June 17, 2009, - 1:53 pm

BREAKING: Muslims Lose, Mich Supreme Court Allows Judges To Require Removal of Face Veil

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.

15 Responses

The Left wants to help impose Islam upon America precisely because its hostile to Judeo-Christian foundations of America as is the Left. You don’t see the ACLU advocate for Jewish and Christian religious freedom but it unabashed in its Islamo-pandering. Enjoy this victory while it lasts.

NormanF on June 17, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Iím at a loss for the reasoning behind the liberal aggressive indoctrination of Islam on our society. Liberals hate religion, or I should say hate Christian and Jewish religion, they hate the idea of G-d, and work tirelessly to make sure religion is kept out of everything, schools, state buildings, and holiday observances, i.e. ìMerry Christmasî
But they bend over backwards shoving Islam down our throats every chance they get. Of all the religions in the world Islam is the worst violator of human rights and practices that go against everything a liberal stands for. The ìdo what feels goodî motto of liberals goes against every tenant practiced under Islam, so why on earth would they, ìliberals and the Hollywood eliteî want Islam practiced and endorsed here in America?
No one is exempt from Sharia Law; apparently ìtheyî fail to recognize this fact.
The only thing I can say is; be careful what you wish for!

wolf2012 on June 17, 2009 at 3:56 pm

As most of the civilzed world (Western culture) has progressed into the 21st century and its people enjoy the fruits found therein, muzlumz are still mired in The Stone Age living like savages. AND, they seem to be perfectly happy there living like the 7th century barbarians that they are. Only in the muzlum world would muzlum men require their property (women) to walk around looking like Darth Vader. To them, it’s appealing and proper. But, after all, they’re just mindlessly following the instructions of their insecure, false prophet who did the same thing to his property.

Thee_Bruno on June 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm

The progressives support Islam because it advances their Anti-Christian, Anti- Jewish, Anti-American (Communist)agenda.
Once in, the Taliban will go after these very same progressives…..Opps, too late!
The saying: “heads will roll” DOES apply!

SamAdams on June 17, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Yes, they demand exemptions that no one else would dream of asking for. Suppose I insisted upon wearing a ski mask in stores, federal buildings, and court rooms, would anyone take me seriously if I claimed a religious motivation for doing so? This is dangerous hardcore nonsense that needs to be curtailed.

Worry01 on June 17, 2009 at 4:46 pm

I assume the “convert” was simply testing the system.
I witnessed someone in this type costume entering my Wachovia bank branch. I waited outside until he/she left, so I do not know if he/she was asked to leave for security reasons. My concerned email to Wachovia was unanswered.

49smudge on June 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm

BTW: The niqab is supposed to be for modesty.
The picture of Ginnah seems kind of “look at me” extravigant to me.
I’ve been to the mid-east and know what “proper” looks like for those that dress like this.

SamAdams on June 17, 2009 at 5:32 pm

In 1997 (I don’t know if it’s still the case), I was being photographed for a drivers license in Egypt. The Muslim woman in line behind me was in full tent-mode, but she had to remove her veil to have her photo taken. They can’t hide their faces over there, so why would they expect to over here?

stevecanuck on June 17, 2009 at 5:49 pm

I have a hard time presenting an argument with your above comment. I hope to see the pendulum swing to the right during the remainder of my life. But, for today, I’m gonna enjoy the defeat of this pain in the ass convert in the ninja gear. Matter of fact, I’m gonna enjoy the rest of the day knowing CAIR is being nailed again (RICO).
WASHINGTON, June 15 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The District Director for California State Senator Carol Liu (D-La Canada) was served last week in a federal fraud and racketeering lawsuit. Tahra Goraya was served on Wednesday, June 10th while at work at the state senator’s Glendale office serving the 21st District….
The named defendants are: the Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network Inc. (dba CAIR); Nihad Awad aka Nihad Hammad who serves as executive director of CAIR National; Parvez Ahmed who was the chairman of the board of CAIR National during the relevant time period; Tahra Goraya who was the national director of CAIR but who has since resigned; Khadijah Athman who is the manager of the “civil rights” division of CAIR; and Nadhira al-Khalili, Esq., who is in-house legal counsel for CAIR.
According to the complaint, CAIR’s in-house Washington, D.C.-based attorney Khalili was directly involved in taking the legal files out of the CAIR Virginia office and concealing them in the D.C. office.
Also named as defendants are Ibrahim Hooper and Amina Rubin, CAIR’s director of communications and coordinator of communications, respectively. According to the complaint, these two were directly responsible for issuing fraudulent press releases about the Days fraud scheme, thus aiding and abetting the CAIR cover-up.
And, you know what the biggest smile on my face is today? Knowing that assclowns like Dawud Walid A/K/A Delano ‘I gots a criminal record’ Willis, Jr. are going nuts (judging by his blog) with Michigan’s Supreme Court.
Tis a good day. The battle resumes tomorrow.

West Dearbornistan on June 17, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Debbie, are you telling me that the ACLU is hypocritical? I remember when ACLU took an extreme position against any religious manifestation in a public place. Xmas trees at City Hall were out; Hanukkah menorahs in a public park were out; reading the Bible was out in public school, etc etc. And now you tell me that they defend the right of concealment of Muslim woman for religious reasons. I guess that ACLU were faking about their real reasons all along.

Eliyahu on June 17, 2009 at 6:49 pm

Given that Obama cited Western restrictions against the veil as racism, how long before he asks the Justice Dept. to intervene in Michigan?

Greg on June 17, 2009 at 8:57 pm

Good. Let just hope those ugly hags put the vail right back on as soon as they leave the courthouse. There’s enough fat chicks in half shirts, tight jeans, etc to deal with.

samurai on June 18, 2009 at 1:34 am

Don’t like our laws? You are free to leave.
However, we will eventually see our laws altered to appease and accomodate Islamic rule.
Remember kids!
Political correctness does the work of countless suicide bombers. PC will make us all dhimmis.

JWWright on June 18, 2009 at 9:06 am

What sticks in my craw about those with liberal disease in re to the Islamic culture is why they do not rail, complain, condemn, criticize, cry and detest about the degradation and discrimination that Islam imposes on women. In the US all must be equal, but liberals do not protest how Islam treats women. And its not just women, but the barbaric culture. Last July, nine people in Iran were sentanced to stoning for adultery (see http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386789,00.html ). Men get buried up to the waist, women up to their necks. I do not recall any outcries from the libs or the fems on that one.

Mick52 on June 18, 2009 at 11:39 am

This is never on the news channels!!!

Oh yeah, we don’t have news channels. We have mouth pieces for the socialist Left Machine.

Obviously, that is changing though. This is why the socialists and colleagues are so crazy mad and resorting to lies and attacks of their intended victims, the duped John Q public.

Smile on August 5, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field