20150228.jpg



not exactly a 'black bag with eye holes', eh?


Ya just gotta take off your hat lady,that's all.

McMike
07-08-2016, 07:51 PM
Ya just gotta take off your hat lady,that's all.

Why?

ljb5
07-08-2016, 08:20 PM
Ya just gotta take off your hat lady,that's all.

Why ya gotta?

In the US the government may force a person to violate a religious belief if it meets two criteria (1) it serves a legitimate government purpose and (2) it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.

I can't see how the government has a legitimate need to see this lady's earlobes.

TomF
07-08-2016, 10:09 PM
Quebec politicians, particularly some in the nationalist camp, identify strongly with France's take on these things. Which is quite different from how Canada's Constitution reads. For that part of Quebec 's political class, that is the point.

France has long held that anyone in any publicly funded job, or in any public function, should divest themselves of any obvious symbols of religious belief - and the PQ Quebec government introduced a bill saying essentially the same. It was a dog whistle to the "real" Quebecois, as distinct from immigrants -who tend to be more religious and less nationalist.

Nicholas Carey
07-08-2016, 10:16 PM
I would like to note that in the U.S., at least, there IS a god in the court room: the presiding judge, who can jail you, at her pleasure, for contempt of the court for just about anything.

TomF
07-08-2016, 10:26 PM
BTW, this is a 2015 story, and somehow the OP link misses the fact that the judge was criticized by our prime minister, opposition, and the current Quebec premier. And that the judge's position contradicted two Supreme Court cases.

WszystekPoTrochu
07-09-2016, 02:55 AM
I absolutely hate how the idea of secularism is abused. Secularism means that the institution practicing it is to stay separate from religious institutions, dignitaries and putting religious principles over laic law. It does NOT mean that a judge must be an atheist/agnostic or share their morals, it does NOT mean that there cannot be a cross in the courtroom. Contrary to the leftist horrific animal hybrid, the bullcarp, the court will remain secular even if there is a honking big cross over the courtroom door, the witness wears a hijab, and the convict two jarmulkas. None of those will automatically impair the court's work.
What would be against secularism? The judge seeking advice at the local Church of Whatever offficial; a religious institution having different (different doesn't mean only better) than ordinary citizens possibilities of petitioning for changes in law; allowing to bypass local ID photo regulations by wearing a niqab or burka on the photograph.
(In Poland a hijab would be also too much, as one is required to present oneself in photo at slight angle, without any jewellery, without glasses, showing bare right ear - not even hairdo will pass - how is it in Canada and maybe hijab is enough, de iure, to violate rules of person visual identification after all?)




One religion's god has no place in the secular courtroom.
Would you swear on the Koran to tell the truth if that's what the court required?
Sure, but then I'd feel free to lie as much as I need.



But then again, people like you seem to think that it's perfectly OK to generalize, for the sake of your twisted political views.
Guess what you just did in that sentence

ChaseKenyon
07-09-2016, 03:53 AM
I agree.

I agree as well ELJAY.

Pleased to see you still here.

LeeG
07-09-2016, 08:20 AM
:rolleyes:

Just asking. Maybe somebody could advise/clarify.[/SIZE]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Sure you are

ljb5
07-09-2016, 10:02 AM
I absolutely hate how the idea of secularism is abused. Secularism means that the institution practicing it is to stay separate from religious institutions, dignitaries and putting religious principles over laic law. It does NOT mean that a judge must be an atheist/agnostic or share their morals, it does NOT mean that there cannot be a cross in the courtroom. Contrary to the leftist horrific animal hybrid, the bullcarp, the court will remain secular even if there is a honking big cross over the courtroom door, the witness wears a hijab, and the convict two jarmulkas. None of those will automatically impair the court's work.
What would be against secularism? The judge seeking advice at the local Church of Whatever offficial; a religious institution having different (different doesn't mean only better) than ordinary citizens possibilities of petitioning for changes in law; allowing to bypass local ID photo regulations by wearing a niqab or burka on the photograph.
(In Poland a hijab would be also too much, as one is required to present oneself in photo at slight angle, without any jewellery, without glasses, showing bare right ear - not even hairdo will pass - how is it in Canada and maybe hijab is enough, de iure, to violate rules of person visual identification after all?)

I agree with most of that, except where you characterize the opposing side as "leftist."

I can't speak for how it is in Europe, but in the US, at least, the position you are espousing is the leftist position: The court should be neutral, the court officers may be as religious as they please provided they carry out their duties in a neutral manner, and everyone else can practice their own religion as they see fit.

Daniel Noyes
07-09-2016, 01:25 PM
This is how the 'Muslim welfare queen' was dressed in court. Do you feel that such attire went too far in concealing her identity?


http://i.cbc.ca/1.2977374.1427476288%21/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_620/quebec-hijab-dispute-crowdfund-20150228.jpg



not exactly a 'black bag with eye holes', eh?

whats with the title "muslim welfare queen"?

Paul Pless
07-09-2016, 01:28 PM
whats with the title "muslim welfare queen"?

Ask Rum Pirate.

WszystekPoTrochu
07-09-2016, 01:53 PM
I agree with most of that, except where you characterize the opposing side as "leftist."
I can't speak for how it is in Europe, but in the US, at least, the position you are espousing is the leftist position: The court should be neutral, the court officers may be as religious as they please provided they carry out their duties in a neutral manner, and everyone else can practice their own religion as they see fit.

Typical left around here will practice doublespeak, where state not interfering means pushing religious institutions to position lower than local fishing association.
But concepts of left and right are long since purely symbolic, so it's no wonder meanings of those will change across borders

TomF
07-09-2016, 02:22 PM
Left in North America usually implies agnostic or atheist. Most self identified religious people here are thought to support Right leaning, often Nationalist politics.

There are exceptions in both directions, of course.

Rum_Pirate
07-09-2016, 05:45 PM
whats with the title "muslim welfare queen"?

Ask Rum Pirate.
It appears to be a rather very derogatory term used by the reporter in the site link.

ShagRock
07-10-2016, 01:50 AM
Conservatives are correct, some liberals think separation of church and state requires the infringement of free exercise. Secular space/place is just more wretched liberal newspeak. The rights of individuals is the matter at hand.

Is it enough that individuals are recognized or that the group they identify with be given the same recognition? This is a good question for those liberals who propose a single moral capitalist meme be imposed on the entire globe.

John Smith
07-10-2016, 06:24 AM
Is it enough that individuals are recognized or that the group they identify with be given the same recognition? This is a good question for those liberals who propose a single moral capitalist meme be imposed on the entire globe.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.