Support NeoGAF

[ultratruman]

But its still targeting her sense of identity. The judge is just being a hard ass.

her uncovered face is objectively her identity, regardless of how that makes her feel. It's not an unfair or harsh sentiment, it's part of the basis upon which democracy and liberty are founded. You represent yourself, nothing else.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Then I should just as certainly have the religious right to refuse to remove my baseball cap, because the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands it in the second chapter of Ravioli.

Seeing people behave so dishonestly depresses me.

 

[Terra Firma]

Not at all. Jews are a race of people. Muslims are not.

Tell me how a religion can be a race, again.

There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Swedes. There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Ethiopians. Tell me how they are the same race.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Sure, that is one view. I think the other is that some individuals are given additional privileges because of their religion and some people have an issue with that.

A privilege? She was denied her right to justice. It's prosecution of minorities plain and simple.

 

[massivekettle]

Is antisemitism racism?

Yes. You are talking about hatred of jews as an ethnic group.

Antisemitism (also spelled Anti-Semitism or anti-semitism) is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Jews as a national, ethnic, religious or racial group

 

[Loofy]

I suggest you have a look into the definition of the word racist.

Oh sweet. Googling definitions time.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

Now get back to the topic please.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Where's the religion where baseball caps and shades are a necessary part of their identity.

Cause I think if a blind dude were in court, the judge wouldn't make him take off his sunglasses.

 

[braves01]

It should be fine as long as her face is visible, which is a fair hard-line requirement for identification and communication purposes, imo. It's not a convincing argument to compare a genuine religious garment to a hat and shades.

 

[SRG01]

This quote is from an article concerning the SCC ruling earlier this year, which concerns full face veils and not head scarves, but should still be relevant: m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2012/12/20/supreme_court_niqab_ruling_veil_can_be_worn_to_testify_in_some_cases.html

Rather, judges should consider the veiled witness’s “sincerity of belief”; any risk to “trial fairness” (unlikely in cases where evidence is uncontested, and credibility or cross-examination are not at play, the ruling suggested); ways to “accommodate” the beliefs by using “reasonably available alternative measures” (courts sometimes allow evidence to be given behind a screen or via closed-circuit video); and whether the harm of veiled testimony in a particular case outweighs the benefit to society of encouraging victims to come forward.

 

[SystemBug]

Sure, that is one view. I think the other is that some individuals are given additional privileges because of their religion and some people have an issue with that.

You mean kind off like the way white people are more privileged?

 

[Sai-kun]

Seeing people behave so dishonestly depresses me.

Me too, honestly. It's very disheartening to see people so adamant that nobody should be afforded some tiny privilege because they themselves can't be.

 

[Volimar]

So it's nice to see GAF is completely okay with denying people their right to justice just because of their religion. "First they came for the Muslims and I said nothing...".

There are loads of atheists here. I think most of them don't think religious people should get preferential treatment. The rest understand that it is something fairly unimportant from the judge's standpoint but very important to the woman's so we don't understand why she would make a fit about getting her to remove it.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

this is so childish. why does it upset you that some people may be able to wear their religious headdress in court? like, it doesn't infringe upon anything that you do.

Why does it bother you so much, just get rid of the rule and let people wear shit on their heads. Crisis averted. It is a stupid rule anyways.

You mean kind off like the way white people are more privileged?

If you want to turn this into something else, go ahead.

 

[genjiZERO]

No, I don't see a problem with a judge telling a person to remove their headgear in a courtroom because that is the norm. Her identity is fine though.

Because she has constitutionally protected rights to freedom of religion. Making her remove the scarf is a violation of this. Furthermore, the whole point of the "not hats" rule is to maintain a level of dignity in the court. Because wearing hijab is an intrinsic cultural norm it does not violate the dignity of the court.

You seriously debating wheter or not the believe in an imaginary higher being is sincer or not? You're just being facetious because there's no way to prove it, in which case you just either accept it at face value, or reject it for everyone. Exceptions make no sense, or you're just making favouritisms.

You are wrong. In court you have a duty of candor. This means that you are required to say what the actual truth is. Failing to do this is grounds for dismissal or perjury. So you can't hide behind the facade of Flying Spaghetti Monster to get away with something. You don't have to prove anything just be sincere in your belief.

nor do baseball caps worn backwards, but i still gotta take 'em off

The baseball hat is a false analogy because it's not an intrinsic cultural phenomenon. A hijab is the same as a yarmulke or Sikh turban.

 

[injurai]

nor do baseball caps worn backwards, but i still gotta take 'em off

In western culture, taking off hat's indoors was a sign of respect. Thus you would do it in front of authority. The hijab has a different cultural significance, our laws don't encompass it. I would still expect someone to undo the face cover of a burka in this situation. But I think our laws are not expansive enough, and doubling down on them is unnecessary and intolerant. It's the fact that women are forced to wear them that are the issue, not that they themselves shouldn't be worn.

 

[Somnid]

Where's the religion where baseball caps and shades are a necessary part of their identity.

Cause I think if a blind dude were in court, the judge wouldn't make him take off his sunglasses.

I think Jedi are allowed to have hooded cloaks and toy lightsabers.

 

[SRG01]

Me too, honestly. It's very disheartening to see people so adamant that nobody should be afforded some tiny privilege because they themselves can't be.

Actually, that won't fly in the Canadian courts, since they will directly assess your genuine belief if they are to accommodate you.

 

[Terra Firma]

Yes. You are talking about hatred of jews as an ethnic group.

Now we are going into semantics.

Jewish people can look exceedingly different from one another. A white, blue eyed, blond haired person is just as much Jewish as a black, brown eyed, black haired person. So, is it racist to discriminate based on appearance? How would that even be possible if the appearances are so varied?

 

[Simmins]

I can't believe people are agreeing with this decision. If you are representing a secular court system then yes you should probably abstain from religious symbols, but if you are representing yourself that should include your beliefs. Stripping people of clothes that hold such strong personal value is pretty dehumanizing because you disagree with the their beliefs.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

We make exceptions to rules for religious reasons all the time, as long as it's harmless, it should be the case here.

Question is, should we make those exceptions in first place?

 

[devilhawk]

because there's a damn difference between someone wearing a baseball hat for nonreligious reasons and a woman wearing a hijab for religious reasons.



this is so childish. why does it upset you that some people may be able to wear their religious headdress in court? like, it doesn't infringe upon anything that you do.

What makes you the arbiter of what is and isn't a religion?

Hell, I'd call devout fandom of a baseball team a far worthier religion than Christianity or Islam.

 

[Tesseract]

because there's a damn difference between someone wearing a baseball hat for nonreligious reasons and a woman wearing a hijab for religious reasons.

right, what exactly is the difference?

@ above posts, caps are a modern cultural phenomenon, you'd think they'd get a pass over 11th century goober

dark age peasants probably wore lots of weird shit on their head, but that shit don't fly in court

 

[CornBurrito]

We make exceptions to rules for religious reasons all the time, as long as it's harmless, it should be the case here.

Yeah but it is Islam this time so now we have to pretend that we never make exceptions for religious people.

 

[speculawyer]

So will she go to hell if she takes it off?

 

[Loofy]

right, what exactly is the difference?

Religion is a protected class.

 

[Dice]

I am forever going out of my way to not do or say shit that would bother religious people. Sometimes that phenomenon has to swing the other way.

 

[MuzzledBasher]

Tell me how a religion can be a race, again.

There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Swedes. There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Ethiopians. Tell me how they are the same race.

It's not rocket science, they probably believe their ancestry hail from the same original tribe.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Religion is a protected class.

Well, there it is.

You guys have fun, I'm out.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Me too, honestly. It's very disheartening to see people so adamant that nobody should be afforded some tiny privilege because they themselves can't be.

Yeah, it's just so silly. "If they can wear something on their head for religious and cultural reasons, then I should be able to wear something on my head for made-up religious and cultural reasons!"

There are loads of atheists here. I think most of them don't think religious people should get preferential treatment. The rest understand that it is something fairly unimportant from the judge's standpoint but very important to the woman's so we don't understand why she would make a fit about getting her to remove it.

It's a big part of why I dislike atheists, even though I am one.

Why does it bother you so much, just get rid of the rule and let people wear shit on their heads. Crisis averted. It is a stupid rule anyways.



If you want to turn this into something else, go ahead.

This shouldn't need to be the solution. Just make exception for religious or cultural reasons.

 

[Vermillion]

Like less of a person?

 

[Frodo]

I can understand where the judge is coming from, but at the same time, as long as it was not covering her face, if it was just around her head, I see no problem with it.

 

[Sai-kun]

Hell, I'd call devout fandom of a baseball team a far worthier religion than Christianity or Islam.

i'd call you crazy if you honestly believe that. i'm not even religious myself but...really?

 

[SRG01]

What makes you the arbiter of what is and isn't a religion?

Hell, I'd call devout fandom of a baseball team a far worthier religion than Christianity or Islam.

In the Canadian Court, they absolutely will determine/gauge whether your beliefs are genuine. The default action in much of Canadian institutions is the duty to accommodate, but only if such religious beliefs are genuine.

 

[ReadingRambo]

Tell me how a religion can be a race, again.

There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Swedes. There are Jews that are indistinguishable from Ethiopians. Tell me how they are the same race.

You do understand that Judaism has a hereditary component correct? One's mother must be Jewish.

 

[devilhawk]

Yeah, it's just so silly. "If they can wear something on their head for religious and cultural reasons, then I should be able to wear something on my head for made-up religious and cultural reasons!"

THERE ALL MADE UP!!!! That's the point!

 

[Hyperactivity]

This thread is ridiculous...

You would think that in cases like this you wouldn't have people trying to justify the actions of the judge

 

[A Link to the Past]

Question is, should we make those exceptions in first place?

yes

THERE ALL MADE UP!!!! That's the point!

Please don't reply to me with such a bad-faith statement.

 

[Frog-fu]

i certainly ain't religion bashing, or being disingenuous (bit cliche, this)

fair is fair, religion gets no exceptions

These two posts clearly say otherwise.

yes, all that stupid shit should come off in court

nor do baseball caps worn backwards, but i still gotta take 'em off

The content of your posts thus far amount to little more than spiteful ignorance and insensitivity.

This isn't about making exceptions, this is about allowing people their dignity and the right to exercise their freedom of religion. A hijab is an inoffensive, innocious article of clothing.

This is not an issue.

The only ones making this into issue are intolerant individuals such as yourself.

 

[injurai]

Me too, honestly. It's very disheartening to see people so adamant that nobody should be afforded some tiny privilege because they themselves can't be.

While we are on the subject of things that grate us in this thread. I'll say your comments, even though they are taking the side of tolerance, are pretty grating. Less ad hominem angles, less throwing hands up and proclaiming your personal hurt at other's stances. They are giving a rationalized stance, which is what will be needed to codify new court laws. As posters are forming arguments for it, it isn't hard to see what they are getting at. It's not a race to display the most empathy. There is something to be said about engaging someone's arguments rather than guilting them for being your definition of abhorrent.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

There are loads of atheists here. I think most of them don't think religious people should get preferential treatment. The rest understand that it is something fairly unimportant from the judge's standpoint but very important to the woman's so we don't understand why she would make a fit about getting her to remove it.

I'm Atheist and I don't see it as preferential treatment. There is nothing preferential or privileged about it. There's an attire that should be followed in court, yes. I don't see why religious clothing should not be a part of that attire. When did we sit down and say no hijabs or turbans? Never.

 

[SystemBug]

right, what exactly is the difference?

@ above posts, caps are a modern cultural phenomenon, you'd think they'd get a pass over 11th century goober

dark age peasants probably wore lots of weird shit on their head, but that shit don't fly in court

if somebody needs to explain this to you then there is no point.

honestly I hope I never come across people like you

but feel free to call yourself an intellectual

I'm Atheist and I don't see it as preferential treatment. There is nothing preferential or privileged about it.

pretty much, I'm a minority atheist and I really dont get this sentiment. I guess its because I have been dealt a shit hand because I am a minority and don't really want other people to get shit on

 

[Volimar]

This thread is ridiculous...

You would think that in cases like this you wouldn't have people trying to justify the actions of the judge

Everyone has an agenda. Trust no one.

 

[Terra Firma]

It's not rocket science, they probably believe their ancestry hail from the same original tribe.

And yet that is not the case at all, since there is conversion into Judaism. There are Jews who would look out of place if they existed during the time of the Israelites, just as there are Jews who would fit right int.

It's a religion, first and foremost.

Do you seriously believe that antisemites are bothered by people claiming the same ancestral heritage? Or is it because of their hatred of Jewish religion and/or culture?

The same parallel can be drawn with many Islamophobes. Yes, there are people who may be anti-Islam as a religion, but then there are many who are against Islam based on cultural or mere "Muslim" appearance.

You do understand that Judaism has a hereditary component correct? One's mother must be Jewish.

Not everyone follows Orthodox Judaism.

As I said, there is conversion into Judaism.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

Some of these posts have me scratching my turban in disbelief.

 

[Sai-kun]

While we are on the subject of things that grate us in this thread. I'll say your comments, even though they are taking the side of tolerance, are pretty grating. Less ad hominem angles, less throwing hands up and proclaiming your personal hurt at other's stances. They are giving a rationalized stance, which is what will be needed to codify new court laws. As posters are forming arguments for it, it isn't hard to see what they are getting at. It's not a race to display the most empathy.

don't like em don't read em xoxo

 

[Slayven]

judge is an idiot

 

[SRG01]

While we are on the subject of things that grate us in this thread. I'll say your comments, even though they are taking the side of tolerance, are pretty grating. Less ad hominem angles, less throwing hands up and proclaiming your personal hurt at other's stances. They are giving a rationalized stance, which is what will be needed to codify new court laws. As posters are forming arguments for it, it isn't hard to see what they are getting at. It's not a race to display the most empathy.

But that's the thing, Canada literally does have a ruling in this scenario. There is a four point test. Religious freedoms are protected until it impacts testimony and must be judged in a case by case basis.

 

[genjiZERO]

Now we are going into semantics.

Jewish people can look exceedingly different from one another. A white, blue eyed, blond haired person is just as much Jewish as a black, brown eyed, black haired person. So, is it racist to discriminate based on appearance? How would that even be possible if the appearances are so varied?

Use of the term "racism" is pretty common when describing bigotry towards different cultural groups who share a common identity of some sort. There just isn't much of a better way to describe it in English.

But that's the thing, Canada literally does have a ruling in this scenario. There is a four point test. Religious freedoms are protected until it impacts testimony and must be judged in a case by case basis.

I'm curious: do you know what the test is?

 

[A Link to the Past]

I see a lot of the whole complaints about burqas and Hijabs as being specifically about Islam. For instance, there are a lot of Russian Orthodox Christians where I live, and they wear head scarves. For all of the talk from people complaining about Hijabs and burqas, I have never seen people say that Russian Orthodox Christian women are oppressed by their head scarves.

 

[Volimar]

I'm Atheist and I don't see it as preferential treatment. There is nothing preferential or privileged about it.

I wasn't trying to call out atheists, just trying to explain why people might be against this woman.