Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[dannyboys]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

Yes, anyone ever hid their identity under a yarmulke, behind a crucifix, or under a dot on the head?

During the booking process any item which may be used as a weapon or to conceal a weapon of any type must be removed.
A Yarmulke could conceal a small pouch of anthrax. Needles etc. A crucifix could be used to slash someone. The removal of the 'dot' is to conform with the section of the State and Federal law which says no covering or masking of the face is allowed during the booking process. Allow a 'dot' then face a lawsuit claiming the 'size of the dot' is not specified'. "My whole face is covered by the 'dot'".
You really ought to wise up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

I'm pretty sure she's still a woman though.
If that were not the case Tranny Steve would be all over this.

The asked her to remove her headscarf not her panties.

She can't wear a headscarf during booking. Her hair must be seen.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

If those items you just described, blocked the ability to clearly identify the person, then they too should be removed.
This is what I think goes right over the head of some of you. This particular religion much of the time utilizes clothing that obstructs the persons identity. Take drivers licenses for instance, you do realize that the reason they take your picture is so the authorities have an easier time being able to tell if the license holder is the same person in the picture ?
It's the same with a mugshot.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

So the rule that says all headwear must be removed for a booking photo should only apply to Christians wearing baseball caps?

Why does the left hate Christians?

The left here in America simply seeks to defend ANYTHING related to Islam.
If a Christian suddenly wanted to cover their face before authorities wanted to photograph them, they would care less if the Christian were held down and stripped until the desired pictures were taken.

 

[Syriusly]

Because, you know, Muslims have every intention of assimilating into America, it's laws culture and traditions.

Muslim woman says police made her remove Islamic scarf

A Muslim woman filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Dearborn Heights police of violating her constitutional rights by making her remove her Islamic headscarf after they arrested her for driving on a suspended license.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Detroit, asks for Dearborn Heights to “modify its current policy” so that Muslim women can wear Islamic headscarves during booking procedures.

Malak Kazan of Dearborn Heights was pulled over by police in July on a traffic violation and then taken into custody on a traffic misdemeanor because of her suspended license, according to the lawsuit. The male police officer then asked Kazan to remove her headscarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats.

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

For Kazan, “wearing a headscarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body,” the lawsuit said. “To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience.”

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

The lawsuit says that wearing hijab is rooted in Islam, “based on...the Koran, the primary holy book of the Muslim religion; the hadith, oral traditions coming from the era of the Prophet Mohamed. ... The word hijab comes from the Arabic word ‘hajaba,’ which means to hide or screen from view or to cover.”

The lawsuit was filed against the city of Dearborn Heights, its police department and police chief, saying that Kazan’s constitutional rights to free expression of religion were violated. It claims the First, Fourth and 14th amendments were violated.

MORE: A Muslim woman sues Dearborn Heights police for removing her Islamic headscarf after arrest

Because of course this is only a "Muslim" issue.....

The Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs is scheduled to approve a $350,000 payment next week for Detective Steve Riback, an observant Orthodox Jew who claimed he was experiencing religious discrimination on the job.

"We believe that it is a fair settlement, and we hope that Fiscal Affairs will approve it," said attorney Craig Anderson, who represents the Metropolitan Police Department.

Anderson wouldn't comment further.

In a federal lawsuit filed in August 2007, Riback sought an injunction to prohibit police officials from disciplining him for wearing either a short beard or yarmulke at work. A yarmulke is a skullcap worn by Jewish men and boys.

 

[Syriusly]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

If those items you just described, blocked the ability to clearly identify the person, then they too should be removed.
This is what I think goes right over the head of some of you. This particular religion much of the time utilizes clothing that obstructs the persons identity. Take drivers licenses for instance, you do realize that the reason they take your picture is so the authorities have an easier time being able to tell if the license holder is the same person in the picture ?
It's the same with a mugshot.

You have a legitimate point about any head covering which impedes identification.

Where you go wrong is saying that Islam is somehow different from other religious groups that also keep their religious apparel even while becoming Americans.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Is it.

From the article:

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.
For Kazan, "wearing a head scarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit said. "To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience."
Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.​

?

You are an awfully confused young man. You seem to be suffering under the delusion that there is actually no separation of church (or mosque) and state and that adhering to a religion provides one the ability to dictate to the secular state how it can or cannot operate. If an Santeriast demanded that they be allowed to sacrifice a chicken in court because otherwise it would "violate" their religion, they would have no more right to do so that this woman seeking to mask her identity.

A person would have to be awfully stupid to think the notion of freedom of religion means that all a person has to do is claim their religion justifies some sort of unique right and it's a done deal. Freedom of religion guarantees that the state cannot impose or mandate religion, or dictate the set of beliefs promoted by the religion. it DOESN'T mean that religion gets to dictate to the state simply because it is religion.

I was confused -- until I read the article (just as I was once young). But as I'm not the one supposing chicken sacrifice has anything in the world to do with court, I don't think it's me.

Read the exerpt -- she requests a female officer on the basis of modesty. She's refused. Refresh my memory since it's been a long time -- well, never -- since I've been frisked as a female .... don't they provide a female officer for that?

What's the difference?

Uh, taking a picture last time I checked is not "frisking".

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Did they fluff her hair?

 

[Syriusly]

So the rule that says all headwear must be removed for a booking photo should only apply to Christians wearing baseball caps?

Why does the left hate Christians?

The left here in America simply seeks to defend ANYTHING related to Islam.
If a Christian suddenly wanted to cover their face before authorities wanted to photograph them, they would care less if the Christian were held down and stripped until the desired pictures were taken.

Or this liberal would say that all persons should be treated equally- regardless of their religion. IF clothing impedes a legitimate requirement- such as identification- then that person needs to remove the impeding article.

I would feel the same whether the person is Muslim, Christian or Jewish.

Would you?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Because, you know, Muslims have every intention of assimilating into America, it's laws culture and traditions.

Muslim woman says police made her remove Islamic scarf

A Muslim woman filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Dearborn Heights police of violating her constitutional rights by making her remove her Islamic headscarf after they arrested her for driving on a suspended license.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Detroit, asks for Dearborn Heights to “modify its current policy” so that Muslim women can wear Islamic headscarves during booking procedures.

Malak Kazan of Dearborn Heights was pulled over by police in July on a traffic violation and then taken into custody on a traffic misdemeanor because of her suspended license, according to the lawsuit. The male police officer then asked Kazan to remove her headscarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats.

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

For Kazan, “wearing a headscarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body,” the lawsuit said. “To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience.”

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

The lawsuit says that wearing hijab is rooted in Islam, “based on...the Koran, the primary holy book of the Muslim religion; the hadith, oral traditions coming from the era of the Prophet Mohamed. ... The word hijab comes from the Arabic word ‘hajaba,’ which means to hide or screen from view or to cover.”

The lawsuit was filed against the city of Dearborn Heights, its police department and police chief, saying that Kazan’s constitutional rights to free expression of religion were violated. It claims the First, Fourth and 14th amendments were violated.

MORE: A Muslim woman sues Dearborn Heights police for removing her Islamic headscarf after arrest

Because of course this is only a "Muslim" issue.....

The Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs is scheduled to approve a $350,000 payment next week for Detective Steve Riback, an observant Orthodox Jew who claimed he was experiencing religious discrimination on the job.

"We believe that it is a fair settlement, and we hope that Fiscal Affairs will approve it," said attorney Craig Anderson, who represents the Metropolitan Police Department.

Anderson wouldn't comment further.

In a federal lawsuit filed in August 2007, Riback sought an injunction to prohibit police officials from disciplining him for wearing either a short beard or yarmulke at work. A yarmulke is a skullcap worn by Jewish men and boys.

Apples and oranges.
This is not a workplace issue. This is about allowing the authorities to photograph a person for reasons of indentification.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Because, you know, Muslims have every intention of assimilating into America, it's laws culture and traditions.

Muslim woman says police made her remove Islamic scarf

A Muslim woman filed a lawsuit Thursday accusing Dearborn Heights police of violating her constitutional rights by making her remove her Islamic headscarf after they arrested her for driving on a suspended license.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Detroit, asks for Dearborn Heights to “modify its current policy” so that Muslim women can wear Islamic headscarves during booking procedures.

Malak Kazan of Dearborn Heights was pulled over by police in July on a traffic violation and then taken into custody on a traffic misdemeanor because of her suspended license, according to the lawsuit. The male police officer then asked Kazan to remove her headscarf to take her booking photo, which usually requires no head coverings or hats.

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.

For Kazan, “wearing a headscarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body,” the lawsuit said. “To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience.”

Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.

The lawsuit says that wearing hijab is rooted in Islam, “based on...the Koran, the primary holy book of the Muslim religion; the hadith, oral traditions coming from the era of the Prophet Mohamed. ... The word hijab comes from the Arabic word ‘hajaba,’ which means to hide or screen from view or to cover.”

The lawsuit was filed against the city of Dearborn Heights, its police department and police chief, saying that Kazan’s constitutional rights to free expression of religion were violated. It claims the First, Fourth and 14th amendments were violated.

MORE: A Muslim woman sues Dearborn Heights police for removing her Islamic headscarf after arrest

Because of course this is only a "Muslim" issue.....

The Metropolitan Police Committee on Fiscal Affairs is scheduled to approve a $350,000 payment next week for Detective Steve Riback, an observant Orthodox Jew who claimed he was experiencing religious discrimination on the job.

"We believe that it is a fair settlement, and we hope that Fiscal Affairs will approve it," said attorney Craig Anderson, who represents the Metropolitan Police Department.

Anderson wouldn't comment further.

In a federal lawsuit filed in August 2007, Riback sought an injunction to prohibit police officials from disciplining him for wearing either a short beard or yarmulke at work. A yarmulke is a skullcap worn by Jewish men and boys.

Apples and oranges.
This is not a workplace issue. This is about allowing the authorities to photograph a person for reasons of indentification.

I want that avatar. That is priceless!

 

[Pogo]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

If those items you just described, blocked the ability to clearly identify the person, then they too should be removed.
This is what I think goes right over the head of some of you. This particular religion much of the time utilizes clothing that obstructs the persons identity. Take drivers licenses for instance, you do realize that the reason they take your picture is so the authorities have an easier time being able to tell if the license holder is the same person in the picture ?
It's the same with a mugshot.

Again --- you're conflating two different points. That post doesn't refer to bookings and police actions at all. It refers to the OP's demand that "Muslims must 'abide by' our culture" and "assimilate".

I'm totally addressing the OP there, not the police. They came up later.

 

[Syriusly]

Why does the right hate the Constitution?

If indeed this violates the Constitution, then I've got no problem with her lawsuit.
The main problem I have is that it's just more evidence that immigrating Muslims do not intend to abide by the laws, customs, regulations, etc., of America.
They want us to bend our rules to their liking.

Actually what they want is to replace our Constitution with their Koran. The truth is that every Muslim who immigrated here and was naturalized as an American Citizen took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therein they have perjured themselves and that should be dealt with accordingly.

When we accomodate Muslims with foot baths at the airport, separate swimming pools at Harvard - work out rooms for Muslim women - prayer rooms - call to prayer at Harvard - which was denied finally - what they are doing is forcing Americans to acknowledge Sharia law. It's a bad road to go down and America needs to wake up and say no.

What idiocy. There are Muslim Americans serving in our armed forces, defending America and the Constitution- yet to you they are the enemy.

In the United States, we generally encourage reasonable accommodations for religious practices- which is why there are chapels at the airport, and bells calling people to church services at Harvard.

No one is forcing any American to acknowledge Sharia law in the United States.

Just alarmist idiocy.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

If those items you just described, blocked the ability to clearly identify the person, then they too should be removed.
This is what I think goes right over the head of some of you. This particular religion much of the time utilizes clothing that obstructs the persons identity. Take drivers licenses for instance, you do realize that the reason they take your picture is so the authorities have an easier time being able to tell if the license holder is the same person in the picture ?
It's the same with a mugshot.

You have a legitimate point about any head covering which impedes identification.

Where you go wrong is saying that Islam is somehow different from other religious groups that also keep their religious apparel even while becoming Americans.

True, other religions have their own traditional apparel, however I don't see other religions that at times cover the person from head to foot like Muslim females. The burka is a bit over the top, although that isn't the case here.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yes, how dare they follow their faith! Silly Muslims, don't you know America is for Christians?

Actually, it isn't their faith. Covering varies from culture to culture. It is a cultural thing. It is not specifically called for in the Koran. Only to dress modestly is called for in the Koran.

Here is a picture of women in Turkey. Some cover, some don't. It's a personal choice. Some countries, like Saudi, require it, others don't. It is not required as part of being a Muslim. She will lose the lawsuit, imo, because covering is not required in Islam, so it's not covered by the Constitution. Most of the discussion in this thread is ridiculous because so many are assuming this is about religion when it is not: it's culture. In most circumstances, in America, decent people will respect the woman's desire to cover and what it means to her, but legally, we are not required to allow her to cover her head when being booked. This is not really about assimilation either, imo. She is, in fact, assimilating in filing the law suit: Americans certainly do have the right to be litigious.

 

[Pogo]

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

I have a question. How many of those items you mentioned obscure the identity of the individual or make visually identifying them more difficult?

The concept of a mug shot is as an identifying document. Therefore anything that obscures the face is not allowed. If they're really that concerned stay at home where they belong and they won't have to deal with the police.

All Pogo knows is that the prime directive demands that there is one special group of people who absolutely MUST be protected, and so any rationalizations that result stem from this notion. Instead of developing arguments from the ground up, they are retrofitted from the end result on back. When one argument is defeated, simply shift to another.

There is a large portion of the left that has long since abandoned anything approaching liberal ideology, and now simply plays the game of identity politics. What matters to them ISN'T a principle or ideal, but merely the identity of the person involved. If that identity is Muslim, it gets moved right to the front of the line.

If this were a case of a militant Christian instead of Militant Muslim, the very people who are defending would be on it like shit on stink. You know it. They know it. Everybody knows it, but it's all so very wink wink because they cannot possibly acknowledge it. Like Pavlov's pooch,the process is just too ingrained.

Except what you continue to miss here is that, if we go by the article (and the OP is clearly not reliable, so we have to), this is not a religion issue. It's a gender issue.

Why didn't the cops simply provide a female officer per her request?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

If those items you just described, blocked the ability to clearly identify the person, then they too should be removed.
This is what I think goes right over the head of some of you. This particular religion much of the time utilizes clothing that obstructs the persons identity. Take drivers licenses for instance, you do realize that the reason they take your picture is so the authorities have an easier time being able to tell if the license holder is the same person in the picture ?
It's the same with a mugshot.

Again --- you're conflating two different points. That post doesn't refer to bookings and police actions at all. It refers to the OP's demand that "Muslims must 'abide by' our culture" and "assimilate".

I'm totally addressing the OP there, not the police. They came up later.

"Later" meaning you took the time to actually read the article.

But to address your complaint, I do have a problem with immigrants who work to get around the culture here by demanding we change to meet their desires.
Immigrants who instead of learning our common language, insist we provide their language. I have a huge problem with that.
Recently a Muslim in another state was "offended" by the advertisement of a local restaurant celebrating their delicious bacon. It was a sign located on public property, and the Muslim made a big enough stink about it that the restaurant bent over for them and removed it, and in the process offended many in the local area. That sort of thing "offends" me.
When in Rome............

 

[Esmeralda]

O

It boggles the mind how a reasonable woman can willingly be a Muslim.

They are not permitted to reason or use logic according to Islam. To think is to question Allah and it is not permitted.

Or maybe because they were clipped and have no idea what it is like to enjoy womanhood.

God. You're fucking stupid.

 

[irosie91]

Yes, how dare they follow their faith! Silly Muslims, don't you know America is for Christians?

Actually, it isn't their faith. Covering varies from culture to culture. It is a cultural thing. It is not specifically called for in the Koran. Only to dress modestly is called for in the Koran.

Arabian "culture" moves along with islam. Try to avoid the standard "its not in the Koran so it does not exist" BS. It
gives you away-----you have been primed by islamo-Nazi
propaganda to the point of SAME LINGO. Black Burkahs
did not originate in the Indian subcontinent

 

[BullKurtz]

The hijab is a way to hide or disguise her face.....that's not tolerated by law enforcement during a traffic stop. Fun to watch the progs defend the death cult that is islam while looking away from over 50,000,000 abortions.