Judge Paruk, CAIR, And Due Process
Judge Paul Paruk made headlines last October after dismissing a lawsuit brought by a Muslim woman when she refused to remove her niqab during her testimony. The case resumes on Wednesday through the reciprocal lawsuit brought by the car rental company for the damage to the vehicle, but an exchange from the earlier case has come to light. In October, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) attempted to inject itself into the case by sending this letter to Judge Paruk on October 31st, from CAIR's executive director in Michigan:
Dear Judge Paruk,The Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-MN) is deeply concerned with the incident that took place in your court with Ginnah Muhammed on October 11, 2006. The 31st District Court in Hamtramck violated Ms. Muhammed's civil rights by refusing to hear her case unless she removed her religious face veil. As you know the case has drawn international media attention, but in the midst of it all, the case has remained unresolved.
We would like to set up a meeting with you to discuss this issue. Hopefully with everyone's cooperation, we can resolve this. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to schedule a meeting. Thank you.
As you might imagine, Judge Paruk thought that he had resolved the issue entirely by dismissing the charges when Muhammed refused to take off the veil. Furthermore, since CAIR was not a party to the suit, it seems especially arrogant for CAIR-MI to request a meeting to force a resolution. Judge Paruk gave this polite but firm response on November 9th, in part:
Dear Mr. Walid,In your letter to me of October 31, you stated that "The 31st District Court in Hamtramck violated Ms. [Ginnah] Muhammed's civil rights by refusing to hear her case unless she removed her religious face veil." You further stated that "the incident remains unresolved." I must respectfully disagree with both of those statements. To my mind, the "incident" is indeed resolved by my ruling, and I absolutely did not violate Ms. Muhammed's civil rights. If Ms. Muhammed disagrees with my decision, she can certainly pursue her legal remedies; that is her right. But I cannot allow a third person, one who is not involved in the case that was before me, to attempt to get me to change my position. ...
You stated that the Michigan chapter of CAIR is "deeply concerned" by my decision. I too am concerned about that case, but for a different reason: my responsibility to the justice system, which includes identifying individuals, assessing the credibility of witnesses and being fair to all parties. ...
Ultimately, however, my concern has to be, not with what Islamic law requires, but with the laws of the United States and Michigan. I would not permit any other witness to testify with a covered face. I cannot have one law for the community and another law for Ms. Muhammed.
I'd say that just about covers it. Judge Paruk has it right; we cannot have separate laws for the Muslims and the rest of us. If Ms. Muhammed and the folks at CAIR want to live under shari'a law -- which according to Judge Paruk would still have required her to remove the niqab while testifying -- then they need to move to a nation that operates under shari'a.
Judge Paruk's response in full is here. h/t: CQ reader Martin K)
Posted by Ed Morrissey on February 19, 2007 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)
