Three Muslim women forced to remove hijabs for mug shots snag $180G payout from city
Three Muslim women forced to remove hijabs for mug shots snag $180G payout from city
BY Andrew Keshner, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, February 27, 2018
Last year, judges let parts of the three cases go ahead. All three women settled for $60,000 apiece, according to the Law Department. (Jasmin Merdan/Getty Images)
New York City will pay a total of $180,000 to three Muslim women who were forced to take off their hijabs for mug shots, the Daily News has learned.
Settlements in the three cases were filed Monday in Brooklyn federal court, with the lawsuits spurring new NYPD procedures on photographing people donning religious head coverings.
The cases date back as far as 2012, when a Brooklyn high school girl identified as “G.E.” was arrested after a scuffle with two girls she thought were spreading rumors about her.
The criminal case was dismissed, but it was the initial mug shots that mattered in the civil rights case that followed.
G.E. was taken to the 62nd Precinct, which covers such neighborhoods as Bensonhurst, Mapleton and Bath Beach, where police told her she’d have to take off her hijab.
The teen refused, and was taken to a private room where a female officer shot the photo outside the presence of any men.
But at Brooklyn central booking, police told her there weren’t any female officers to do the picture and the camera was in a fixed spot, so it couldn’t be privately taken elsewhere.
G.E. said a male officer took her picture without her hijab.
Her suit said she felt “exposed, violated and distraught” being forced to take off her headscarf for some 20 minutes as male police and prisoners watched.
Court rulings show in March 2015, police issued an order that changed the rules when people refused to take off religious head coverings. Arresting officers had to tell the person they had the choice of getting a private photo — without the head covering, and with an officer of the same gender.
Last year, judges let parts of the three cases go ahead. All three women settled for $60,000 apiece, according to the Law Department.
In 2015 and 2016, G.E.’s lawyer, Tahanie Aboushi, filed two similar cases — both for incidents that happened after the new police rules on head coverings.
One woman said she had to remove her veil at Brooklyn Central Booking. Another said her hijab was removed at the scene of her arrest, where she was knocked unconscious in an altercation with a neighbor over a parking spot.
At Brooklyn Central Booking, police denied the woman’s request for a female photographer.
Last year, judges let parts of the three cases go ahead. All three settled for $60,000 apiece, according to the Law Department.
On Tuesday, Aboushi told the Daily News the police department sent out additional directives in December 2017 on religious headwear. She credited the city and police, saying the end result was a “collaborative” effort and a “great first step.”
“We did our best to establish good precedent,” said Aboushi, noting several religions have headwear requirements.
“On the one hand, it gives officers guidance, and on the other hand, it protects the exercise of religious freedom,” Aboushi said.
A Law Department rep said “the resolution of these matters were in the best interest of all parties involved.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
84 visitors
"Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you"
"Small steps" said Eleanor Arroway's father in the movie "Contact".
While the women in Iran are being arrested for taking off their hijabs in public in a movement for equality and freedom, the feminist dhimmis in America are donning hijabs to emulate women who are treated as chattels. CAIR will be happy to see that America is becoming Shariah-compliant. Be prepared to pay your jizya tax.
I have read at least two stories, one in Canada and one in America, about girls who faked having their hijabs torn off their heads in order to create an accusation of Islamophobia - they were then charged with an offence. Expect more of that.
If I ever visit New York City again, I will be sure to wear a hijab for the police to remove so I can extort $60,000 from the city.
Next presidential election, don't get left out, vote for Linda Sarsour to be POTUS.
Buzz, you're Jewish, aren't you?
Think about this one. Orthodox Jewish women wear either scarves or wigs out in public because no man but her husband is allowed to see her hair. If she is arrested, the scarf and/or wig would have to be removed for a mug shot. Do you agree with that?
I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but trying to find different scenarios with different religions. A Catholic nun would have to remove her head covering for a mug shot if she were arrested.
Absolutely marvelous - gonna get with the tribes/nations and the ACLU to file class action suits against ALL of the states/cities who have banned Native Americans from wearing their feathers.
If this case had involved any other religion besides Islam it wouldn't have even made the news.
Then let's change the title and, see if it helps you to understand a little better.
"THREE CHRISTIAN WOMEN MADE TO REMOVE THEIR CLOTHES FOR MUG SHOT".
Maybe not an Amish woman or a Catholic nun, because none of you seem to care about them.
Let's tell a Pentecostal woman she has to do something and you all will be screaming to the heavens
Be sure to let me know when that's an actual headline. How about this one: JOY BEHAR MOCKS CHRISTIAN BELIEFS
That one is actually true.
So? I mock the modern Christian beliefs as well.
And I'm sure if somebody mocks Islamic beliefs you consider them to be a bigot.
I don't know about GAlen, but I think Islamic beliefs are outlandish!
No bacon? Ever? Kill me now. They hate dogs but they hate women worse than they hate dogs
Absolutely. Take it off. Don't subject yourself to arrest.
You may want to re-read the comment. You've already been arrested, now we're talking mugshots
That's not what I said. I just want everyone to be treated equally if they've committed a crime
No, I think one reading is enough. My comment answers your question. But, for you, I'll expand it a bit. Don't break the law and subject yourself to arrest. When you are arrested, don't complain that the state doesn't give a damn about your particular religious beliefs.
Isn't that what you are promoting...equal treatment under the law? Here it is. Somehow, Christians should be up in arms about this? Sorry to inform you, but they won't be.
Attempts to find an equivalent might be tough. But, I have one for you. Let's say that state law required that arrested persons would have their heads shaved during processing. Let's say also that a pentecostal woman, who is a member is of a particular pentecostal group that believes in wearing the hair long, is arrested, and her head is shaved. Sorry lady, don't do stuff to get yourself arrested, and maybe you wouldn't have your head shaved. I'm sure they'd have her in elastic wasted pants too, instead of her skirt.
What about people that believe photographs steal your soul? Face to the right.
It sounds like we're pretty much in agreement, then. No special treatment for anybody in prison and that includes special diets.
very outlandish and outdated
What my religion is doesn't make any difference to what my reply to your question is, but IMO EVERYONE should have to remove head coverings for a proper mug shot to be taken if the mug shot is required because a person has been arrested. And IMO the same thing goes for driver's licences (do it or don't get a licence) and passports and any other necessary ID purpose. I never heard of a Jewish woman or a nun or Amish person starting a lawsuit because they had to doff their head covering in those circumstances.
More than being a bigot, in many countries such as ones in Europe it would be a crime, and in some countries you'd be executed. In America you'd be an Islamophobe and if not now then most likely soon you could be charged with an offence - Canada is heading that way already.
At the residential schools Indian children had their hair cut, when their locks were important to retain according to their beliefs. HOWEVER, THEY WERE LIVING IN AMERICA BEFORE THE WHITE MAN CAME. So it was CRIMINAL to force THEM to comply to laws that were imposed on them by immigrant newcomers.
Let's pretend that happened....Do you think any other religion would win a lawsuit in what remains of Obama's America?
Do you have a problem with free speech, or is the free speech of others limited by what myth you believe to be true or agree with?
Other people have the right to believe differently. You do not have the right not to be criticized because that idea would trample the constitutional free speech rights of everyone but you.
Did Obama take any your religious rights away?
The boarding schools were a different issue. What's the purpose of cutting the hair there? It was part of the broader agenda to "civilize". That's a different animal and discussion altogether.
I know. I just thought it was a good place to make that point. Even though I'm the one who posted the seed, I don't intend to declare it off topic even if it is.
Bering Shariah complaint would mean that women were forced by the government and religious authorities to wear the hair covering in public but that isn't the case in the US. These women voluntarily chose to wear the hair covering because of their Islamic religious beliefs. The police violated that constitutional religious right by forcing them to take it off in the presence of men.
CAIR is not trying to force their religious belief on other religious believers in the US. CAIR is defending the religious rights of Muslims to live and believe as they choose. The ACLU often joins with CAIR to defend the religious rights of Muslim-Americans not to be trampled on because they have the very same right to believe and live as they want, just as Christians, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, and Pastafarians.
So what you are saying is that if your religion says it's okay to do something, even if that something contravenes the laws that others must obey in America, then it's permitted as an exception. Well, honour killings are permitted according to what Muslims believe. Having 4 wives is permitted - actually in England a Muslim with two wives was granted double welfare benefits because he had two wives. How about the old testament laws that are followed by ultra-Orthodox Jews. POTUS Jeb Bartlett (Martin Sheen) outlines a bunch of those on The West Wing TV series. Are those things okay because after all, they are religious beliefs, not for any minor religion, but for major ones with many adherents?:
In the US other religions are permitted to have their pictures taken with a head covering so I don't see what is the issue of what should be a minor situation. I'm not a fan of any religion because I think that they are illogical but I am not going to push my beliefs on them because I would hope that others don't push their beliefs on me. We would never let an adult male cop/TSA agent pat down a teen girl after arrest or in an airport so it isn't a major accommodation to have a woman take a booking picture in private to preserve their religious rights. The protection of religious rights are very important and I would not support setting a legal precedent that would weaken them, even if I think that the religion in question is silly. There is a much bigger issue involved than just my opinions of their beliefs.
Killing another is not permissible on any grounds, except in cases of self defense where there is an imminent physical threat. "God/Allah told me so" isn't an imminent threat.
Marriage is between 2 consenting adults in the US, regardless of faith or lacks thereof. The Mormons don't get to marry multiple wives so neither does anyone else.
I've never watched the West Wing. It doesn't matter if there are 2 adherents or 200 million. All religious rights are to be absolutely equal.
You didn't address the points I made, and all you did was diffuse by providing opinions that were not responsive to the topics I addressed. I see there is not much sense in trying to discuss this with you any further.
I tried to address what you said point by point.
Please explain what I missed.
That is special treatment.
A liberal city setting precedence for paying immigrants to adhere to our laws. Go figure.
They shouldn't have gotten a penny.
So if a Catholic nun is forced to remove her head covering or an Amish woman is forced to remove her bonnet, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Is that what you're saying? That their standards of modesty don't matter, either?
I'm just trying to figure out if you'll be equally dismissive of all religions and their modesty standards.
Here in America, Sisters rarely wear the habit anymore, preferring regular street clothes. The only nuns I know to ever be arrested were three who were vandalizing an abandoned missile silo. I for one am dismissive of all religions and their "modesty standards". Perhaps they should avoid getting arrested.
Not all nuns. There's a group of them in Little Rock that wear the same habit that Mother Theresa did.
And while I kinda agree with you on religious modesty standards, that's simply a personal opinion and bears no weight on this issue
See my answer to that above.
So if a Catholic nun is forced to remove her head covering or an Amish woman is forced to remove her bonnet, they shouldn't be allowed to sue. Is that what you're saying? That their standards of modesty don't matter, either?
I'm just trying to figure out if you'll be equally dismissive of all religions and their modesty standards.I will be! I don't give a fuck what your superstitions are, if you are standing for a mug shot you take off your goddamn hat, end of story.
96 If you see this, I just wanted to tell you that the correct way to use the quote function is to apply the quote to the words you are quoting, rather than your own.
"The only nuns I know to ever be arrested were three who were vandalizing an abandoned missile silo."
They were arrested for vandalizing an active weapons grade uranium storage facility, endangering the public.
If Muslim women can't sue, then neither can nuns or Amish women.
Apply the standards equally.
You think that is bad. Wait until they start suing when they have to take off their Burkas
A mug shot is a means of identification. With these ladies, maybe they should have two photos, since it is their choice to either wear the Hijab or not, or don't they have that freedom here in the USA? And if they are getting a mug shot, I would suggest they not put themselves in a position to have to get a mug shot if they don't want to take their Hijab off.
What about driver's licences and passports?
If they can get away with it, then others can use same excuse to get away with things too
Absolutely.
How do you foresee this becoming a problem? We can see her eyes and her face. I can change my hair color and hair style more than every 4 years when I get my drivers license renewed or a new passport, so why is not seeing a person's hair a threat to security?
cause they are using religion to get away with not doing something I would have to do
I did reply to you about that below, but if you look at the photo in the article above of the hijab being worn you cannot see a big part of the woman's cheeks and forehead or her ears at all. The hair is not the issue - birthmarks and scars that are identification markers could be hidden.
My forehead and ears are also mostly hidden by my hair. Depending on what you think are cheeks, my might also be considered covered. I am not a member of any religion but I have never been told to pull my hair back when my photo is taken for a state-issued ID/license.
I recognize that this was a settlement and not a court decision but it highlights a double standard in religious freedom. A Muslim woman has a religious right to wear headgarb, even during a mugshot following her arrest, because removing it in front of men will humiliate her. I assume the result would be the same even if the headgarb concealed everything but her eyes and even if it or the dress she wears is bulky enough to conceal that she is strapped with plastic explosives.
On the other hand, a Christian cannot refuse to use his artistic talent to create a gay wedding cake even if he claims that he would be lending his talent to celebrate an abomination before God. The Christian baker gets sued out of business and the Muslim woman gets a $60,000 windfall for the “hardship” of having to conform to the same procedures as everyone else who gets arrested. So a Muslim criminal has more religious freedom than a law abiding Christian baker.
I know, right? Even worse is that he can't refuse to serve mixed-race couples or blacks or Jews or women! Even a bakery run by an Hasidic Jewish man is forced to sell bread to women!
Sounds like you need to learn the difference between public accommodation laws and a lack of religious accommodation by the state.
And so we really are heading to a George Orwell dystopian existence, aren't we.
"All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." (George Orwell's 'Animal Farm')
How is she being treated more equal than any other women? We all have the right to believe and worship as we wish.
so why do other people arrested have to take off their hats?
...and the obligation to obey the laws of the land in which you reside.
What hat is relgious?
How is her wearing a religious hair covering violating the law?
any hat is just as good and important as a hajiab.
The hijab is covered under constitutional religious expression. A hat is not unless it is a turban on a Jewish yarmulke.
See, they are using religion to get away with something.
What are they getting away with? Nuns, Mennonites, and the Amish women have the very same religious rights to cover their hair in official photos. The same goes for Sikh men.
Maybe I should demand to wear a colander in my next DMV photo.
Come on epistte, that's already been answered so stop taking this point around in circles. If an American Law indicates that taking it off is required for a mug shot, then religious belief does NOT take precedence.
Ask any American lawyer if a religious belief can take precedence over the law of the land. I'm not an American lawyer, but I can tell you that there are some people serving time in jail in Canada because they thought they could get away with arguing their religious beliefs.
but see all those listed are getting away with not doing something I would have to comply with.
She is showing her face as required. She would not be permitted to wear a full face veil. Nuns have the same right to wear her veil.
My face is more covered than hers because I have bangs and my ears are also covered, so should I have to pull my hair back for my DMV photo?
A hat is not typically religious. Grow your hair long or become a Sikh.
My hair is long and I am not religious. I also like hats
Thankfully for you, a passport photo is valid for 10 years. A driver's license photo is valid for 4 years.
In AZ I had a drivers license that was valid for 20 years. Just cost me an extra five bucks. Same pic. Same card. Same everything. Here in CA I have renewed my license by mail with the same pic the last three times and it has my pic from 14 years ago and is valid for 4 more years.
I have to do it every 4 years it Ohio, in person. I can renew my plates online but I have to deal with those pleasant people at the DMV face-to-face every 4 years. $12.00 per.
That's a pain in the ass. Do you have to take a test?
Only the vision test and provide proof of insurance.
Conservative religion tells women that they must cover their hair for modesty.
I doubt that you are transgendered and you said that you are not religious so that limits to you becoming a Pastafarian or getting Justin Beiber cut.
usually you argue against conservative religion, but here you are using it to give muslim women a free pass
It's a liberal thing to support the creeping Caliphate.
Ultimately we are all human beings, regardless of religious or cultural customs, with human physicality. We can all dress as we wish (for the most part). However when dealing with legal or security factors ultimately there is no (current) way to get around the need to capture identifying characteristics of the actual person.
It is inconvenient (similar to airport security) and intrusive, but until we devise methods that make obsolete mug shots, etc. people will need to expose their heads.
To wit, if someone is wearing something that covers routine identifying physicality and a mug shot is legally required, we have a special circumstance.
This payout event establishes a horrible precedent and the subsequent exploitation will now ensue.
I disagree. How is this case any different from TSA having same-gender pat downs for security checks? In both cases using a person of the opposite sex is seen as a privacy violation.
My comment was not about the same or mixed gender handling. My point was about practical requirements of society. So, using security checks as the example, the intrusion into our space of security checks is a practical requirement of society (based on current technology). Having to show one's face for a mug shot is a practical requirement of society (based on current technology).
In both cases, we should minimize the intrusion and the same-sex inspection is one of several measures. But the general requirement for violating one's space or comfort remains necessary. That is the point I made.
Of course they should have found a female officer. However paying out -especially at this level- is an overreaction and sets a horrible precedent that will almost certainly be exploited.
Somehow I can't see the equivalent of grabbing someone's crotch as the same as removing a hat or head covering. No equivalency.
What is comes down to is that if you want to come to America, then obey the laws in America. Nobody stopped them from wearing their hijab out in public, and it wasn't against the law, but if the law says you have to bare your head for a mug shot when it is required by law, then comply or get the fuck out of the USA.
The women did do that. You've misrepresented what the issue was.
Yes, I'm sure they removed their hijabs, and then sued the ass off the City (otherwise why was there a settlement?)
If we are going to have to bow down to Sharia Law when it comes to mug shots maybe we should do the same when it comes down to handing out punishments too. No pharmaceutical company will be necessary to carry out the death penalty when anybody can find a pile of stones.
Now yer thinking! Let's ask France if we can buy a guillotine from them.
Hey, when in Rome....
Since we seem to be adopting Mideast customs lets go all the way.
Yep, we can use it to implement Trumps new idea for drug dealers.
And you have a problem with that? Sounds like a good plan to me. If one sells death like the drug dealers do they should expect the same in return.
I've always said that if you're gonna have a death penalty, let's do it right. The bloodier the better!
It wouldn't be more expensive if the sentence were carried out immediately
Ok, one appeal and that's that. We have technology and modern science to make sure we got the guilty party
A guillotine works a lot better and faster than a recent case of lethal injection. We could hire ISIS members with their swords to carry out capital punishment - they're pretty good executioners.
"What? Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" (Charles Dickens)
I once thought about suggesting that and then thought again. But it is quick and effective. I understand there might be a bit of blood involved.
Agreed. And that is why all CIVILIZED WESTERN countries have discontinued capital punishment. I think America holds itself out as being a Western civilized country, does it not?
Did you ever watch the movie "Sully" about the hero pilot who landed the airliner in the Hudson River and saved every life on board? If so, then what you've forgotten is what he said about the "human element". Even if our technology is perfect, there is still the human element involved in solving a crime, and humans make mistakes - sometimes they're even known to lie. We are not robots.
The death penalty costs more than life without parole and it is not a deterrent to crime. Innocent people have been executed so you won't mind if the state executes you or a member of your family by mistake.
If you claim to be a Christian then you cannot support the death penalty.
Funny thing ark, there are people who get arrested for dealing who actually don't deal, they just get caught with enough to charge with the crime, not just possession of the drugs. Here's another little slice for ya, in the country's that do kill the dealers, there isn't a real trial, it is a "Kangaroo Court" affair, the supposed evidence is presented and, then the verdict is given and, the person is taken out, right then and, killed, no chance at a defense, no real due process, that is what Trump wants.
That is what the courts are for .One thing they determine is the degree of the offense
We, or at least I, dont live in a country that does that and no one is even suggesting that any dealer caught be summarily executed on the spot .
BS!
It's somewhat of an exaggeration and obviously a personal opinion on your part that Trump wants Kangaroo Courts and immediate capital punishment after trial. Get real.
Yes, change the laws of America to say that if a woman is raped, 4 Muslim male witnesses will be allowed to establish that the woman was just committing adultery. Or how about legalizing honour killing, provided it is carried out by the family of a girl who took a phone call from an non-Muslim boy? Or don't even prosecute it if it isn't legalized because it's a Muslim tradition, and if someone is prosecuted for it, then not only are they are to be set free but also paid a huge amount of money.
As I've said so many times now, a step at a time, and the creeping Caliphate will eventually envelop the world - after all, that is the declared intention - you cannot deny it.
Actually no, don't change the laws, just give Muslims SPECIAL permission to abrogate American laws that others don't have - although somehow I don't think that will fly.
Well, I just woke up a little while ago to find all these comments. Obviously I'm wasting my time administering and contributing articles to groups such as Classic Cinema, Antique and Classic Cars, and Classic Cinema, and posting articles about photography and photographers. I should just pay heed to the interests of the NT members.
What does surprise me however, is that absolutely NOBODY has commented on this which was in my first comment:
"While the women in Iran are being arrested for taking off their hijabs in public in a movement for equality and freedom, the feminist dhimmis in America are donning hijabs to emulate women who are treated as chattels."
I really would like to know why women who hold themselves out to be feminists who champion women's rights and equality would stoop to following the direction of the avowed Islamist Linda Sarsour and praise the benefits of becoming chattels like the women who are forced to wear hijabs, by donning hijabs and celebrating them.
Still no reply to this.. What's the expression used here now, "Crickets"?
I live in an "international " neighborhood with what I assume to be multiple Indian, Pakistani, Pilipino, and Thai families and who know how many other nationalities.
We are polite to each other in the adjacent park trails and many of the same people bow and giggle as I attend my ducks ( I do not trust then around my ducks or their nests)
I've never seen a hijab here in Texas. ever
How many have you seen in China? Just curious....
I do see them now and then, and only once in all my years here a full burka and face veil. I like eating in Muslim restaurants because I really like lamb dishes.
My bride won't watch shows where animals are suffering, so she has a strange (and cultural) list of animals she won't eat or prepare.
Apparently lamb is number 1 on the list.
But I am not complaining - I truly eat like a king.
Granted, a king who is forced to eat a minimum amount of fruits and vegetables, much more than I have consumed in a prior existence.
But she's worth it.
What a bunch of nonsense, of course they should have to take off their hijabs for a mug shot. I am sure Yahweh would forgive them if it existed.
She is Muslim but Yahweh is Jewish. Christian women have the right to wear their religious hair coverings for official photos. I had a Muslim doctor and she wore her hijab for her hospital security pass that as around her neck.
I might wear a colander the next time I get my driver's license renewed, just to mess with the DMV clerks. I could even buy a new colander for the occasion.
It is all the same god, Christians, Muslims and Jews are all worshiping the Jewish god Yahweh. And I am talking specifically about mug shots. If they want they can take a mug shot with AND without their magical hats.
As long as their face can be seen they have the right to wear any religious head covering their want to. I'm not a member of any religion but we have the constitutionally guaranteed religious rights to believe and worship as we see fit, which includes dress in any religious garb. It's their nickel and they can dress like Kermit the Frog if they want to. Pastafarians parody religious garb when we choose to wear a colander in official photos.
As for the Christian ladies, would that not depend on how much of their hair they cover? You've seen the photo for the article - the hijab frames the face completely and even covers some of it - you can see no hair, no ears, only part of the forehead and cheeks etc. What if identifying scars or birthmarks were covered up?
I doubt that an Orthodox Jew would be asked to doff his skullcap that covers only a small part of the back of his head, but if they HAVE had to do it, I'm sure they didn't sue the city because of it or we probably would have heard about it.
Oh, as for the hospital example - different strokes for different folks. What's good for the hospital may not be what's required procedure in police or other licensing or passport situations.
By the way, if Muslimas as so devout, and modest, then what if they were asked to show their passport to get on an airplane and the only security people checking the passports were male? If they were so modest, why would a photo of their uncovered head be less offensive to show a man? Would they sue the airline too, because they missed the flight for refusing to comply with security regulations? Or what if a driver's licence were demanded to be shown to a male police officer stopping them for a traffic offence?
You can't see the majority of my forehead or any of my ears in my driver's license photo. Is that also dangerous?
I don't see the problem of letting her wear the heir covering in the photo as long as her eyes and face are visible. It would be different if she was wearing a full burka.
"It would be different if she was wearing a full burka."
Don't be too sure that's not going to happen down the road. Small steps.
The face must be visible in the photo.
They can ask that a woman take the photo if they are forced to take off a full face veil in private.
Special privileges for certain religions - like prayer rooms for Muslims, loudspeakers from the minarets for disturbing others when calling to prayer at 5 a.m., etc. How about forbidding motor traffic on the Sabbath in areas where Jews live, because it may "OFFEND" them?
My best friend/bride/life partner wore one of her tiaras for 2 of her official state photo IDs.
Everyone gets a kick out of it.
I have a Catholic church 4 blocks away that ring bells at 6 am, noon, 6 pm and at midnight.
I'd pay a Harley with no mufflers $10.00 to ride down the street a few times for that nonsense.
Eventually all that will be required is a photo which includes the eyes.
The technology is already in use for eye recognition, just not accepted or affordable.
eventually it will be everywhere.
In court (at least in Canada, so I would assume in the USA as well) a witness giving evidence MUST allow the jury to see their face, so that the jury can determine from facial expressions whether or not the witness is being truthful. I wonder how a modest Muslima who wears a burka and full face veil would be able to deal with that.
You can argue that they could give their evidence by means of a video, but the law allows for cross-examination, and that is the situation where facial expressions are most important to watch.
Seems fair. No special rights.
That could be a very interesting legal precedent. They might let them testify behind a screen but have them remove the veil, so their face is visible to the judge. They could also close the courtroom to everyone but the jury the defense and prosecution.
The hijab is only a simple scarf around their hair, but the face is showing. I've never seen a full burka worn in the US but it is possible.
Only once in almost 12 years I've seen the full burka and face veil worn in China. Although there are Muslims throughout the country, they are most concentrated in the north-west. Some of my students, both while I was first teaching at a high school and later giving private lessons were Muslim - in fact some were the most likeable I had. None of the female students wore hijabs.
I went to have my drivers license renewed and was told I had to remove the head scarf I was wearing to hide my chemo-induced baldness. I begged to be an exception to the rule, but the lady behind the counter was unyielding. I decided to take my chances by driving with an expired license until I had at least a few sprigs of hair growing back. What was interesting to me was that the lady behind the counter must have had 10 pounds of hair weave coiled on top of her head. Had someone told her she would have to remove her weave before her photo could be taken, I bet she would have been kicking asses all over that office.
You GO GIRL !!!!!
That's a good point.
My religion requires that I put on a clown mask and go rob a bank daily. Bitches better not touch my clown mask for some damn mug shots!
/s/
I think this article has had enough of a run, and I'm bored with having to keep checking it, so at this point I'm closing comments.