NEW YORK CITY, NY - In a world where feelings sometimes outweigh facts, New York City has found itself shelling out $17.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit. The cause?
Two Muslim-American women, Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz, were upset about being asked to remove their hijabs for mug shots after their arrests. Let's unpack this tale of woe and wonder.
Filed in Manhattan federal court and awaiting a nod from U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, this settlement is quite the headline-grabber.
It covers folks who felt oh-so-wronged between March 16, 2014, and August 23, 2021, for having to momentarily part ways with their religious attire for a photograph.
After all the legal wrangling, the city's looking at a bill of about $13.1 million.
And hey, eligible claimants might just pocket between $7,824 and $13,125. Not too shabby for a quick snap sans headwear, huh?
Clark and Aziz, bless their hearts, felt their modesty was under attack when they were arrested for allegedly violating what they termed as "bogus" protective orders.
According to them, the ordeal of removing their hijabs felt akin to being strip-searched. Clark dramatically declared, "When they forced me to take off my hijab, I felt as if I were naked."
Mess around…Find out.
But let's be real for a moment. If one chooses to dance with the law and ends up on the wrong side of it, shouldn't some uncomfortable consequences be expected?
Perhaps these minor inconveniences pale in comparison to the gravity of the charges. Just a thought.
Now, the New York Police Department (NYPD) did try to play nice.
In 2020, they revised their policy to let folks keep their head coverings on during mugshots, as long as the face is visible.
This generous gesture extends to other religious headwear, too.
But let's not forget, officers can still ask you to momentarily part ways with your covering, hat, hood, or turban in private, especially if they're on the hunt for weapons or contraband. Priorities, people!
Speaking of rules, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a thing.
It's there to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Sure, there are caveats during jail intake procedures, like ensuring officer safety and preserving evidence.
But there's a fine line between lawful procedure and overstepping, and it's getting blurred by those eager to play the victim card.
Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman for the city's law department, diplomatically acknowledged the settlement's positive reform.
He delicately pointed out the balancing act between respecting religious beliefs and the somewhat essential need for arrest photos.
But let's not act like New York City's the only player in this drama.
Over in Kent County, Michigan, Jannah Hague's hijab removal has led to more legal theatrics.
The sheriff's office defended its actions, ensuring the world knew Hague’s hijab removal happened behind closed doors. They allegedly gave her privacy, and she is still suing.
And while we're on the topic of selective outrage, let's talk about private businesses.
Banks, for instance, have signs asking folks to remove hoods, hats, and sunglasses. It's their policy, not some twisted form of religious persecution.
Remember, folks, rules apply to everyone, even if they're not to your liking.
You choose to enter the business, which is private property; you are held to acquiesce to the owner’s policies and requests.
Remember, they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
The issue of compelling individuals to remove religious head coverings during mugshots or in public remains a contentious one.
Settlements like New York City's, coupled with ongoing legal battles, highlight a world where feelings often take center stage, nudging aside law and order.
It's a delicate dance between personal beliefs and public safety, and boy, are we in for a show.
Two Muslim-American women, Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz, were upset about being asked to remove their hijabs for mug shots after their arrests. Let's unpack this tale of woe and wonder.
Filed in Manhattan federal court and awaiting a nod from U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, this settlement is quite the headline-grabber.
It covers folks who felt oh-so-wronged between March 16, 2014, and August 23, 2021, for having to momentarily part ways with their religious attire for a photograph.
After all the legal wrangling, the city's looking at a bill of about $13.1 million.
And hey, eligible claimants might just pocket between $7,824 and $13,125. Not too shabby for a quick snap sans headwear, huh?
Clark and Aziz, bless their hearts, felt their modesty was under attack when they were arrested for allegedly violating what they termed as "bogus" protective orders.
According to them, the ordeal of removing their hijabs felt akin to being strip-searched. Clark dramatically declared, "When they forced me to take off my hijab, I felt as if I were naked."
Mess around…Find out.
But let's be real for a moment. If one chooses to dance with the law and ends up on the wrong side of it, shouldn't some uncomfortable consequences be expected?
Perhaps these minor inconveniences pale in comparison to the gravity of the charges. Just a thought.
Now, the New York Police Department (NYPD) did try to play nice.
In 2020, they revised their policy to let folks keep their head coverings on during mugshots, as long as the face is visible.
This generous gesture extends to other religious headwear, too.
But let's not forget, officers can still ask you to momentarily part ways with your covering, hat, hood, or turban in private, especially if they're on the hunt for weapons or contraband. Priorities, people!
Speaking of rules, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a thing.
It's there to protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Sure, there are caveats during jail intake procedures, like ensuring officer safety and preserving evidence.
But there's a fine line between lawful procedure and overstepping, and it's getting blurred by those eager to play the victim card.
Nicholas Paolucci, a spokesman for the city's law department, diplomatically acknowledged the settlement's positive reform.
He delicately pointed out the balancing act between respecting religious beliefs and the somewhat essential need for arrest photos.
But let's not act like New York City's the only player in this drama.
Over in Kent County, Michigan, Jannah Hague's hijab removal has led to more legal theatrics.
The sheriff's office defended its actions, ensuring the world knew Hague’s hijab removal happened behind closed doors. They allegedly gave her privacy, and she is still suing.
And while we're on the topic of selective outrage, let's talk about private businesses.
Banks, for instance, have signs asking folks to remove hoods, hats, and sunglasses. It's their policy, not some twisted form of religious persecution.
Remember, folks, rules apply to everyone, even if they're not to your liking.
You choose to enter the business, which is private property; you are held to acquiesce to the owner’s policies and requests.
Remember, they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
The issue of compelling individuals to remove religious head coverings during mugshots or in public remains a contentious one.
Settlements like New York City's, coupled with ongoing legal battles, highlight a world where feelings often take center stage, nudging aside law and order.
It's a delicate dance between personal beliefs and public safety, and boy, are we in for a show.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-04-11T00:00-0400 | Comment by: Stan
This is insanity at it's worst. Abide by our laws & regulations as everyone else does or go back to the country of your heritage.