Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[Synthaholic]

I hope she wins decisively!! .....

Of course this character you play on USMB hopes that. Gotta be consistent in your acting.

 

[Synthaholic]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

 

[Sunni Man]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

Banks do not require women to remove their scarves when entering. ....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think you are confused.

I think anyone who chooses to travel to France or Saudi Arabia is subject to the laws of those countries- and violates local customs at their own risk. None of those places are the United States- and none of them have our fantastic, amazing Bill of Rights.

When people come here from France or Saudi Arabia they have the same rights as all Americans have- that is one of the wonderful things about the United States- and they are subject to the same laws too. And no one in the United States is obligated to do something here just because it is a local custom.

We are better than other countries in that way.

I am hardly confused.

I would reserve that for those in this thread lobbying to have her NOT have to follow the same laws as everybody else by way of preparing herself for the photo because she believes her religion trumps that bill of rights.

 

[Synthaholic]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

Banks do not require women to remove their scarves when entering. ....

Maybe they do. It's all post-9/11 Patriot Act bullshit.

 

[Yurt]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

pro tip: banks are not the government

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake, i always offer evidence. you on the other hand....

everything you stated has zero to do with the heart of the argument, that is, why can't a female take the photo? all you did was regurgitate the facts as they stand. there really is no argument that you made. removal of the scarf does not maintain law and order, it is solely for identification purposes. removing her scarf isn't going to make her follow the law in the future. your comments are patently absurd and show your lack of knowledge in this area.

jake, the issue is quite simple: females can request and get a female to conduct a strip search. this is for modesty and is the law. for her, the scarf is a modesty issue. can you explain to me WHY her request for a female to take the photo is unreasonable.

thanks.

Nope, you don't get "just once more" on the failed meme you offer evidence every time. You don't. In this case, I disagree with you. The LEO disagrees with you. You argue the scarf is a modestly issue, and the LEO says no.

We will leave it to the courts, then.

 

[Indofred]

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

Would they have done that to a Catholic nun?
If they had, would you have been angry?

 

[FJO]

How can an otherwise NORMAL woman willingly be a Muslim?

Boggles the mind.

 

[hazlnut]

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

Next time a Christian shoots an abortion doctor, we'll make all Christian remove their crucifixes.

 

[Yurt]

jake, i always offer evidence. you on the other hand....

everything you stated has zero to do with the heart of the argument, that is, why can't a female take the photo? all you did was regurgitate the facts as they stand. there really is no argument that you made. removal of the scarf does not maintain law and order, it is solely for identification purposes. removing her scarf isn't going to make her follow the law in the future. your comments are patently absurd and show your lack of knowledge in this area.

jake, the issue is quite simple: females can request and get a female to conduct a strip search. this is for modesty and is the law. for her, the scarf is a modesty issue. can you explain to me WHY her request for a female to take the photo is unreasonable.

thanks.

Nope, you don't get "just once more" on the failed meme you offer evidence every time. You don't. In this case, I disagree with you. The LEO disagrees with you. You argue the scarf is a modestly issue, and the LEO says no.

We will leave it to the courts, then.

can't say i'm not surprised you failed to give your argument. you never do. you always pull this "just once more" crap everytime you get cornered.

meh....i tried to have a civil debate with you and you of course pull your usual....run away.....you even admit i made a good argument, and then when you couldn't counter it, you merely ad hom.

it is who you are jake. you don't debate, you troll and insult. at least you finally admit i back my stuff up. you don't.

 

[Coyote]

There's no "moving goalposts" on my part. I quoted the article.
I asked above, what if the police insisted on strip-searching her? By a male officer?

You on the other hand danced around the question without addressing it -- why didn't they have a female officer take the shot as requested? Don't they normally supply a female officer for a female search, for the same reason?

I know, I know what you're gonna say..... "but... but... Moooooooooooooslims!"

Now, you are simply lying. There was no strip search mentioned in the article at all.

You must be getting awfully desperate to go to such extreme lengths as to lie this brazenly about what happened in order to erode our much treasured separation of religion and state.

He didn't say there was.

 

[Coyote]

At least the fifth column in this country is consistent after a fashion.

When Americans travel to extremely backwards Islamic countries, they lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom, and when people from extremely backwards Islamic countries move here, the same people lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom.

What's "extremely backwards" about a head scarf?

 

[Coyote]

Yurt wrote, "with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have."

You make a good argument, Yurt.

The single error is comparing a body search with a request to remove a scarf. (1) Is her religious belief compelling enough to vacate the request? (2) Was a police woman readily available to take the photo?

1. there was no error on my part. her religious beliefs will be compared to the security concerns of the police, as i already stated.

2. i'm sure there was. if not, they could find a female to take the picture.

now, when are you going to explain why you think you are right? i of course did, but as usual, you didn't do what you demand of others.

Yurt you finally offered some evidence, for a nice change, and I will be glad to follow now that you have fulfilled your affirmation.

I think the police have a procedure and a protocol that they follow.

As of right now, that policy is not considered a violation of her religious liberties. If a lawsuit ensures, that may change.

The removal of her scarf within in the confines of the incident maintains law and order, something which she had not followed before, and hopefully will encourage her to follow in the future.

The same could be said of a strip search.

 

[hortysir]

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.

The issue on the table is keeping their religious apparel on during booking

 

[Coyote]

I gather this woman never walks into a bank. Most banks make you remove sunglasses and hats when you enter.

It's just a head scarf.

I've never ever walked into a bank and been told to take off my hat or sunglasses.

 

[Coyote]

I think you are confused.

I think anyone who chooses to travel to France or Saudi Arabia is subject to the laws of those countries- and violates local customs at their own risk. None of those places are the United States- and none of them have our fantastic, amazing Bill of Rights.

When people come here from France or Saudi Arabia they have the same rights as all Americans have- that is one of the wonderful things about the United States- and they are subject to the same laws too. And no one in the United States is obligated to do something here just because it is a local custom.

We are better than other countries in that way.

I am hardly confused.

I would reserve that for those in this thread lobbying to have her NOT have to follow the same laws as everybody else by way of preparing herself for the photo because she believes her religion trumps that bill of rights.

You got it wrong.

The issue isn't what she takes off FOR THE PHOTO - it's who sees her without it and takes the photo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake, i always offer evidence. you on the other hand....

everything you stated has zero to do with the heart of the argument, that is, why can't a female take the photo? all you did was regurgitate the facts as they stand. there really is no argument that you made. removal of the scarf does not maintain law and order, it is solely for identification purposes. removing her scarf isn't going to make her follow the law in the future. your comments are patently absurd and show your lack of knowledge in this area.

jake, the issue is quite simple: females can request and get a female to conduct a strip search. this is for modesty and is the law. for her, the scarf is a modesty issue. can you explain to me WHY her request for a female to take the photo is unreasonable.

thanks.

Nope, you don't get "just once more" on the failed meme you offer evidence every time. You don't. In this case, I disagree with you. The LEO disagrees with you. You argue the scarf is a modestly issue, and the LEO says no.

We will leave it to the courts, then.

can't say i'm not surprised you failed to give your argument. you never do. you always pull this "just once more" crap everytime you get cornered.

meh....i tried to have a civil debate with you and you of course pull your usual....run away.....you even admit i made a good argument, and then when you couldn't counter it, you merely ad hom.

it is who you are jake. you don't debate, you troll and insult. at least you finally admit i back my stuff up. you don't.

Yurt admits that he cannot support his claim. He tries to frame a set up on civil debate and fails. I am glad for once he at least pretend to try to argue with facts and analysis.

You are the one who trolled and insulted. Every time you try to argue with me personally you lose, every time. Let's see if you yell "prove it", your answer for every time you are called out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jake, i always offer evidence. you on the other hand....

everything you stated has zero to do with the heart of the argument, that is, why can't a female take the photo? all you did was regurgitate the facts as they stand. there really is no argument that you made. removal of the scarf does not maintain law and order, it is solely for identification purposes. removing her scarf isn't going to make her follow the law in the future. your comments are patently absurd and show your lack of knowledge in this area.

jake, the issue is quite simple: females can request and get a female to conduct a strip search. this is for modesty and is the law. for her, the scarf is a modesty issue. can you explain to me WHY her request for a female to take the photo is unreasonable.

thanks.

Nope, you don't get "just once more" on the failed meme you offer evidence every time. You don't. In this case, I disagree with you. The LEO disagrees with you. You argue the scarf is a modestly issue, and the LEO says no.

We will leave it to the courts, then.

can't say i'm not surprised you failed to give your argument. you never do. you always pull this "just once more" crap everytime you get cornered.

meh....i tried to have a civil debate with you and you of course pull your usual....run away.....you even admit i made a good argument, and then when you couldn't counter it, you merely ad hom.

it is who you are jake. you don't debate, you troll and insult. at least you finally admit i back my stuff up. you don't.

Yurt, under pressure, tries to frame a set up on civil debate and fails. I am glad for once you at least pretended to civily argue but failed yet again. You are the one who trolled and insulted.

So "no, you don't get once more."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

This is unsurprisingly ignorant and ridiculous.

To 'assimilate' does not mean one must abandon all aspects of one's traditions, religion, or culture.

Indeed, Islam is just as American as any other religion, Muslims are just as American as any other citizen, and the hajab is just as much a part of American culture as any other garment.

This nonsense about 'assimilation' is yet another facade contrived to conceal an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam and Muslims.

“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.”

Very much so.