Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They should follow rules like everybody else. Just take the damn mugshot like everybody else. Why should they go to a private room or have a female officer taking it for them? This is stupid.
Muslims don't follow our rules. They not here to assimilate. They here to assimilate us to them. That is Islam's entire history.
"Well, we can accommodate your religious requirement but we have to send you to the Buffalo Muslim photo booth, its about 7 hours away. A transport will be here Monday morning to take you there, until then, have a seat in that cell"
This. No matter what, a photo is needed. Can't believe they won this...
G.E. was initially brought to a local police station and was told to take off her hijab. G.E. refused and was taken to a secluded room where a female police officer took her photo outside the presence of any men, the Daily News reported.
But at Brooklyn Central Booking the police could not accommodate the girl’s religious needs, telling her that there were not any female officers available and that the camera is in a fixed spot, thus the mugshot could not be taken in a private room.
The girl alleged that a male officer then took her photo without a hijab, making her feel “exposed, violated and distraught” as she was forced to be without the Islamic garb for 20 minutes while male officers and prisoners looked at her.
Police issued an order in March 2015, according to court filings, changing the policies regarding people who refuse to take off their religious head coverings. Officers who perform the arrest had to tell the person that the NYPD offers a choice of getting a private photo – without the head garb and with an officer of the same gender.
Two other cases were filed in 2015 and 2016 by G.E.’s lawyer, Tahanie Aboushi, and involved a similar situation.
One woman claims to have been forced to remove her veil at Brooklyn Central Booking police station and was denied a female photographer. Another accuser said her hijab was removed at the scene of her arrest.
Oh the horror of having a male see her face! Here's $60k to make it all better! How idiotic are we as a nation these days? A suspect taken into booking wants to keep her little mask on? Or worse, one actually has it removed at the scene of the crime? And we reward them with taxpayer dollars? I'm thinking those that want to commit armed robbery should dream up a "religion" that requires wearing a ski mask.
Oh the horror of having a male see her face! Here's $60k to make it all better! How idiotic are we as a nation these days? A suspect taken into booking wants to keep her little mask on? Or worse, one actually has it removed at the scene of the crime? And we reward them with taxpayer dollars? I'm thinking those that want to commit armed robbery should dream up a "religion" that requires wearing a ski mask.
A hijab isn’t a ski mask. It covers the hair, ears and neck. Face is completely visible unlike a niquab or burka
But at Brooklyn Central Booking the police could not accommodate the girl’s religious needs, telling her that there were not any female officers available and that the camera is in a fixed spot, thus the mugshot could not be taken in a private room.
They should follow rules like everybody else. Just take the damn mugshot like everybody else. Why should they go to a private room or have a female officer taking it for them? This is stupid.
Religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment.
A hijab isn’t a ski mask. It covers the hair, ears and neck. Face is completely visible unlike a niquab or burka
Hair (style and color) are part of what is used for identification and description. I have some snowmobiling masks that don't cover my eyes, nose or mouth. I suppose I'd be able to keep it on if I dream up a religion that requires wearing a costume.
They were completely insignificant and had no influence or visibility until the 1960s but particularly the 1990s and onward.
The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. it still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally past; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the words ‘Jesus Christ’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination.
Religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment.
I'm sure the liberals would agree this gentleman should be able to keep his head covering on if he's booked for a crime...for religious reasons. Right?
The KKK claims to be a religious organization. I suppose we can't make them take off their pointy hats when they are booked...
If you want to discuss things honestly, fine, if not I will ignore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
