General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMuslim Woman Sues Police For Forcing Her To Remove Hijab
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/23/malak-kazan-hijab-dearborn-heights-police-lawsuit_n_6534860.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592
Malak Kazan, 27, is suing the police department and city of Dearborn Heights, a suburb of Detroit, after officers refused her request to keep her headscarf on while taking a booking photo. Her attorney Amir Makled filed the lawsuit in federal court Thursday
Your thoughts on this?
Mine are in a booking photo it is a reasonable request for her to have to remove it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LiberalFighter
(50,783 posts)IMO her religion should not be a factor.
If she has a problem with her photo being taken then why is her faced exposed in the photo with the attorney?
chillfactor
(7,573 posts)I have to remove my glasses when i have a photo ID taken....I do not see anything wrong with her having to remove her hijab
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)
http://scanfree.org/hijab-and-niqab/
With that said, the law appears to be equally applied .... everyone is required to remove head coverings, scarves , hats, veils, etc when their "mug shot" is being taken
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
chillfactor
(7,573 posts)I taught at a Muslim school and I saw female students remove their hijabs for far less reasons then having a photo ID taken
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)does not mean those who keep to the rules more strictly should be prohibited from the free exercise of their religion . . . which should sound familiar to you as part of the first amendment to the constitution.
If you happen to know this particular woman removes her hijab in the presence of males outside of her family, then it would be reason to ask her to remove it - that would support an allegation that her refusal is not a sincerely held religious belief. If not, she is entitled to the free exercise of her religion.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Response to Donald Ian Rankin (Reply #18)
Post removed
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)She did not volunteer to break the law. She did something illegal so that alone should end any suing.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)But she certainly has 1st Amendment rights...
Interesting case. Thanks for posting!
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)Interesting case.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)I have no issue with the removal of the hijab, niqab, burqa etc .... however, it is not unreasonable for her to request a female officer (in my mind)
glasshouses
(484 posts)Dearborn Heights Police Chief Lee Gavin, who is named in Kazan’s lawsuit, did not return a request for comment but told FOX 2 that the department requires individuals to remove hats and other head coverings for safety reasons, as they can “contain concealable items that could pose a threat or chance of injury to the cops or to themselves.” He said procedure is to have women remove hijabs in the presence of a female officer, but there aren’t always enough female officers at the station
Let's say this wasn't a case like that at that moment but it was just a woman that was being booked and they suspected
her of hiding something on her body.
Could they use male officers to strip search her?
My guess is they would have to call a female officer in that's on patrol
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... and (in this case) part of the Islamic proscription for modesty. As a resident of the Detroit Metro area I am surprised that a female officer was not available. We have a very large Muslim population and one would expect this to arise.
I see no problem requiring the removal of ALL head (including face) covering for drivers licensees, government IDs ... and most assuredly "mug shots" .... Having female officers on duty is not unreasonable, though, and that is the only point i can see any potential of this woman winning. I will be very interested in the outcome of this.
I think its also important to remember that Muslims are not a homogeneous group ... the degree of covering is more dictated by culture than Islam itself
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The Qu'ran has Mohammed gesturing to a woman's head, hands, and feet as body parts that can remain uncovered. Some interpreted it to mean their face only.... but the text is never explicit.
Mohammed makes it clear that only his wives had to be covered completely ostensibly because they were being harassed. (Which I dont believe. I think it's just that he was a jealous bastard)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Had they allowed a female officer to take the picture, she would have removed her hijab.
I hope she wins.
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)they could/should have made this "reasonable accomodation". Instead their attitude appears to me to have been: be tough on the Moslem. Stupid.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)She would have been granted the request had there been a female officer there.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)The article implies there wasn't.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)A momentary thing. Not like the inmate who sued to grow a beard. I supported that decision by our crooked, corporate SCOTUS.
If we justified objects with religion constantly, then gun nuts would make the Second Amendment a religion, so that they could open carry heavy arms 24/7 wherever they wanted.
Not that this isn't their ultimate paranoid goal.
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)I can't imagine how anyone could reasonably expect to be able to leave any item of clothing on during booking into jail. Especially anything that obscures any part of your head.
CatWoman
(79,293 posts)
MindPilot
(12,693 posts)Removing head covering is part of everyday life. If you have to do it in everyday life, why would you expect not to have to do it during booking?
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)to enter your credit union (or a court, for that matter). It is not a part of how hijabs are treated in everyday life.
There is this little think called the first amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion - not just the free exercise of religion for selected religions.
mnhtnbb
(31,374 posts)governmental interest, which in this case, that the hijab be removed for the booking photo.
I predict she'll lose this one.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)Is she more likely or less likely to need to be identified wearing the hijab or not? So the government has a compelling interest in having a photo that looks less like her than one taken with the hijab? That's disingenuous - as is the argument that it needs to be removed because she might be hiding things in it. They didn't insist - generally - that she remove it. Only that she remove it for the photo. If she was hiding something in it, was it only potentially dangerous during the booking photo?
As for the likelihood that she will win - the cases have been going the other way (or police departments have been settling - likely because their counsel has advised them not to waste the money).
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/14/oc-sheriffs-department-settles-head-scarf-lawsuit-with-muslim-woman/
http://aclu-nca.org/news/dc-police-agree-to-allow-religious-head-scarves-in-police-lock-ups
Insisting that Muslim women removing hijabs is religious bigotry, pure and simple.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)then you would have a point, but the regulation applies to ALL those that have been arrested and are being booked into jail, so there is no bigotry involved.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)First rules can be crafted which target particular religions - without identifying them by name. One which mandates the taking of oaths could be seen as targeting Quakers, for example, who are prohibited from taking an oath. And, more important to this conversation, there are exceptions, based in the first amendment, which permit Quakers to testify without taking the oath. I have done so several times.
Merely because a regulation applies to all doesn't mean that refusing to make exceptions to accommodate religious practice is consistent with the first amendment. Because we marry without a minister, there are special provisions in most state laws which allow our marriages to be recognized, and even though the military draft applies to all - there is a conscientious objector status which permits Quakers to refuse military service consistent with our faith.
There is a long-standing tradition - constitutionally mandated - supporting the free exercise of faith. No matter how unpopular that concept currently is on DU.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)that forbid many " religious requirements".
Polygamy, FGM, child brides, public ritual slaughter etc are just a few that come to mind...
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)and this would be one of them, the govt. has a compelling interest in getting an accurate photo of someone being booked into jail.
This is pretty much the standard across the nation.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)The cases are going in the opposite direction.
And an accurate photo is one which resembles the person being booked. If she is going to be wearing a hijab in jail, a more accurate photo would be one with her wearing a hijab.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)standard for jails, now prisons are a different story.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'd be curious to read about this growing trend.
It would lead to all sorts of silliness with colanders for the FSM etc.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)Just scroll to the bottom of the article.
These two are not judgments, but settlements that resolved litigation. Typically, such settlements arise when an attorney advises his/her client that either they don't have a case - or that winning is far from certain and it will cost a lot of money to litigate.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)that doesn't seem like a very compelling trend.
Do you happen to know how many Muslimahs are booked each year? Two settlements out of how many mug shots would illustrate a trend or not imo.
I'm not trying to be snarky. I've already said I believe the police should have waited for a female officer. They were stupid, petty, vindictive and yes bigoted for not waiting for a female officer.
But the state has an interest in getting a clear mug shot unencumbered by...
....colanders on the head of a FSM adherent. Before you scoff, please note a guy just won in court to be allowed to take his drivers license picture with a colander on his head. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/texas-pastafarian-license-photo_n_3816839.html)
Where does that lead if one "religion" can get an exemption to wear headgear in a mug shot? It leads to other "religions" demanding the same like silliness with a colander.
I predict she'll lose, especially because there are so many versions of Islam without a central dictating authority. I don't especially care for that decision but I see the rationale behind forbidding ALL head coverings (and truly, didn't you giggle just a little seeing Traficants mug shot sans toupee?).
And let's just say a female police officer does take her mug shot, the larger point is that picture will be public no matter what - anyone who is not a family member can see her hair today if they wish, male and female. I predict the court will adjudge that her picture is going to be public so what does it really matter who took the shot.
treestar
(82,383 posts)identify her with it on.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)to treat her after being in a car accident. It won't matter to her that the male doctor is on call or competent or professional. In her world view, men and women must be kept strictly separated.
However, Westerners believe in equality for men and women. That's why we say, anyway.
After seeing so many criticisms of French Secularism, it will be interesting to see how the USA deals with a deeply religious Muslim population with the resources to access the court system to force social change in a liberal Western society.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)All head coverings must be removed for a booking photo.
If a Jewish man was wearing a yarmulke, he'd have to remove it for a booking photo.
Traficant had to remove his toupe for the booking photo.
It's a common standard across the country. There is no case here.
JustAnotherGen
(31,781 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)Trafican't toupe is not a religious headcovering.
While yarmulke's are religious, they are not prohibited from removing them in the presence of the opposite sex.
She didn't refuse to remove it, generally. She refused to remove it in the presence of a male booking officer. The department policy is to provide a female officer - and they then failed to comply with their own policy.
Cases are permitting (or settling) with police departments modifying their policies.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/02/14/oc-sheriffs-department-settles-head-scarf-lawsuit-with-muslim-woman/
http://aclu-nca.org/news/dc-police-agree-to-allow-religious-head-scarves-in-police-lock-ups
Requiring her to violate her religious believes is religious bigotry, prohibited by the constitution.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The existence of the Burqa belies your entire argment. If a woman wearing a burqa is arrested, she will have to remove the head covering for the booking photograph in violation of her alleged religious restrictions. This would expose her entire head.
If you cannot make an exception for a burqa, you cannot make an exception for a hajib.
Your argument crumbles in the face of societal necessity in the booking process. There is no reasonable expectation that these religious rules must be followed after you have been lawfully arrested.
And a Pastafarian would have to remove their collander, too.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)the constitution mandates.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)exemptions are concerned.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)It's always so amusing when someone tells me I don't know something that I either have a degree in, or am paid good money to teach. In this case, it's both.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Religious freedom is not absolute in prisons and jails where security concerns exist.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)booking an arrested person.
You may be confusing prisons with jails.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)GGJohn
(9,951 posts)as in this case.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The constitution is not 100% in effect in prisons or jails. In fact, the proof of this is that a person is in a jail or prison.
Religious liberties are always severely curtailed. Pagan inmates are not allowed ritual knives in ceremonies. Beard and hair growth can be severely curtailed. Hijabs can and are banned entirely in women's prisons.
The constitution is not absolute where prisons and jails are concerned. There is long standing Supreme Court precedence regarding this.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)so yeah, no case here at all...
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)The various Christian denominations interpret the Bible differently (just look at the variation in the ways communion and baptism are practiced), and elements of how each denomination practices its faith come from sources other than the bible. That doesn't make the variation cultural rather than religious. The same is true for any other religion, including Islam.
The constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion has never limited the definition of religion to whatever is found in the holy book used by a particular religion.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)The Koran is it full stop...
What she refuses to remove is a cultural affectation... Cultures around the Muslim world view that call for modesty differently.
Culture is not covered under our constitution.
However, that doesn't mean that law enforcement can't be sensitive to culture when possible... key point is 'when possible'...
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)And that is based on real conversations with Islamic leaders, who are not only practicing Muslims, but teach at the local university about Islam, conversations with women who cover, and on attending a series of local events which were designed in part to dispel myths - like those you hold - about Islam.
While there may be Muslim sects which treat the quron as the final absolute literal rule, that belief is not universal among all Muslims - any more than the fundamentalist Christian's literal reading of the new testament means all Christians treat it that way.
For most of those who cover, it is an article of their faith - and just like baptism requires full immersion past the age of reason in some Christian denominations, and a sprinkling on the head of an infant in others, the amount of coverage required to be faithful varies within Islam from none to full.
You should educate yourself.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)I happen to have educated myself about the variety of ways Quakerism is practiced, but not all Quakers have - and I would say the same thing to a Quaker who insisted that Quakers do not practice the outward sacraments or have hireling ministers.
As much as I am aware that the adoption by Quakers of outward sacraments and hireling ministers was historically a cultural adaptation (in this case, cultural means adapting to the religious norms in the region of the US we migrated to in order to survive in those regions), it is now an integral part of the faith of those branches of Quakerism. Even as a Quaker, I don't have the right to tell them that those practices are cultural, not religious. And I would tell any Quaker who said otherwise to educate themselves.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)So he's as fully immersed and educated about Islam as a person can be as far as I can tell.
I guess I found your appeal to authority aimed at him just a bit problematic. But I will withdraw from this subthread and let him answer you himself.
I will say however, that you absolutely do have the right to tell others that their religious practices are cultural if that is the case. Nothing stops you from doing that other than you. But we're not talking about person to person in this case with the hijab - it's the law that we're discussing. Not personal varieties of belief. The law can and does interfere with the free expression of religion. There's a long history of it and I don't expect that to change.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)and I don't challenge that for him the quran is the only thing that matters, and that for him wearing a hijab is cultural.
But when he insists that there is only one universal set of religious practices among all Muslims (there is the quran and nothing esle), and I know that is not true because I have educated myself on that issue, it is perfectly appropriate to suggest he educate himself about the variety of practices I have personally encountered. Being one community of any religion doesn't inherently mean you know everything about what every variation of that religion believes.
As for telling someone their sincerely held religious beliefs, and the outward manifestation of those beliefs, is cultural - no, you don't have that right. Religious beliefs are very personal. While most faiths have some basic tenets - the degree to which those are followed by individual practitioners (or different sects) varies tremendously. Variation does not transform the practices from religious to cultural. And religious practices vary as to the source of the restriction. Some are top-down (the Catholic Church is one). Others are bottom up - Quakers fall in that category. No one in my church stops me from taking an oath - but it is very much for religious reasons that I do not take an oath. That does't make it cultural rather than religious.
There are restrictions imposed on the free expression of religion when there is a compelling reason to impose restrictions. Many, many people in my own faith have been jailed rather than consent to those restrictions - particularly in the area of conscientious objection to military service - challenges which ultimately resulted in changing the law. When challenged on a constitutional bass, many restrictions initially imposed fail - and with respect to covering, the ACLU is currently winning favorable settlements - I suspect in large part because these jurisdictions are hearing form their attorneys that this is not a battle they should be picking.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)of which the only obligation in Islam IS MODESTY...
It is not the same thing as having a specific church dogma that says you must cover your knees, or you must wear a yarmulke regardless of whether it comes from the top down, or bottom up.
In Islam, the word is the only DOGMA and the Koran gives no specific fashion advice beyond modesty of person and dress.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I've already stated my position and clearly we disagree.
But that's why we have this discussion forum!
Peace!
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)If you thought that's what the people you were talking to were saying, you seriously misunderstood.
Islam is a religion first and foremost of the 'word' that is found in the Koran. The only Orthodoxy (in contrast to your Christian examples) exist only in the word. There are no Popes, priests, bishops, etc. to tell you what to do in Islam. Imam is simply a title given to a Koranic teacher. Want to become an Iman, stand-up and start talking at the Mosque... That is both a strength and weakness of the religion as it allows for tribal cultural relics (like different types of cover for women) to remain in-place.
Everything else... Imams, traditions, they are all secondary at best.
Cover is NOT an article of faith, sorry it just isn't. Why don't you try telling a religious Lebanese woman who doesn't cover that she is going against her religion. After she chews you a new one, we can discuss.
Modesty of dress and person IS the only article that applies.
What you don't seem to understand is that cover is cultural, and because of political Islam (and yes discrimination in the West) has made cover a 'political' issue.
What the young lady in the OP needs to ask herself is she being modest in her person and actions when she denies the request of a secular authority for safety/security reasons? OR, is she being arrogant, prideful, and political over a cultural issue.
You also need to understand the religious political aspects of this as certain types of cover have become a means of controlling women and discourse within the exported Saudi brand of fundamentalism. I will give a personal example of this. Not to long ago when you would travel the Muslim, Swahili coast of east Africa, you would find the traditional African Muslim cover which was modest, but also bright and colorful (not basic black). As Saudi religious influence has spread, you now find more and more black chador. It is also no coincidence that this has coincided with the rise of Al Shabab and other violent East African Muslim separatist movements.
So, yeah, you are very very wrong... Cover can be about many things, but is not required by the Koran and primarily it demonstrates tribal, cultural, and even political affinity.
840high
(17,196 posts)belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)Kazan was stopped for a traffic violation in Dearborn Heights on July 9, and was then arrested; Makled says her license had been suspended for outstanding traffic tickets. The lawsuit states that at the police station she was asked to remove her headscarf, which she wears in public and when she is in the presence of men who aren’t family members, for her booking photo. When she told the unnamed officer that to do so would violate her religious beliefs, he said there were no exceptions. She spoke with his supervisor, who also allegedly refused her request.
"To Ms. Kazan, wearing a headscarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion, and her religious obligations, as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit
does the quran say the hijab is part of the religion? cause it sounds more like a man saying wrap yourself up i dont want other men getting horny looking at you.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)That many Muslims believe it to be true doesn't necessarily square with the facts.
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)she gets several tickets wont pay the fine. her license is suspended she still wont stop driving she gets arrested so now she's gonna make someone pay
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)And - given that Islam is not any more monolithic than Christianity is, no one Muslim speaks for everyone as to what is required of all.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)or any head covering.
Honestly, In the US especially the law can and does tell religious adherents what they can't do (things like public religious slaughter comes to mind, FGM - yes many adherents swear it's religiously required and no, it isn't required, stoning, chopping hands off for stealing, polygamy, child brides ala Warren Jeffs etc etc)
So yes, there's plenty of precedent of denying religious "requirements" that are explicitly mentioned in their holy texts beyond ambiguous "requirements" that have no factual basis.
Ms. Toad
(33,992 posts)does not mean you understand all variations of the Islamic faith. You do not get to dictate what someone else's faith requires - aside from which there are well respected Islamic scholars who would differ with your insistence that the Quran, alone, dictates what is require of faithful Muslims.
And do you honestly believe granting her request to have a female office book her, in accordance with the department's own policies - under which circumstances she was willing to remove her hijab - is equivalent to public religious slaughter and FGM.
Aside from which my point was not that there can be no restriction on the free exercise of religion, when there are compelling state interests, - but that there are many exceptions to rules which are generally applicable - AND - that generally applicable policies can be directed at the repression of certain faiths.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and I don't pretend to dictate to Muslimahs about their headgear. The LAW dictates religious exemptions and proscriptions (for which I'm glad since I hope to never watch a public ritual slaughter in my life). That was my point in indicating that the law can and does dictate the limits of religious "freedom" and was responding to your statements in post #20. There's a LOT of precedent.
And in this case the law is pretty clear on mug shots. It makes no difference what version of Islam a person practices.
Be that as it may, when/if this case goes to court my opinion on this won't matter one whit, the court will look at the religious text which does not stipulate a headscarf for women. That will play its role since constitutional religious exemptions do examine these things. If that "requirement" is not found, and especially since Islam does not have a central authority, they will rely heavily on the Prophet's own dictates, and the court will side with the police for a clear mug shot, sans headscarf, by whoever is the officer on duty imho.
I do think the case is interesting though and hope to see a follow up.
All that said, it seems silly and very vindictive that the police didn't wait for a female officer to get back to headquarters to take the shot.
JCMach1
(27,553 posts)nothing else...
Fla Dem
(23,587 posts)and once she did, paid them, and not drive on a suspended license. Sound like she doesn't respect the local laws.
belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)but it's probably all an act - if she had been smashed on the road i doubt she would refused treatment from a male.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)Otherwise they would have accommodated her request. Police forces aren't exactly teaming with female officers. Frankly, I'd much prefer that they are utilized the same way as any male officers than having to fart around the precinct their entire shift in case a Muslim woman needs to go through booking and doesn't want to take off her cultural head covering in front of any males. To always have a female officer on hand in the event that a Muslim woman has to go through booking and doesn't want to remove her cultural head covering in front of any males or having to call one back to the precinct compromises the gender rights of those female officers by requiring special duty of them that would not be required of any male officers.
What's particularly ridiculous about this is that what damn difference does it make if a female officer takes the photo without the ha jib on when any officer male or female is going to have access to the photo of her without it on anyway? It doesn't make any sense to demand that only a female officer take the photo because of not wanting any males seeing her without the ha jib on when any officer is going to be able to see her in the photo without it on anyway.
This isn't a religious garment anyway. A religious garment would be something like a nun's habit or priest's collar that are worn by people to identify them as a belonging to a specific order within their religious organization. There is nothing in Islam that requires women to wear any kind of head covering. It's purely a cultural head covering that women are still duped into believing is a religious requirement in order for a very male dominant society to control women. This same culture only requires certain clothing concerning women while the men have none. While some Muslim men prefer to wear various ancient cultural garments, they are not religious requirements either, and unlike the women, the men have the choice to wear them or not.
I have no doubt this attorney took this case just for personal publicity. And of course, there he is with his client doing a photo op for the news. 
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)Muslims can be any race, just like most other faiths.
Rhinodawg
(2,219 posts)Bottom line....If you believe in multiculturalism, as all progressives do, you don't impose your culture on someone else.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)all those being booked into jail are required to remove any head coverings regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, etc.
If she had been singled out due to her religious beliefs, she would have a case, but here, no, she wasn't singled out.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I reject more than a few cultural relics that should be banned from the planet: FGM, spousal abuse, infanticide, the destruction of tigers for male erection aids, the Burqa, stoning a person to death, lynching, discrimination... I could go on and on but you get the gist.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... the woman may have an argument based on the fact that a female police officer was not available (?). I am interested in the outcome of this. This area has a huge middle eastern and Muslim population, so one would assume that the police department would have a plan for this situation (i.e. having a female officer at the ready). The article does not go into great detail, so we really don't know what accommodations were or were not made.
the removal of the hajib for a "mug shot" does not rise to the level of religious insensitivity, intolerance or bigotry .... the absence of a female officer may
NutmegYankee
(16,199 posts)In this case, the police had the absolute authority to require that she remove her head covering for the photo. She has to so that a proper profile picture can be taken, and this applies to everyone equally. Where the police erred was in not having a woman do the photo. That would have been a reasonable accommodation.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
Dr. Strange
(25,916 posts)belzabubba333
(1,237 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)photographed, fingerprinted, etc. Sikhs don't get to keep their turban on, Muslims don't get to keep their hijab on, Catholic nuns don't get to keep the habit on.
Etc etc etc.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Done with respecting religious horseshit.
Whatever the shade.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)For what it's worth, I think that requiring people to uncover their heads for booking photos is entirely reasonable, and this woman's objections should not be conceded to, but I think it's grossly unfair to characterise this the way you do.
In a culture with no nudity taboos, where blemishes on the body were a useful tool for identifying people, it might well be reasonable to take naked mugshots, and if I emigrated there I'd have to accept that. But that doesn't mean I'd be comfortable with it.
I think it's reasonable to make the point that Islamic modesty taboos for women are much more restrictive than they are for men, and to suggest that that's a good reason that they should be challenged and changed. But I don't think it's fair to go as far as you do.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Very useful in an ID and they should be taken.
If a blemish or tattoo is in a genital or otherwise sensitive reason those photos should be taken but only presented say in an instance of rape where the victim would be able to ID an assailant.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,311 posts)And yes, your hair, head shape, ears, etc. are part of your identifying features.
Duh.
boomer55
(592 posts)
earthside
(6,960 posts)I don't have the least sympathy for this individual -- you interact with the government, you should actually demand that you get treated the same as everybody else.
I am not in favor of any social/behavior/rules/laws carve-outs for specific religions.
Rolo
(27 posts)that a booking picture has to be taken without a hijab & be consistent. But I don't see that she outright refused. She suggested the option of a female photographer. IMO, that's not an unreasonable request.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)a suspended license but can't take off her scarf? Is there such a branch? I do not think that there is. So she's a hypocrite who is exploiting a faith for her own agenda.
It's just odd to me 'I break the law with great impunity and casualness, but when it comes to accessorizing, I am very orthodox.'
If the scarf is there to remind her of her religion perhaps what she needs to do is wear two or three of them when driving so she remembers it then too.
Coventina
(27,059 posts)If so, no case to be made here.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Totally ridiculous lawsuit. And the city will have to pay to defend it.
It is also part of what causes a rift between Muslims and others in America or anywhere else.
Clue lady ,you are not a special flower.no one gets to wear anything on their heads for mugshots .
Grr crap like this pisses me off.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)law enforcers while technically not making no law "impeding the free exercise of religion" what would be the law that would require it to take it off which would impede her free exercise of religion.
Though I'm not sure what the purpose is of a booking photo but since the usually also take fingerprints before or after, it is probably used to identify her for future crimes & since it seems it would be unlikely she wouldn't be wearing the hajib at the scene of a future crime, I don't see how a profile photo without it would be helpful unless they took two shots before & after but that would be very unusual for booking photos. I don't know how it is but everyones' booking photo in county jail is posted online & in copies of "Slammer" news letter.
My sympathies clearly don't lie with law enforcement.
On edit - we let Amish violate child labor laws & allow Natives to possess Peyote because of the "freedom of expression" and "make no law" court precedents.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)so. 'When violating the law, I am an atheist, but when arrested I become very religious.'
I don't care what flavor of hypocrisy you prefer, I am against the hypocrisy. She's a hypocrite of the first order.
ARMYofONE
(69 posts)
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)cant pay her traffic fines but has to drive to get to her job and survive, is harassed by police and arrested while rich people break the law all day every day, are not arrested, are treated with privilege.
And on top of all that is insulted about her culture and religion .
