In the continuing saga of religious clothing in secular environments (such as this story) Michigan’s Supreme Court has passed an order that allows lower state courts “reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses” so as to “ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder and ensure the accurate identification of such person.”
The order was prompted by 2006 small claims case in which a judge ordered a female defendant to remove her niqab, a traditional Muslim garment covering the entire face except the eyes, in order to better ascertain the honesty of her testimony. She refused to remove it the presence of a male judge, leading to the case being dismissed.
The order is being opposed by both religious and secular organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relation and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The argument for this order is a practical one. Judges in lower courts have a large responsibility in determining truth from fiction. Anyone who’s ever played poker knows that facial cues are an important part of this.
In the interest of being thorough, let’s take a look at religious angle. The woman’s refusal was on the grounds that she was a practicing Muslim. However, according to several Muslim scholars on IslamOnline.net uncovering of the face and hands is permissible for a woman if the local country’s laws require it for practical purposes such as identification or medical treatment.
The purpose was practical and she still refused. Now with this court order, such refusals in the future would be a violation of both state, and her own religious laws. Ideally this should resolve such conflicts and allow small court judges in, in Michigan at least, to better do their jobs.
Loading ...
Sometimes I love the ACLU and sometimes they drive me nuts. On the up side, at least they are predictable.