pretty sure you lose MOST of your rights
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
If she gets all upset over pulling the rag off her head, I suppose a Body Cavity search is out of the question.
Huh...figured being the far right wing nut job that you are, you would at least understand the basic definitions of rights as it applies to being arrested. That is the one time your rights are most valuable.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
You sound like you have experience, What did they arrest you for?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Just like the founders wrote in the constitution, right?
Bay_Kat
Tropical
Bottom line is, when you get arrested you have to remove anything that could be a danger to the police or you which includes anything that can conceal something dangerous. Do you have to be a rocket scientist to understand this?
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
It sounds like she was forced to remove it in the presence of men. That's against her religion. It seems to me this could have been done in a way that didn't violate her faith.
Not to mention anything that conceals your identity.
I'm unimpressed with this woman's religious persecution. She was driving on a suspended license, which tells me that she has committed infractions in the past and now feels she doesn't have to abide by the terms of her punishment. She sounds like a Muslim only when it suits her - when she's being arrested, for example.
Bay_Kat
Tropical
So it's against her religion. What about that baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay couple because homosexuality is against his religion? He was told by a judge that he has to make the cake. Why are we supposed to honor hers but not the baker?
Tilted
..
I'm pretty sure you don't lose most of your rights just because you're arrested. If you did, then the notion of having rights wouldn't mean nearly as much. If the government could get around your rights protections merely by arresting you then, really, you'd have rights in name only. To be sure, the government does get away with just that to some extent - to far too great an extent if you ask me - but we still at least pretend that people continue to have quite a body of rights, even when they get arrested.
Now, yes, for practical reasons the government is allowed to do certain things to someone when it arrests them that it generally wouldn't be allowed to do otherwise. That's pretty much axiomatic: Indeed, doing those things is part of what it means to arrest someone. But, if anything, when someone is arrested is when many of their rights are most prominent. It is in that context that many of their rights are most relevant.
Turning to this situation in particular, if the facts are as alleged in the complaint I suspect Ms. Kazan has a reasonable case to make. Perhaps it's a close call. But based on the Supreme Court's reasoning in its recent Holt v Hobbs decision, her right to only remove her hijab in front of other females (and not in front of male officers) may well be protected under the RLUIPA (The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000) even if it isn't protected by the Constitution.
I wouldn't doubt that her religious belief that she wasn't supposed to remove her hijab in front of the male officers (in order to take her booking photo) was sincerely held, and I don't think there's much doubt that forcing her to remove it substantially burdened her exercercise of that sincerely-held belief. So the questions become, was the government furthering a compelling interest in forcing her to remove it and did it do so by the least restrictive means. The answer to the first question is probably yes, but it could be argued (fairly persuasively I think) that the answer to the second question is no. They may have been able to find a female officer to take the photo, even if that meant waiting a bit longer.
I'm not sure the government gets to say - well, we don't have enough female officers available, so you're out of luck. It is the government that is wanting to do something here, it is the government that wants to make her do something that violates her religious beliefs. So it's the government's responsibility, with reasonable limits of course, to have a system in place and to have resources available so as to do what it wants to do without substantially interfering with people's free exercise of their religion. Being the government isn't supposed to be a cakewalk, exercising sovereign power (which is no small thing, regard it fairly cavalierly - as it is so ubiquitous - though we do) isn't supposed to be without complications and always requiring only a minimum of effort. Not in our nation anyway, the balance we chose to strike is supposed to often cut much the other way. If the government wants to arrest people, it should make reasonable efforts not to violate their rights or, e.g., burden their religious exercise, any more than it needs to. Imagine a female arrestee for whom there was a perceived need to do a strip search, and the male officers present took the position - oh well, there isn't a female officer around right now, so you're just gonna have to let us do it. No. Find a female officer to do it. The arrestee shouldn't have to be subject to the additional offense of having a male officer do it (rather than having a female officer do it) due to some failing, or lack of reasonable preparation, on the part of the government. I can imagine the offense in the present situation - where some women very sincerely believe they aren't allowed, based on their religious beliefs, to expose their hair and neck to unfamiliar men - isn't entirely different than in that imagined situation.
Anyway, I'm not sure she will (or should) win this case. But it wouldn't surprise me if she did, or if she only lost it because it was found that it wasn't clearly established at the time that the officers were violating her rights in a way that they weren't allowed to (even while it was also found that they were indeed doing just that).
EDIT: To add a link to the complaint in this case, which I mentioned but forgot to link.
Last edited:
Tilted
..
It seems as though she may well like how things are done in this country - meaning how things are supposed to be done in this country. That is to say, that her right not to remove her hijab in front of male officers - when it might be possible to remove it in front of female officers instead - is protected by our laws and, perhaps, our Constitution.
It may well be that that general sentiment - if you don't like how things are done in our country, you should leave - would be more applicable to the police officers in this case, or even to those that might not like that her rights might be protected in this way.
Tilted
..
No, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that - of course the government can compel her to remove something that conceals part of her face in order to finish a reasonable booking process, i.e. to take her picture.
But another bottom line is that we have a federal law in this country that likely (though, again, I'm not entirely convinced it applies here) compels the government - e.g., the arresting officers in this case - to, if it has to substantially burden her sincerely-held religious beliefs in furtherance of a compelling government interest, do so by the least restrictive means. That very well could mean having a female officer take her photo, similar to how some departments have a policy of having female officers do strip searches on female arrestees when necessary.
Last edited:
Tilted
..
But she doesn't lose her rights just because she's been arrested. Indeed, the provision of law in question (the RLUIPA) applies to institutionalized people in particular - to include people that have actually been convicted of serious crimes, and I suspect as well to people who have been arrested while they are still being detained (e.g. during the booking process).
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, if you google the Holt v Hobbs case I mentioned in my previous post, you won't exactly love the result.
The word mollycoddling comes to mind. But, that is the law Congress passed, and that is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it (unanimously, by the way).
mamatutu
mama to two
When you choose to live in the US, you must abide by the laws. She was driving on a suspended license. She broke the law. Why does she deserve preferential treatment as in acknowledgment of her religious beliefs? Just another example that some Muslims refuse to assimilate or become American. Why is she here? What does breaking the law have to do with religion? Also, I thought church and state were separate.
The Dearborn area has a huge population of Muslims. Maybe this woman fears the repercussions from her own community. Thus, her reason to protest the removal of her whatever. This is one of many times I have read about Muslims trying to bypass our procedures/laws in favor of their own. This why the Muslim dad that killed his 2 daughters for being too 'Western' is on the FBI's top 10 most wanted. Religion does not trump the law. Period. If Muslims don't like it here, they need to leave. They want their cake and eat it, too. Not happening. They will not change our laws no matter how hard they try. Good luck with that.
The Dearborn area has a huge population of Muslims. Maybe this woman fears the repercussions from her own community. Thus, her reason to protest the removal of her whatever. This is one of many times I have read about Muslims trying to bypass our procedures/laws in favor of their own. This why the Muslim dad that killed his 2 daughters for being too 'Western' is on the FBI's top 10 most wanted. Religion does not trump the law. Period. If Muslims don't like it here, they need to leave. They want their cake and eat it, too. Not happening. They will not change our laws no matter how hard they try. Good luck with that.
Last edited:
You're right about that. I think these ####bags use their "religion" as an excuse and way to get over. He slit his girlfriend's throat, now he's all devout? Please. So what happens when being incarcerated at all conflicts with someone's "religious beliefs"? Or they claim that murder is a legitimate part of their religious beliefs?
This guy gets to grow a beard because of his religion, which he only follows when it suits him, so why can't all the inmates grow a beard as well? Where does it stop?
Regardless, there's no real good reason for inmates to not be allowed to grow short beards - that was part of the Supremes' decision process in Holt - but there are very good reasons to make this woman remove her head scarf when being processed after an arrest. Not to mention she seems to have ongoing difficulty following the law.
Tilted
..
I won't get lost in what all is wrong with our criminal justice system. But as far as I'm concerned, if someone kills someone unjustifiably, there shouldn't be much opportunity for them to complain about not being allowed to wear a beard in prison. They should be dead. If they want to (and can) grow a beard after they're executed, more power to them.
That said, the issue in Holts wasn't just that the governement didn't have a good reason to prohibit inmates from growing a short beard. The issue really was the notion of least restrictive means which is applied by the RLUIPA, as well as more broadly in constitutional law.
I take it as a given that the government has a compelling interest in being able to photograph arrestees, and to do so without having their heads concealed as with some kind of headscarf. The issue is, could the governement have done that in a way that less substantially burdened the exercise of the plaintiffs religious beliefs. I suspect it could have, e.g. by having a female officer assist her with that part of the booking process as she had requested. The law requires that the least restrictive means be used - meaning, in this context, the government has to use a process that violates her beliefs as little as is practicable. And again, this isn't an interpretation of the Constitution, this is required by a law that Congress passed.
mamatutu
mama to two
'As of 2005, Michigan held the largest and still growing Muslim population in the United States and the second largest Arab population outside of the Middle East. Outside of Muslim-run countries, Paris — which still experiences nightly vehicle torchings and mayhem in its Islamic neighborhoods — has the largest. It is estimated that eight million Muslims now live in the US and their numbers are continuing to grow. Islam is now the second-largest religious body in the United States and is said to be its fastest growing religious movement."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/070111
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/zieve/070111
Tilted
..
The complaint wasn't about having been arrested for violating the law. If she violated the law, she can be held accountable. I didn't see anything in the complaint trying to get out of that.
But what you say is apropos here - you must abide by the laws (though, in reality, none of us does so consistently). That includes the governement though - it especially includes the governement, if you ask me. The government must abide by the laws, and it's quite possible that in this case the governement - i.e., the officers in question - did not abide by the law.
Well, I have no problem believing that many Muslim women sincerely believe that they should not expose certain parts of their bodies to non-familial men. And that they believe this for their own part - it's part of their true religious beliefs - rather than because they are intimidated into accepting or exhibiting that behavior by others. In some cases it's surely the latter, but that doesn't mean it's not the former sometimes.
Lastly, in this particular case it isn't about someone trying to change our laws. To the contrary, it's more so about them trying to have our laws obeyed - or rather, complaining because they don't think our laws were obeyed.
Last edited:
mamatutu
mama to two
I know you know more than I ever will about the law, and always take great stock in your posts. I just see it as I see it in everyday life and via the news. I am just Mrs. Joe America.
I have to say I wouldn't want to show my parts to anyone that is non-familial, as well. Butt that is how it goes when you get arrested. Pun intended.
It sometimes seems to me that PC takes over as not to rile the Beast. What do you think about how Muslims try to circumvent US laws in favor of their own, or want different treatment because of their religion?
Last edited: