It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Detroit - Muslim Woman Sues Because She Had to Remove Her Head Scarf During Booking

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.



If it's a Law that a mugshot must be taken...

The Constitutional thing to do, is for the males to leave the room in this scenario.
edit on 23-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mehmet666Heineken
Muslim bashing is the new national sport of the US and European Union. Absolutely shameful and scary how fascism is creeping in yet again, riding the coattails of populist diarrhea.


But, she did break the law.

She was driving on a suspended license. Not an expired license, a suspended one.

And the booking cop followed procedure.

Sometimes laws need to be changed or amended. But, I don't see where there was any major basing going on.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I do not want to live in a country where religion trumps the law. Some may say that religion being more important than law would be a good thing, but they only believe this because they are selfish. They do not consider the fact that not everyone practices the same religion that they do. If we start making concessions for one religion, those will undoubtedly clash with the religious beliefs of others, and you cannot appease everyone. The ONLY solution is to have a single law, whereby every single person, no matter their religious preference, abides by this rule. It just gets so annoying that people want to tailor the government to their own beliefs, not giving a second thought to the fact that such rules are necessary and are in place for a reason. Not only should she lose her case, but she should be punished for costing the taxpayers money.
edit on 1/23/15 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Realtruth

I can't type here exactly what I would say to her here but it begins with an F and ends in Off. Get over yourself.

I am sick of these morons not being able to adjust to the culture of our country. If they don't want to be here then they are welcome to leave. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.



You can't win here. Common Sense is dead.

Generation Stupid now rules the asylum.

She broke the law, was arrested and she is complaining she had to remove a headscarf. At least they didn't strip her and do a cavity search!

My religion says I cannot remove my pants in front of others... think that will stop cops if I am arrested.


RIP common sense.
edit on 23-1-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

The Constitutional thing to do, is for the males to leave the room in this scenario.


What if there was no female officer availabke?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think you've jumped the gun without reading the whole thread...


Religion doesn't trump the law, the 1st Amendment does...


She shouldn't lose the case, because her Constitutional rights were violated.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


My religion says I cannot remove my pants in front of others.


Does it?

Or did you just make that up?



1st Amendment.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:29 PM
link   
There is something in the Bible about "abide by the law of the land"? ya know, "give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

Do they not have that in the Quran?
edit on 1/23/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Then you wait...

I would have thought...


It's customary for the Mugshot to happen before someone hits the cells...
But I don't think it is mandatory.

It really makes no difference if that is done afterwards.


imo.


Ultimately it'll be up to the court to decide.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

She shouldn't lose the case, because her Constitutional rights were violated.


I think that's a big IFFY.

Probably change some procedures.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I don't see why she would have to remove a scarf covering her hair to take a picture of her face. Makes no sense, just seems like a form of harassment to me.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Hmmmm, "my religous faith doesnt allow a non muslim to arrest me".....there is another thread discusing the possibility of some type of "sharia law" being implented in america.

It starts slowly with things that seem ok.

I wonder if she realizes that in islamic countries she would not be allowed to even drive....maybe she should be stoned...they do that in islamic counties right? She wants to follow her " faith"...or maybe she wants to follow her " faith" when its convienient.......



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Oh this is too good to be true. And it can not come too soon in that state. It seems as though there is a bill, one of these Freedom religious acts that is going through the state legislature, and passing as many think it is a good idea. Now here is the thing:

If she had not broke the law, then this would not be an issue. However, as she did, and it is a part of her faith, she may very well win in a court, all due to the laws of the State. If her lawyer is good, and is paying attention, he is going to try to get delays in the case, until this new law passes. It is the one to try to hamper and ultimate discriminate against the LGBT community. And these good “God” fearing legislators are interested in hampering those “Evil” LGBT people. But if the lawyer waits, then the woman will be able to win the case, and use this law as part of the mandate in the state of Michigan as a valid excuse and thus further more cost the tax payers. You see, these kinds of laws are often used and exploited in all of the most interesting ways.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
What law was broken that specifically "impeded the free exercise of religion" ?

The 1st refers to "Laws", not necessarily "Actions".



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I cant see anything sayinh how she was made to remove it, did she take it off or did the police remove it for her? I doubt the latter as im sure that would be the headline



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Maybe, you can correct me if I'm wrong seeing as I'm a Londoner...

But doesn't "prohibits making a law that impedes religious exercise" mean that the mugshot must be done in a manner that doesn't impede those rights...


I'm guessing a mugshot is lawful, never really looked into it, if so it couldn't be created or legal if it impeded that right surely...


Given that, & my minimal understanding, I wouldn't be surprised if she could get the whole arrest scrubbed from her record if a part of that process was unconstitutional.


Overall I think it's a bit silly, I'd understand if it was a Burkha...
Headscarf not so much.



It does seem like a precedent setter though, procedural wise.

edit on 23-1-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
There have been law cases about this issue in a number of European courts already, all have been lost with the judges saying quite clearly, all headgear, be it a burqua, hijab, baseball cap, or hat MUST be removed for mugshots and / or identification at a court.

France even went one step further, and actually enshrined it into law by passing such requirements into statute law.

I believe that most Muslims understand that this requirement is to prevent false identification, especially in cases where a burqua is worn, and while not liking it, agree to it. But you always get the odd one out.

There hasn't been such a case in my home country yet (United Kingdom), but UK law does require the removal of all headgear at a court already.

It will be interesting to see which way this goes in an actual courtroom.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Realtruth

Can't wear hoodies plain and simple.

Peace




edit on 23-1-2015 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Freedom of religion doesn't mean that one can demand what one wants based on a religion. What if a tenet of your religion is to take what you want when you want it because god talks to you. Can you then do so and claim immunity on religious grounds?
If the booking photo requirement says "no head covering," and is equally applied to all suspects, then hoodies, hats, and scarves come off. If your religion says that images cannot be made of you, too bad, the booking photo is taken. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the civil authorities have to abide by your belief system.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: pteridine

If the booking photo requirement says "no head covering," and is equally applied to all suspects, then hoodies, hats, and scarves come off. If your religion says that images cannot be made of you, too bad, the booking photo is taken. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the civil authorities have to abide by your belief system.



Excellent point and one that will most likely be looked at by the judge.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join