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

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

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 can only factually say right now that there have been individual cases similar to this: some won -- some lost.

They seem to be at local state levels. I'm not sure about federal at this time without researching it.

Here's one case: pa.cair.com...

PHILADELPHIA, PA, 4/13/10) –- The Pennsylvania chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-PA) today thanked the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for its “prompt and appropriate action” in offering an apology to a Muslim driver in that state who was initially refused the right to take her driver’s license photograph wearing a religious head scarf, or hijab.

Here's one where woman lost right to wear full face cover on drivers license:
usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Seriously, it's common sense. Might as well wear gloves while being fingerprinted.

While I do respect everybody's beliefs, I do not think that religion should come before the law. Simply because there are TOO MANY religions out there. I mean, it seems easy enough when you only think of the "main" religions (I'm using "main" very loosely here, since I don't have any numbers to back it up): Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

But what about the people who are Agnostic? They have beliefs too, but each one is different. What about Satanists? Will we ask them what Satan allows before the law is applied to them?

I feel very sad for her. I'd hate to do something that went against what I believed. And I'm not even religious, so I don't think I understand how bad it was for her. Many people see their religion as something that they, as people, are. So yeah, it's really terrible. But... the law is the law... if it says mugshots are supposed to be done with nothing on their heads, not even a hat, which I agree with, then that is it.

Jailing some one over driving on a suspended license seems so unnecessary, take their car and let them be.


I guess she should have remove it, but it does seem to fall into a grey area of being free to express your religion.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting
Except it's not now where near that.

You can still see all the facial features, your example would be like wearing a mask.

The only thing it could be compared to is another religious garment worn by another religion

a reply to: Sremmos80

Compare it to a baseball hat. You don't get to wear one in photos for your drivers license and you certainly don't when you're arrested.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I would be talking to you, but you don't live here.

a reply to: Domo1
I can see a baseball cap, worn forward, it would shadow your face. There really is no logical reason why someone shouldn't be able to wear a yamaka, head scarf, or baseball cap worn backwards for both of those scenarios.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
Except it's not now where near that.

You can still see all the facial features, your example would be like wearing a mask.

The only thing it could be compared to is another religious garment worn by another religion

Two points I want to make.
(One) It wouldn't be important if we all had the same rounded skull. We don't. They are of all contours, and sizes.
We have very different hairlines, some low, some high, some triangular, and some people have that 'widow's peak" hairline, so the hairline and the contour of the head can make a difference in appearance.

2. I have been stopped before and to my surprise, my license had expired.
What happen to me? Nothing. Just a little "you need to take care of that".

Oh, I was wondering why they even arrested her for this, but now I see her license was 'suspended', not expired. Does anyone know why it was suspended? Maybe that has some bearing on this. (Maybe somebody posted the reason and I missed it.)

a reply to: Domo1

I really don't see it that way.

Baseball hat is just something you wear out of preference not religious reasons.
Don't see how it can be compared.

This is a religious garment, the baseball cap is not.

Grey area to me

a reply to: catt3

No I don't & I still understand the 1st Amendment better than you do...


That must be heartbreaking for you.

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

My point was more that a glove would cover all like a mask would the face.

But still, to your hair line point, depending on the head scarf, it is possible the hear line could have been seen.

Look at the picture in your OP article.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You have know idea what I do and do not know. Don't even try and tell me I don't know what I am talking about.

DMV: The Six top reasons for receiving a "suspended driver's license". If anybody cares. : )

www.dmv.org...

a reply to: catt3

No that's true and I never said anything of the sort...

I said I understand the 1st better than you which is clear from the way you have responded.



Also, to want to deport someone for driving while suspended...
I can't even...

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: ladyinwaiting
But still, to your hair line point, depending on the head scarf, it is possible the hear line could have been seen.

Then I am sorry, if the hairline can be seen, its not a religious garment. the Quran is quite clear, the hairline and hair must not be visible. Therefore if the hairline can be seen, its a fashion accessory, and can be removed like any other fashion accessory.

a reply to: BMorris

I bet you couldn't quote where it says that without googleing it.

I couldn't but I am also not the one defining what it does or does not say

I have a few thoughts on the matter:

1. It's possible that the facial recognition software used by many law enforcement agencies uses the parts of the head (the hairline, ears, and hair itself), covered by a hijab. In this case there is a legitimate reason that the hijab needed to be removed.

2. I don't think that it's unreasonable to request a female officer to do the booking, unless this would place an undo burden on the police. I have no idea how booking is done, but I imagine it might be in the middle of the action. Really though, accommodation should be feasible, especially in a big city...

3. The right to practice religion doesn't mean that the government can never do anything that violates your religious beliefs. It requires reasonable accommodation. Polygamy is illegal for no reason other than it's illegal. Certain First Nation (is that still the pc name?) religions believe in ingesting Peyote, but the illegal status of Peyote causes complications. See link for court case : caselaw.lp.findlaw.com.../us/494/872.html

a reply to: Sremmos80

No, you're right, I couldn't, I just hear it a lot from my Muslim friend, how young Muslims nowdays treat the hijab as a fashion accessory, because it shows their hair and none of their hair is supposed to be visible at all. She rants about it almost daily.

a reply to: BMorris

Agreed, but for the sake of argument does it matter if it's technically correct to be a religious garment?

Another way to ask is it the government's job to decide if someone's practicing their religion properly? I don't think most ATS members would like that