I wonder if they would bar a Jewish man if he didn’t take off his head thingy. Maybe they would but I’m guessing they would not.

The head thingy is, of course, a yarmulka. Sorry.
As I read this she turned to leave and was arrested after uttering an expletive. No word on how much the expletive had to do with it. Perhaps she’s not too religious?
Here’s an alternate story about it in an Atlanta paper with a picture. Her hijab covers a lot more than a yarmulka.
I think a woman who’d wear one of those when not required to is foolish; she gives the impression she’s buying in to a somewhat fundamentalist version of a religion that occurs in several places where women lose a lot of rights and sometimes are treated very badly or murdered. Of course they are treated very badly by some non-Muslims and some Muslim women are treated well, but still there’s enough correlation there I don’t think I’d want to wear such a device if I didn’t have to.
If the idea of the dignity of the court room being above the dignity of the religion is carried to all religions or if reasonable people think hijabs could be security concerns I could go along with not allowing them in court, but not with arresting a woman for trying to wear one into court. If both of those conditions above are not satisfied I hope the judge loses big time. If the arrest was false the officer and judge should be penalized.
I’m real sure if Christianity required a head covering no such rule would have ever occurred in Georgia.

Ah, corruption in Illinois state government and bigotry in Georgia courtrooms. Isn’t it nice to some some things simply never change. This judge is simply continuing the cartoon the rest of the nation has fixed well in mind when it comes to the legal representatives in the Peach State.
I wish her well as she worls through the system in Georgia. Perhpas someone will have enough sense and sensibility to dismiss this as simply blind justice and foolish justices.

If she was simply attending, she should be required to show her face to a woman security officer if identification is required for security purposes. She should be allowed to wear the hijab in the courtroom.
If, however, she played a role in the trial she should be required to show her face. Humans have evolved to read much more than we are consciously aware of in eachother’s faces. For a juror to be denied the ability to see how a witness, defendent or accusor visually respond to evidence and questioning would result in a higher probability of a miscarriage of justice.
This removal of women from one of the most important means of communication – one another’s faces – is the biggest reason I find the viel so revolting. No woman is any more at risk of sexual assault because a man can see her pleasure on a sunny day, her consternation with her screaming child, her confusion upon recieving mumbled directions, or any other of the infinite emotions expressed by our faces.
The head scarf should be acceptable anywhere as an individual’s expression of piety and modesty. The face viel should unacceptable anywhere because it removes the wearer from meaningul interaction with her fellow humans.

There’s a picture with the article I referenced above from an Atlanta paper. You can see her face fine; you can’t see here neck or hair.

Thanks for the Atlanta write-up and pic. nnmns. She is a pretty lady, with a pleasant smile. If this had been at an Atlanta courtroom I don’t think this would have happened. It was a small town elsewhere in GA. It was interesting that the poll next to the pic. had more people voting for her right to religious freedom. As long as anyone’s face can be seen, I’m with you nnmns.

If indeed for security reasons she needed to remove the scarf, then she should be taken into a room with a woman security agent, guard, and then be allowed to put it back on and go into the court. I didn’t read that she had set off any alarms, so what was the reason for the need to remove the scarf? Well, it is the south and she isn’t a “white” woman and to top it off…she is a Muslim! Guess that was reason enough. She did start to leave, however and I guess the curse word or 2 didn’t help the situation. IMO, however, she should have been allowed to go into the court. Even if her face was covered…and it wasn’t, again she could have a private removal of the covering with a woman attendent, and after, go into the court. I think the face coverings are archaic, but then I’m not a Muslim.

My understanding is that a hijab is just a head scarf, and usually doesn’t cover the face. Do Jewish men also have to remove their yarmulke (skull cap)? I think requiring either to be removed would be wrong. I can see the judge wanting to see a person’s face if they wore a veil, but those cases could be assigned a female judge if one is available.
Many people don’t realize that you can be arrested for contempt of court even outside the courtroom. The expletive is enough to get anyone arrested.

“The expletive is enough to get anyone arrested.”
That’s a scary thought!

Yet another reason or two why religious fundamentalism is a bad thing anywhere.