City to pay Muslim woman $85G over claim NYPD confiscated her hijab
City to pay Muslim woman $85G over claim NYPD confiscated her hijab
by Stephen Rex Brown, New York Daily News , March 23, 2018
The city has agreed to pay $85,000 to a woman who said the NYPD made her remove her hijab — bringing the total amount of recent payouts for the police practice to at least $265,000.
Rabab Musa, 35, said her hijab was confiscated by cops in the Midtown South Precinct stationhouse after she was taken into custody on Sept. 6, 2016. Musa said she was thrown in a holding cell with men and then transferred to a Brooklyn police station, where she was strip-searched.
Police urged her to “confess to what she did,” with no further explanation, she said.
Musa was released after six hours without being charged.
It’s unclear why police nabbed Musa in the first place, but a source has said cops grabbed the wrong person.
Many Muslim women wear hijabs, or veils, in the presence of any men who are not members of their immediate families.
The Musa settlement was made official in papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court on Wednesday.
“My client feels vindicated. It’s a small measure of justice,” her attorney, Aymen Aboushi, said.
NYPD hit with suit demanding a stop to mug shot hijab removal
A Law Department spokesman said the settlement was in the best interest of the city.
The deal comes one month after the city settled a case three Muslim women brought in Brooklyn Federal Court. They said they had to take off their hijabs for mugshots. Aboushi also handled that case.
One woman said she had to remove her veil at Brooklyn Central Booking, where her photo was taken by a male cop.
“We’re always grateful to see the city admit the trauma this policy is causing and to pay the individuals who’ve been forced to undress as part of the NYPD mugshot procedure,” said Albert Fox Cahn, legal director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations… .
Here we go again. Either the NYPD is going to have to submit to Islam or the NYC treasury is going to be bankrupt. It's okay though, because the payments can be justified as "jizya" (special tax paid by kaffir infidels in accordance with the Koran).
Identification is a major necessity to convict a criminal, but I guess the Criminal Law is going to have to adapt to Shariah Law. Maybe they will need the evidence of 4 Muslim males swearing that a person is the culprit in order to convict them.
Was there a reason they threw her in a cell with men?
Has any such reason been reported? Don't ask me to speculate.
They were transgenders. They just looked like men.
Snuggle up close and let Auntie Sister Mary Agnes tell you a bedtime story...
Muslim lady acts a fool in Starbucks because someone gave her a 'hard' look, or sat down in her favorite seat, or stood too close to her in line, or whatever. What began as a verbal altercation turned into a physical assault, and lady is asked to leave after an ugly scene with one of the employees and the assistant manager. In the mean time, another customer who wasn't associated with the kerfuffle, called the police, who met up with pissed-off Muslim lady as she was standing outside in front of the establishment, still acting a fool.
Her claims of ignorance regarding why she was arrested were ridiculous, as was her assertion that the police were trying to force her to 'admit what she did'. There was a Starbucks full of witnesses who could verify that she was the aggressor. In addition, she wasn't put in a holding cell with men, she was held in an open-room booking area where both men and women are corralled until they complete the booking process, at which time they are placed in a gender-appropriate cell. She was ultimately released because the person she assaulted chose not to pursue a criminal complaint.
Why pay this fool $85,000? The episode happened several years ago, so why did she wait so long to suddenly be insulted? I am of the opinion that it's all in the timing. The lawyer she chose is proof of that. She picked an excellent time to hop on his fresh with recent success gravy train.
Also interesting is that there has been at least one other...incident...in Muslim lady's past, but the record has been recently sealed. Bummer.
This is a funny story about an incident in my town which is a tourist destination. My friend was outside his house when a car stopped with two women wearing hijabs slowed down and asked him where the theater was. He laughed and said "you must be tourists", shocked they quickly turned the car around and sped away screaming "we are not terrorists" !
I'm not sure who deserves more compassion; the ladies for thinking someone said something horrible to them, or your friend, who didn't have an opportunity to say, "Wait!! That's not what I said!!"
Thank you for throwing light on this matter.
Thank-you, Sister. I always know I can get the straight poop from you unlike some of these other characters....
Actually the NYPD put out a policy in 2015 AGAINST the thing they did to this woman in 2016. So not only did they violate her rights, but their own policy as well
Following the US constitution is "submitting to Islam"? You sound either paranoid or seriously misinformed.
Also the article seems to be in error since a hijab usually is a head scarf. A niqab is a veil.
I don't see anything in the article about a niqab. Why should I be paranoid, the creeping caliphate's not going to be a problem where I live.
well, at least you are safe form that problem there
I know, right? How arrogant of them to think that they have the same civil rights as other Americans.
My point exactly. The article seems to conflate a head scarf with a veil, and erroneously calls a hijab a veil.
.
I don't know why you're paranoid but your irrational Islamophobia is apparent in your very first comment and in this one. This case has nothing to do with a "creeping caliphate", sharia law or with the "NYPD submitting to Islam". It has to do with a civil rights violation and with the NYPD violating their own policies.
What civil rights violation?
Her religious freedom.
Her 1st Amendment rights were violated. The NYPD precincts in question violated their own policies and the exact same violation has been done to Sikh men who wear turbans. I wouldn't be surprised if Catholic nuns had refused to remove their habits but since all the cops in NYC are Irish Catholics they wouldn't have had a problem with that......nor would they be aware of their obvious double standard.
.
For those confused about the issue here's an hijab:
Or the police could just be more respectful and make sure they don't undress Muslim women in front of men. Seems like an easy fix to me. You still get your mug shot that way.
I wonder what would happen in this hypothetical. Suppose a Muslim woman is arrested for some crime, and has her mug shot taken in the presence of only women, no men, and suppose she escapes custody, and suppose the police post her mug shot in multiple police precincts and post offices on a 'WANTED' poster. She is caught and then sues the ass off the NYPD for displaying her uncovered head in public. From the sublime to the ridiculous.
So, if removing a woman's headcover is wrong then requiring them to wear a top is also wrong. Can't have it both ways.
It's midnight here and I'll be turning off my computer until morning. Therefore I'm locking this article until then.
This article is now unlocked, says Buzz, donning his kevlar vest and helmet.
Are you aware that this is the 2nd thread on this subject?
Sorry, I didn't see a previous one. Could you possibly be thinking of the one I posted before about the TWO Muslim women who sued the NYPD due to hijab removal. In THIS article they refer to those incidents, and indicate that the THREE incidents together cost the NYPD about $265,000.
To make it perfectly clear to you, the previous article was about two hijab removal incidents, and this article is about a THIRD such incident.
I'm sorry and mistaken. You are correct.
Three separate incidents altogether were involved in the same settlement. Each woman (or her attorneys) got the same $60K for a total of $180K. The settlement was made public yesterday.
I never thought twice about hijabs, until the Abercrombie & Fitch case, when I realized that it could be used as a weapon.
Why is special religious dress a right?
Because it is part of their religious belief that is innate to religious free exercise rights. They are not forcing others to dress in a different way. They have the right to dress as they believe and we must respect that right.
I would not want a male cop to frisk me, despite the fact that I am an atheist.
Thanks for defending religious rights when it suits you, epistte, Want a cake baked? Fill out a form over here.
but religious beliefs can be anything and changed at any time
Sounds like you think religion can be used as an excuse to ignore the law. You're quite mistaken, just like the racist Southern Baptists were 50 years ago.
So, if I come up with a religion can I dress and have the accessories my new religion requires?
A bakery is a private business, unlike the police. The cops religious rights are not violated because they must respect the constitutional rights of the people that they serve.
The owners of the bakery have the right to dress as they see fit, even if it was in a nuns or monk's costume.
Pastafarians get to wear colanders............... so the answer is yes.
You're really hung up on this Racist Southern Baptist thing aren't you Skrekk? LOL!!!
This doesn't have anything to do with religion. When you are arrested, I don't care if you are Monk, if they want you to strip, you strip if they think you may be carrying something. If they thought this woman was carrying some drugs, what better way to hide a small amount of heroin, than in her hair covered with a hijab. I'm sure the drug dealers would appreciate having that freedom.
Then they need to get a female cop to conduct the search, just as they TSA must do when they want to frisk a woman getting on a plane.
It seems that you are unnaturally afraid of people of the Muslim faith.
Of course, that's the reason they are paying the money.
No, I just like to get a full 8 hours worth of worth out of an employee and not have them kneeling on a rug every time I turn around. Hours lost.... profits go down. LOL
The Modern Sword of Jousha Semi Assembly of the Second Freedom might be forming (formerly located just of state route 23, on the frontage road). This small group of both religious and non-religious friends believe we have same rights as any other religion. Regular feasting. fun, celebration and informal and casual attitude and support of freedom from and of religion and rights of second amendment and freedom of choice and that beer is good are main beliefs
Is that a problem for you?
People have religious rights, even if I think that religion is silly.
Yes they would. And the eight hours they are getting paid to work is not their own time .
It you like usual. (BTW "Muslim" is not a race. )
You implied that in your reply to six-pack Clouseau
Sounds like you're completely unaware that the first challenges to federal public accommodations laws were made by racist Southern Baptists who tried to use their nutty superstitions as an excuse to deny service to black folks. See Newman v Piggie Park if you want details. By the way those fragile and extra-white snowflakes all lost.
Maybe next time before you make completely erroneous and irrelevant comparisons you should first learn about the US constitution and relevant precedents? LOL.
An interesting topic to discuss here would be the religious necessity for a religious Sikh to wear a kirpan, and where it could conflict with the laws of western countries.
very interesting topic and opens a door where 1st Amendment supports the 2nd Amendment
The most directly relevant comparison to an hijab would be to a male Sikh's turban and in fact there have been a number of comparable court rulings and settlements on that issue.
I agree with you that the turban is a direct comparison, but I felt that the comparison of the kirpan situation with the hijab (or turban) brings different parts of the Constitution and/or laws into play, for a different discussion.
For example, think of the hypothetical where a Sikh is arrested, charged, convicted of an offence, and then incarcerated. Does the Sikh have a religious right to keep his kirpan in jail? Does not the law of the land take precedence over religious rights in that situation? What argument would those NT members who have championed religious rights as being superior to local laws have for that?
This would actually make a good main topic to be posted.
No, and the TSA doesn't allow them to be carried on to commercial planes either.
Yes, they must be packed in checked luggage. Is this not an example where the law of the land takes precedence over a religious requirement? Is that not an answer to the opinion that the local laws ALWAYS must give way to religious beliefs?
It boils down to the question of reasonable accommodation for religion vs a legitimate state interest. So it's a balancing test, but things like weapons or a veil would always weigh in the state's favor while a head scarf would not.
Having observed many online discussions about religion over the years, I've noticed some that strikes me as more than a bit hypocritical.
When the topic of religion comes up, most liberals will constantly bash religion. Even making fun of people who believe in "an imaginary friend in the sky". Well-- at least they mercilessly bash religion when the religion being discussed is Christianity.
But OTOH, if the religion being discussed is Islam-- these very same liberals quickly change their tune. Even leaping to the defense of religious Muslims-- and their right to do the religious practices they do...
However, its not my intent merely to point out the hypocrisy of liberals because . . . conservatives are just as hypocritical..they do the same thing. (Only the labels are reversed)!!!
For conservatives, if the religion being discussed is Christianity-- these very same conservatives leap to the defense of religious Christians-- and their right to do the religious practices they do...
But OTOH, if the religion being discussed is Islam-- these very same conservatives quickly change their tune. They constantly bash Muslims-- and their right to do the religious practices they do...
There's really no difference between liberal and conservative views on religion-- they are both at times against it and at times for it-- depending upon which religion is being discussed! (Although both sides label a different religion good than those on the other side of the aisle-- and judge a different religion bad)
very correct observation
Conservatives are all for religion (unless its Islam). But liberals are against religion (unless its Islam!).
IMO, the real irony here is not so much that both sides are such hypocrites on the subject of religion, but rather the fact that they are so totally unaware of how illogical (and hypocritical) their views are!
___________________________________________________________________
P.S: If you ever wondered what an ENTP type is like in a discussion (that's in the MBTI system of personality typologies) these last two comments are it!
Christians have the same right to dress as they wish and to be searched by a member of the same gender. Has that ever been a problem in the US?
It's much more complex than you have outlined, Krishna. You have to consider how those religious practices conflict with or comply with the laws, customs and mores of the countries in which they are practised (or whether those who practise them are willing to compromise or adapt, or inconvenience others).
Utter nonsense. I and most other liberals will defend religious liberty, but we'll oppose religious privilege and sharia laws no matter which nutty cult they come from.
What your erroneous perception is rooted in is the cultural bias for Christianity and against all minority religions, the fact that only those minority cults actually experience any significant discrimination in the US. If nuns were being forced to remove their habits for booking photos in a similarly disrespectful manner then there would be lots of liberal defenders of those nuns.
.
Your first sentence seems to be generally true, the second is obviously false and a false equivalency. The main problem with Christianity in the US is its position of privilege and the assumption on the part of conservative Christians that they can use the state to enforce the sharia laws of their cult. Muslims and other religious minorities don't generally do that here.
.
No, what you're missing is that liberals actually are treating all religions with equal liberties and equal constraints, rather than giving privilege to one favorite cult. The irony it seems is that you appear to be blind to what equal treatment actually means, which I must say is a bit surprising.