The police said she violated a court policy that prohibits people from wearing any headgear in court. However a spokeswoman for Georgia Attorney General said that there is no state law on the matter and that it is up to the judge and the sheriff.
I guess the good ole boys who run the court did not like it. If this happened to someone wearing a kipah Jews would be up in arms and rightfully so. There is no difference here.
4 comments:
May I ask a question? I've noticed a lot of Orthodox Jews using the more antiquated spelling "Moselm" instead of the more modern "Muslim." In the gentile world, it's usually older texts (pre WWII) where I encounter the "Moslem" spelling. Is there are reason why Orthodoxim tend to use the older one?
I just noticed that your post used both spellings, so I wondered.
No there is no reason I can think of. I am not sure how you come to the conclusion about Orthodox Jews using one particular spelling. While they may share certain theological beliefs, that does not usually include issues of spelling except when writing about G-d.
"If this happened to someone wearing a kipah Jews would be up in arms..."
Prof. Lipstadt, I know you didn't mean "up in arms" literally but rather idiomatically. However, being the word-bird that I am, I just looked up the meaning of this idiom on Answers.com, and here is what it said: "This idiom originally referred to an armed rebellion and was so used from the late 1500s. Its figurative use dates from about 1700."
We both know that Jews would not use force of arms to protest a Jew being discriminated against for wearing a kipa. But I'm not so sure Muslims would refrain from such violence. After all, how many people were killed over the Danish cartoons? In the inverted world of Islam, killing someone is not as bad as drawing a cartoon of their Prophet.
Of course, it's a shame this Muslim women was discriminated against. I won't argue about that. But if we want to see how the Muslim world (as collocated with the democratic United States of America) treats it's non-Muslim citizens, let an Orthodox Jew (with a kipah visible) walk down any street say in Medina or Mecca in Saudi Arabia, right within the heart of Islam the religion, and see how that same Jew is treated. See who would be up in arms then. Hell, a non-Muslim is not even allowed to enter these places.
This discrimination [against the Muslim women wearing the headscarf] is probably such a contradistinction because of how the West is bending over backwards for Muslims and their Islam, more often than not because of litigation intiated by "offended" Muslims. In Canada we are in the midst of reviewing our so-called "human rights commissions" because of the charges filed by Prof. Elmasry of University of Waterloo (the same Prof. Elmasry who said every Jewish Israeli civilian was a legitmate target for Palestinian terrorists because they all serve in the IDF; the same Prof. Elmasry who is a board member of the Canadian Islamic Congress) over excerpts from Mark Steyn's book America Alone published in Canada's Macleans Magazine. Notice the glaring hypocrisy of this man who deems himself in public as a "good Muslim". It's become so bizarre that the government did a review (the Moon report, I think it's called) of these commissions and found that they're rather flawed and kangaroo-ish (for lack of a better term).
Now everyone is afraid to say that they're afraid of Muslims lest they be publicly accused of 'Islamophobia', a term coined by a journalist (of all people!). Why would anyone be afraid of Muslims????? Where is the freedom of speech for me to say that I am afraid of Muslims because of the terrorism in the world today? This fear is irrational for me to feel? I don't think so.
I just read today that the doctor (a doctor no less) who drove an SUV into an airport lounge in Aberdeen Scotland was sentenced to two life terms for his crime of wanton violence. The judge called him a bigot. Why would he call this doctor, a religious Muslim, a bigot? But he is not a "real Muslim" right? As soon as he committed this crime of terrorism, he ceased being a "real Muslim". How convenient. How refractive.
One of our bloggers lately on this site profiled my views on Islam as the reason many Muslims refer to people like me as "kaffir", which, in case any of you didn't know what that means, is a very derogatory and racist term for non-Muslims. This same blogger, in his pronoid estimation of his personal religion [Islam] assumes I regard his god as my G-D, which I don't. I have no respect whatsoever for the diety Muslims regard as their god. But this same blogger assumes that we in the West accept Islam's teaching that their god supercedes the existence of all other gods, including, and malefically so, the G-D of Israel and the Jewish people. As a Muslim he was offended and accused me of being a bigot. And this is the hypocrisy of so many Muslims being economized by journalists and apologists today. This is why I am not as offended as I probably should be by the Atlanta court's blatant discrimination against this Muslim women. It's just too bad it had to be a Muslim women since Muslim women are already deemed as less than males by their co-religious in the Muslim world (and now in the West).
I know you may not post this, Prof. Lipstadt. I understand. It's not really politically correct diction and it trespasses certain taboo. But I am so tired of this hypocrisy. The West, especially United States and Canada most recently, is being accused up an down the North American continent of discrimination against Muslims; meanwhile, their religion - Islam - gets away with murder (another idiom) and bigotry. Our world as we know it is being transmogrified into I don't know what. We shall see.
Search for keywords or people:
Communications & Public AffairsUW Home CPA Home Media Resources Community & Events Daily Bulletin News Release
Previous Article Next Article
2004-11-17 12:49:33
Elmasry statement from UW
WATERLOO, Ont. -- University of Waterloo President David Johnston today released the following press release regarding recent statements attributed to Professor Mohamed Elmasry:
According to Article 8 of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Faculty Association of the University of Waterloo and the University (Article 8.8 "The member's Dean shall promptly investigate any concerns or allegations about a member if the Dean reasonably believes that a situation warranting disciplinary measures may existŠ."). Dean George Dixon conducted this investigation and has completed the following report.
----------------------
Text of Dr. Dixon's report:
Dear Professor Elmasry:
As you know, I was asked by the President of the University of Waterloo, Professor David Johnston, to investigate concerns and allegations with respect to recent statements attributed to you.
I reviewed the statements which you made on the Michael Coren Show with particular reference to your statements to the effect that the targeting of Israeli civilians was an acceptable course of action.
These statements are in my view entirely unacceptable and inconsistent with the values of inclusiveness and tolerance for which the University of Waterloo stands.
During the course of the investigation, I met with you and with Professor Len Guelke. You indicated at that time that you wanted to provide a full apology with respect to the statements you had made.
I have now reviewed the full apology and retraction which you have provided to me, and understand that you are agreeable to them being placed in the public realm.
Although the statements made are indeed abhorrent and unacceptable, I have taken into account the contents of the apology and retraction and your long years of distinguished service as a faculty member at this University as well as your assurance that there will be no repetition of any such statements in the future.
Having regard to all these circumstances, I have reached the conclusion that the apology and retraction should be accepted and that no formal discipline will be imposed.
Yours sincerely, D. George Dixon Dean of Science
----------------------
Dr. Elmasry's statement:
Dear Dean Dixon:
I would like to elaborate on my earlier public apology of October 27, 2004 regarding my remarks on the Michael Coren Show. As you know, I made statements during the course of a television program on Oct. 19, 2004 to the effect that the targeting of Israeli civilians was an acceptable course of action.
These public statements were totally unacceptable. They have understandably offended members of Canada's Muslim, Jewish, Palestinian and Arab communities and Canadians at large. They have also offended members of the University of Waterloo community.
I offer my unconditional apology to all these communities for the statements I made and for the distress they have caused.
I categorically retract the statements I made on the Michael Coren Show with respect to the targeting of civilians.
The statements were an aberration. It has always been a core belief of mine that killing civilians -- any civilians for any cause, is an immoral act.
I recognize that the University of Waterloo is an inclusive, tolerant community and that statements of that kind are abhorrent and in conflict with the values for which the University stands.
As a faculty member at this University for many years, I can provide you with an assurance that there will be no repetition in the future of any such statements by me.
Yours sincerely, Mohamed Elmasry
Post a Comment