June 17, 2009, - 1:53 pm
By Debbie Schlussel
Today, Muslims’ attempts to impose their religious beliefs on the Michigan court system failed . . . briefly.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that judges have discretion regarding the appearance of witnesses and litigants in their courtrooms. That includes requiring a witness to remove her Muslim face veil, known as the “niqab.” (Read the press release announcing the agenda for today’s Supreme Court administrative meeting and the language that was considered and approved.)
The controversy stems from a 2006 small claims case I covered extensively on this site. Hamtramck Judge Paul Paruk required Muslim convert Ginnah Muhammad to remove her face veil, in order to testify in his courtroom. She refused. But judges must determine the veracity of witnesses, and it’s impossible to do so, when a witness is dressed in full ninja gear, with only tiny eye slits showing. Because Muhammad refused, Paruk dismissed her case.
Ginnah Muhammad in her Niqab, w/ Terrorist Lawyer Nabih Ayad
Muhammad sued Paruk in federal court, and as I noted on this site, she lost. Federal Judge John S. Feikens, in a no nonsense ruling, held that her civil rights were not violated by Judge Paruk’s reasonable request that he be able to see her face when she testified. He dismissed her federal suit.
The ACLU and Muhammad’s lawyer Nabih H. Ayad (a Hezbollah supporter who, himself, is being sued by the federal government for refusing to pay back over $117,000 in student loans that financed his law school education) then took up the matter with the Michigan Supreme Court. Plus, they are appealing Feikens’ decision in the Federal Court of Appeals.
Today, they lost at the Michigan Supreme Court level as well, as the majority of the Justices voted, this morning, to amend Michigan Rule of Evidence 611, to read as follows:
The court shall exercise reasonable control over the appearance of parties and witnesses so as to (1) ensure that the demeanor of such persons may be observed and assessed by the fact-finder, and (2) to ensure the accurate identification of such persons.
But don’t worry. The Muslims won’t give up. They will continue to fight this and try to get the definition of “reasonable control” to mean anything but. They will try to make case law declaring the removal of face veils declared “unreasonable.”
And they are nearly there. Five Michigan Supreme Court Justices voted for the amendment. Two–Marilyn Kelly and Diane Hathaway–voted against it. Hathaway, as I noted on this site, is the judge who gave Hezbollah terrorist (and soon-to-be medical doctor) Houssein Zorkot probation for his jihad dress rehearsal with an AK-47 in a Dearbornistan park. The two judges, both Democrats,
said they favored a religious exception endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and religious groups.
Figures. Some day soon, there will be five of them and only two who oppose this imposition of Islam on our courts.
Like I said, this victory is brief and temporary. And, frankly, the fact they are tying up our court system for their baloney is a loss in the first place.