In the religious tradition of Sikhism, baptized men are expected to keep their hair uncut for their entire lives, and to then cover their hair with a very long wrap [a turban]. According to sikhnet.com, the turban is not merely a piece of cloth, but a “self-crowning of the individual”. It is a way of retaining their original leader’s energy to live life faithfully. It is wrapped in such a way that it supposedly keeps your head “lined up” and pushes on different parts of the head that keep away negativity and instead create clarity. The turban is a reminder every day that the head and the mind should be dedicated to God the Creator.
In California, 56-year old Gurparkash Khalsa was denied his right to wear a turban while on trial for murder. He was also denied his right to wear it inside the county holding cell for those awaiting trial. County Judge Charlotte Orcutt said she recognized Khalsa’s religious freedom rights, but stated that for security purposes she had to rule that he is not allowed to wear it during trial. There is fear that he could easily hide a weapon in the turban, and that taking the 10-15 minutes beforehand to check is simply too much time to waste for the bailiffs. In the holding cell, it is feared that someone might confuse him for a Muslim and use the turban as a weapon against him.
The Sikh Coalition has very publicly spoken about this issue, for good reason in my opinion, and calls it a basic violation of one’s religious freedoms. This case brings up a couple very interesting discussion points. One, is the compelling state interest of safety enough of a reason to prohibit Khalsa from wearing his turban in court and/or his holding cell? Two, as a defendant in a murder trial is he giving up his rights to religious freedom? Along those same lines, do you believe the ruling would be different if Khalsa were merely a spectator to the case, or even a witness? Finally, the biggest question, is it a violation of Khalsa’s First Amendment rights that he not be allowed to practice a very important part of his religion?
I’ll make an attempt at answering these questions from my own opinion and knowledge, and then let the rest of you chime in. To the first question, I’ll say the state’s compelling interest is enough in the case of the holding cell, but I don’t think it’s enough to justify not letting him wear the turban in the courtroom. The extra 10-15 minutes spent making sure the man’s turban doesn’t contain a weapon is well worth the cost of religious freedom. I originally thought as a defendant in a murder trial, he was giving up his rights to freedom, but after reading a couple blog posts on this topic from other websites, I’ve changed my mind. In our court system you are innocent until proven guilty, so at this point in time he has not rescinded any of his First Amendment rights. Third, I do believe the ruling would be different if were merely a spectator in the courtroom. Because of the suspicion of the murder charge however, the state’s compelling interest is raised a bit. Whether or not this is justified has yet to be decided in my own mind. Finally, I do believe this is a violation of Khalsa’s religious freedoms. He should be allowed to wear the turban in the courtroom, and possibly even given a solitary cell if he absolutely requested that he be able to wear it in jail as well.
Posts
2 comments:
I agree with Jeremy. This would seem to be a violation of his religious freedom. I don’t understand how one could possibly justify that a 10-15 minute inconvenience to the bailiffs constitutes a compelling state interest. Sure, safety would qualify as a state interest, but this isn’t about safety. It’s about convenience for the Court, and that is in no way, shape, or form a compelling state interest. Also, I agree with Jeremy’s sentiment that it is unacceptable to rob this man of his religious freedom merely because he has been charged with a crime. The man is innocent until proven guilty, and as such there is no reason to unjustly deprive an innocent man of his right to freely exercise his religion. I am more sympathetic to the removing of the turban in the holding cell, because then the turban itself could be used as a weapon. However, I don’t think there’s a legitimate reason or excuse to prohibit him from wearing it during the trial.
I agree with Van and Jeremy in some respects—one being that it is unacceptable that the court can’t spend the extra time in checking the turban for weapons. Laziness shouldn’t be a reason to withhold religious rights. I do have an issue with having the man taking his turban off in the cell. We’re saying that because some people are ignorant, we’re going to take away your rights away. This bothers me. Even if he was Muslim, I believe Islam is the fasted growing religion in prisons anyway. I don’t know if this is relevant or not, but still believe the man deserves to wear his turban, and if people are angry about it, the guards should do their jobs and protect them.
Post a Comment