NYC set to settle suit over making Money slim women remove hijab for mugshot photos

[BackAgain]

You are overlooking the fact they specifically stated head coverings will be allowed as long as you can still see the face…i.e. no burkas please.

Good. That’s what they should be addressing. Not just the hijab.

 

[Coyote]

Good. That’s what they should be addressing. Not just the hijab.

Actually…two things should be addressed: religious rights and security needs. This looks like a win win resolution, right?

 

[BackAgain]

Actually…two things should be addressed: religious rights and security needs. This looks like a win win resolution, right?

Removing a turban of a Sikh or a yarmulka of a Jewish person is obviously improper (unless there’s good reason to believe that the turban is likely concealing a gun).

But as for mug shots: there is only one major need for the police. That is to display the full face of the subject for possible future reference.

 

[Coyote]

Removing a turban of a Sikh or a yarmulka of a Jewish person is obviously improper (unless there’s good reason to believe that the turban is likely concealing a gun).

But as for mug shots: there is only one major need for the police. That is to display the full face of the subject for possible future reference.

True…but it can still come up against religious rights and a hijab that does not cover the face itself is a reasonable religious compromise. The same compromise is made with driver’s license photos.

 

[BackAgain]

True…but it can still come up against religious rights and a hijab that does not cover the face itself is a reasonable religious compromise. The same compromise is made with driver’s license photos.

If you need the final word, go for it.

In the meanwhile, I reiterate that the police don’t need to remove any head covering for a mug shot unless (and to the extent that) the head covering conceals any part of the face of the subject.

 

[Coyote]

If you need the final word, go for it.

In the meanwhile, I reiterate that the police don’t need to remove any head covering for a mug shot unless (and to the extent that) the head covering conceals any part of the face of the subject.

I do believe we agree and that is exactly what your article stated.

 

[Ropey]

Edit:

To provide context:

Coyote loves to muddy the waters. But you know that if the left had the narrative, she'd be against it.... The left has failed.

Their narratives are falling like rain.

 

[Rigby5]

"The lawsuit also led to the NYPD changing its policy in 2020, to stop requiring people to remove religious head coverings such as hijabs or yarmulkes after their arrest, with limited exemptions if the covering obscured the individual’s facial features."

So the women who sued were not wearing what you are insinuating they wore?

quotes: The settlement is subject to approval from a judge.
NYC Law Department spokesman Nick Paolucci said in an emailed statement early Saturday that the settlement “resulted in a positive reform for the NYPD.”

“The agreement carefully balances the department’s respect for firmly held religious beliefs with the important law enforcement need to take arrest photos. This resolution was in the best interest of all parties,” he added.

Other lawsuits have also been brought over similar cases elsewhere in the country.

Last year, a 37-year-old woman brought a lawsuit against the sheriff and three law enforcement officers in Rutherford County, Tenn., who she said told her to remove her hijab or stay in jail indefinitely.

Hijab - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No one here has mentioned how the hajibs in question were worn.

View attachment 928188

The Hijab never covers face, just hair.
It is from the Old Testament, and is why nuns wear a habit.
Since nuns are not required to remove their habit, like when they get a driver's license or board a plane, then neither should a hijab be removed.

Since they already had finger prints, and it was not a question of violence, there was no basis for the demand.