Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[Pogo]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

Do you relinquish your supposed right to your feminine modesty when you break the law?
If so it might come as news to police departments that routinely ensure that frisking of females is done by female officers.

 

[Valerie]

so what? what's the big deal?


ask the muslim woman why she is filing a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Coyote]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

i said apparently because based on the scenario described, that is apparently what happened.

the article says that her lawsuit alleges, that he ''refused''...

the article also says he asked his supervisor..so he did not refuse, he asked his supervisor...

how can you assume why the supervisor refused? based on what?

do you have knowledge that there was a woman officer available?

IF there was a female officer available yet the supervisor refused to use her, why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

Do you have knowledge one wasn't available?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the artilce.

The lawsuit doesn't require her headgear remain for the photo or if a female officer took the picture.

What's the big deal?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the article.


not at all...why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

It is.


Her lawsuit is as follows: Woman ordered to remove hijab files suit against police

 

[Pogo]

More to the story... in increments...

After Kazan was forced to remove her hijab for her mug shot, she was allegedly told she couldn't put it back on while she remained in custody. ​

Ooopsie. If true there goes that rationale.
Continuing, same article:

"I honestly don't want other women to be put in my position, where they are forced to take off their scarf in front of men they don't know," Kazan said. "I was so upset. It was such an uncomfortable feeling. I've worn my scarf for 12 years and my religion says that I can't take it off. It's not just a religious issue; this is a part of me. It's my culture, my life and my identity."​

 

[Coyote]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

Breaking the law doesn't remove all contitutional protections of religion. There are basic right that still exist regardless of whether or not you broke the law - rights beyond just those of religion.

 

[Valerie]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

Do you relinquish your supposed right to your feminine modesty when you break the law?
If so it might come as news to police departments that routinely ensure that frisking of females is done by female officers.

my very first point i made was to get a female officer end of story...

my posts in this thread relate to this incident. a photo ID that identifies a face.

 

[Coyote]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

 

[Valerie]

Breaking the law doesn't remove all contitutional protections of religion. There are basic right that still exist regardless of whether or not you broke the law - rights beyond just those of religion.

why don't you articulate them as it relates to this case..instead of speaking in generalities.

 

[Valerie]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

the side of her face, her forehead..her profile...the policy is to remove all headgear, no exceptions.

on what grounds does she insist on an exception?

 

[Coyote]

Breaking the law doesn't remove all contitutional protections of religion. There are basic right that still exist regardless of whether or not you broke the law - rights beyond just those of religion.

why don't you articulate them as it relates to this case..instead of speaking in generalities.

I thought they were obvious. My bad.

When a body search is done on women, it's done by female officers.
A recent Supreme Court Case affirmed that prisoners had a religious right to wear a short beard and the state had no compelling case to refuse it.
Being arrested doesn't mean you can be abused, brutalized, sodomized or have other criminal acts committed upon you.

 

[Coyote]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

the side of her face, her forehead..her profile...the policy is to remove all headgear, no exceptions.

on what grounds does she insist on an exception?

Again (and again and again) she is not insisting on this for her photograph. She is only asking that a female officer be the one to do it.

 

[Valerie]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

i said apparently because based on the scenario described, that is apparently what happened.

the article says that her lawsuit alleges, that he ''refused''...

the article also says he asked his supervisor..so he did not refuse, he asked his supervisor...

how can you assume why the supervisor refused? based on what?

do you have knowledge that there was a woman officer available?

IF there was a female officer available yet the supervisor refused to use her, why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

Do you have knowledge one wasn't available?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the artilce.

The lawsuit doesn't require her headgear remain for the photo or if a female officer took the picture.

What's the big deal?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the article.


not at all...why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

It is.


Her lawsuit is as follows: Woman ordered to remove hijab files suit against police

yeah her lawsuit IS going beyond the officer's gender and i asked you why...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

Incorrect.

Persons are considered innocent until determined guilty in a court of law; one does not forfeit his rights as a consequence of being suspected of committing a crime.

Indeed, even after one is convicted, he retains his First Amendment rights:

“The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison must offer a religious exception to the facility's no-beard rule. Prison officials had argued that beards pose a security risk. A Muslim prison inmate in Arkansas has won his battle to grow a beard for religious purposes over objections by prison officials.”

Unanimous Supreme Court affirms Muslim inmate s right to grow beard - Yahoo News.

Whether wearing a beard or hijab, it makes no difference.

 

[Valerie]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

the side of her face, her forehead..her profile...the policy is to remove all headgear, no exceptions.

on what grounds does she insist on an exception?

Again (and again and again) she is not insisting on this for her photograph. She is only asking that a female officer be the one to do it.

that's not true.

 

[Coyote]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

the side of her face, her forehead..her profile...the policy is to remove all headgear, no exceptions.

on what grounds does she insist on an exception?

Again (and again and again) she is not insisting on this for her photograph. She is only asking that a female officer be the one to do it.

that's not true.

How is it not true? I can't find anything that states she is insisting on headgarb for the photograph.

 

[Valerie]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

Incorrect.

Persons are considered innocent until determined guilty in a court of law; one does not forfeit his rights as a consequence of being suspected of committing a crime.

Indeed, even after one is convicted, he retains his First Amendment rights:

“The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison must offer a religious exception to the facility's no-beard rule. Prison officials had argued that beards pose a security risk. A Muslim prison inmate in Arkansas has won his battle to grow a beard for religious purposes over objections by prison officials.”

Unanimous Supreme Court affirms Muslim inmate s right to grow beard - Yahoo News.

Whether wearing a beard or hijab, it makes no difference.

she supposedly had a 'right' to keep herself covered under those circumstances...

can you show it?

 

[Valerie]

How is it not true? I can't find anything that states she is insisting on headgarb for the photograph.

her lawsuit seeks to change the agency policy entirely regardless of gender...

her lawsuit seeks to keep the headgear throughout...

 

[Coyote]

How do you know there wasn't a female officer present? The article did not say that at all.

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which the male officer refused to do, the lawsuit said.

The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

there wasn't a female officer around, apparently...oh well.

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

i said apparently because based on the scenario described, that is apparently what happened.

the article says that her lawsuit alleges, that he ''refused''...

the article also says he asked his supervisor..so he did not refuse, he asked his supervisor...

how can you assume why the supervisor refused? based on what?

do you have knowledge that there was a woman officer available?

IF there was a female officer available yet the supervisor refused to use her, why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

Do you have knowledge one wasn't available?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the artilce.

The lawsuit doesn't require her headgear remain for the photo or if a female officer took the picture.

What's the big deal?

All this comes down to what we each choose to read in the article.


not at all...why isn't her lawsuit asking for female officers to be available? why is her lawsuit going beyond that and asking for her headgear to remain regardless of officer gender, if gender matters?

It is.


Her lawsuit is as follows: Woman ordered to remove hijab files suit against police

yeah her lawsuit IS going beyond the officer's gender and i asked you why...

This is from the lawsuit:

22.
Ms. Kazan then requested that she be assisted by a female police officer in order to conduct the booking photo, and this request was denied.
23.
Ms. Kazan stated that she did not feel comfortable removing her headcovering in front of male officers and Officer John Doe indicated that if she did not comply with their demands, she would be detained for longer.
24.
Ms. Kazan was then required to remove her headcovering and conduct the booking photo. Defendants’ Culpability
25.
On information and belief, Defendant City of Dearborn Heights and its employees and agents prohibited Ms. Kazan from wearing her religious headcovering pursuant to a City of Dearborn Heights custom, practice or official policy.
26.
Alternatively, based on information and belief, Defendant City of Dearborn Heights and its employees and agents prohibited Ms. Kazan from wearing her religious headcovering pursuant to a custom, practice, or official policy implemented by the Defendant Police Chief Gavin or other officers employed by the City of Dearborn Heights Police Department, which was ratified by the City of Dearborn Heights or which the City of Dearborn Heights failed to address.
27.
Specifically, Officer John Doe and his supervisor, knowing Ms. Kazan wore a headdress for religious purposes, made her remove it and required her to be without her headdress while she was confined in holding.
28.
Upon information and belief, Officer John Doe and his supervising officer, knowing Ms. Kazan wore a headdress for religious purposes, required her to be without her headdress while she was confined in holding​

Again, what's the big deal here?

 

[Valerie]

ask the muslim woman driving around on a suspended license "what's the big deal?"

law enforcement agency policy requires a head shot photo ID. nothing personal.

 

[Valerie]

you are quoting the recounting of the events that day, not what she seeks as an end result of the suit...