"I can tell you that anybody who comes in wearing any type of head covering -- they would have to remove it at the time of booking and that would be for security purposes," Beavers said."

I wouldnt be surprised if this was being pushed by CAIR.

Of course treating everybody the same wont be enough for the ACLU, they must defend the ACLU's unofficial religion.

Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 1:17 PM

Legal jihad.

This suit will not win, but will cost Bernadino County plenty to defend.

The ACLU is unbelievably opaque.

Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 1:42 PM

And a counter charges should be filed against her and the ACLU of obstruction of justice.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at December 7, 2007 1:58 PM

And while the ACLU is at it, they should file a class action lawsuit against all the states that force Moslimas to remove their burkhas so that their faces are visible in driver license photos.

That would be all 50 states.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 7, 2007 2:16 PM

More on this story at http://www.sbsun.com/ci_7656747

Posted by: Winnie-the-Poe at December 7, 2007 2:17 PM

Yet another "pity potty" try! "Booo hoooo woe is me" is their hit song. Hiding under tents, and still trying to draw attention to themselves. Such humility.

Posted by: freetoBEfree at December 7, 2007 2:18 PM

""I can tell you that anybody who comes in wearing any type of head covering -- they would have to remove it at the time of booking and that would be for security purposes," Beavers said."

...it is also necessary to discover if the arrested one is a male or female...in order to insure the arrested one gets a jail cell with a like gender cell mate....

....wait until they discover most prisoners endure a strip search prior to being placed in a cell....whooooeee....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 7, 2007 2:36 PM

When I worked at a police department as a dispatcher/jailer, all female prisoners not only had to remove any headwear and jewelry, but also their bras. (Yet I don't hear the Nat'l Organization for Women complaining.) This was because, as the sheriff's spokeswoman said, of security reasons.

Prisoners are incredibly crafty when they get desperate, and can turn just about anything into a noose or a weapon. Something like a hijab would be a security risk not only for the prisoner in question, but also for the deputies.

Posted by: Lori B. at December 7, 2007 2:38 PM

Lori B.

Is absolutely correct on security procedures in the jail systems rings ,earings,necklaces,watches,hats of any kind and anything found in the pockts are also removed for safe keeping as well as shoes and socks. The hijab can hide many potential weapons.

Posted by: Mackie at December 7, 2007 2:57 PM

The ACLU is constantly filing suits. I wonder how frequently an individual, a group, or a legal entity sues the ACLU?
/Just asking.

Posted by: MP at December 7, 2007 3:02 PM

Michelle Malkin's website showed pictures of the ugliest bride ever--oh wait, it was a fake wedding party at a Baghdad checkpoint, totally outraged that they had to submit to a search by US soldiers.

The "bride" and "groom" were wanted for previous terrorists acts, as well as other members of the "wedding" party. The bride looked like Klinger on that MASH tv show, 5 o'clock shadow and all.

Maybe this woman is really a man! Who knows when they travel about in their own personal tent.

Posted by: CapitalistGig at December 7, 2007 3:09 PM

I used to be the biggest ACLU freak ever. I still support them in a limited way, but they're starting to get on my nerves more and more.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at December 7, 2007 3:10 PM

ROOBART: "I used to be the biggest ACLU freak ever. I still support them in a limited way, but they're starting to get on my nerves more and more."

My God man, they are a veritable fifth column. Were you aware the ACLU decided to pass on the opportunity to litigate against Californian middle-school's curriculum of propagating Islam - including the recitation of Islamic prayer? Contrast this lack of interest to their vehement opposition to all the things Christianity in the public sphere.

Roobart, I was a liberal once...albeit one without any pretensions about the validity of socialism as a viable and humane social system. But my discovery of Islam in the early 90s...and the mortal danger it presents to human freedom, allowed me to shed my liberal illusions, one by one.

I don't want to sound condescending here, but something tells me the same process is (or soon will be) happening to you.

Posted by: Cornelius at December 7, 2007 3:31 PM

I'm guessing that an orthodox Jew would get pretty much the same treatment...not that the prisons and jails have an overabundance of them. The chance of the above mentioned individual being given back his 'Tefillin', usually translated as “phylacteries”, for morning prayers are pretty remote.
The ACLU would be all over it...;)

Posted by: DaninVan at December 7, 2007 3:57 PM

Prisoners are incredibly crafty when they get desperate, and can turn just about anything into a noose or a weapon. Something like a hijab would be a security risk THE PROBLEM IS THE ACLU LIVES in a ivory tower pc world were very one is as empty headed as they are

Posted by: grizlybear at December 7, 2007 3:59 PM

I expect the person should have been accommodated with a prayer rug, a Qur'an and a halal meal even before fingerprinting.

Posted by: awake at December 7, 2007 4:08 PM

That is of course, if the arrestee could even be processed in that partuclar police station, with the assumption that foot bath services were also available.

Posted by: awake at December 7, 2007 4:10 PM

Did the county violate her civil rights as well by having a "male" deputy who is not her relative arrest her?

Can't wait for that one. "911 - you need to tell us if the perp is female as we can not send male officers to the scene in case she is Muslim and that would violate her civil rights."

Posted by: V.I.N.C.E.N.T. at December 7, 2007 4:18 PM

One of the reasons I don't comment as much anymore is that stories like this make me want to write strings of obscenities and that sort of thing doesn't help matters and hurts this site.

I've run out of things to say other than the f-bomb when it comes to stupidity like this lawsuit.

Shakespeare had it right.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 7, 2007 4:35 PM

Plague,

I feel and share in your pain. It is likewise for me as well.

I had to fight hard against what I really wanted to say on this thread.

Posted by: awake at December 7, 2007 4:54 PM

Another story and photo at

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_H_lawsuit07.3362836.html

Posted by: Winnie-the-Poe at December 7, 2007 4:59 PM

...ugh, a picture is worth a thousand words....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 7, 2007 5:24 PM

Her head scarf would HAVE to be removed and a female prison matron run her fingers through her hair because it is an ideal place to hide items as small as a bobby pin that can be a deadly weapon or escape tool. The classic face-encircling hijab would distort the full shape of the face and make identity more difficult. I imagine she was (like many Muslims) using a counterfeit metro card - they cheat and fake and lie through our lives with serene indifference to us kaffirs.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at December 7, 2007 5:25 PM

"Muslim women wear the hijab to show their respect to God, said Munira Syede, a spokeswoman for the Southern California chapter of the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations. "
3

...she wears it because Muslim men will kill her if she refuses.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 7, 2007 5:33 PM

"She cried a great deal and experienced humiliation, a sense of having had both her religions beliefs and personal integrity violated," the lawsuit says.

About her integrity; apparently in her screwed up value system (religion) removing her headscarf is a bigger wrong than using a counterfeit ticket.
Crocodile tears, I'm sure. On the inside, she is laughing at the thought of winning a lawsuit lotto.

Posted by: Shakey_Premise at December 7, 2007 5:45 PM

"the veil in all its forms: the hijab, niqab, jil- bab, chador and burqa. I can't think of a more dramatic visual symbol of oppression, the inescapable fact being that the vast majority of women who cover their hair, faces and bodies do so because they have no choice. women don't wear the burqa in Afghanistan because they like it' they wear it because they are afraid of being killed if they don't. Women haven't suddenly gone back to wearing the veil in Iraq because they're pious' they do it because women who are courageous enough to refuse, including a well- known TV presenter, have been murdered by Islamic extremists. '

....Islam....feel the love?.......

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 7, 2007 5:49 PM

Post-9/11 this is a no-brainer.

The police should have nothing to worry about, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: Rougie at December 7, 2007 6:48 PM

As long as sanity prevails her case will be laughed out of court. Its adherents acquiring a reputation for frivolous and vexatious litigation, involving unconvincing or contrived grievances, does not do a lot for the dignity and status of a religion.

Posted by: wallyUK at December 7, 2007 7:12 PM

If this person would've been following the law, she wouldn't have bee arrested in the first place.

Another Muslim wasting American tax dollars by filing another idiotic lawsuit.

She should've thanked the Sheriff's department for assisting her by making her remove one of Muhammad's sexist burdens, even if it was for a short time.

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 7, 2007 7:50 PM

Call me suspicious, folks, but this looks to me like an attempt to drive a little wedge into the law, to allow a wee bit of Sharia to creep in.

This is a vibe I'm starting to get, every time I see some Muslima on TV, boo-hooing about her precious hijab, or read about same in the papers.
It seems to be happening quite frequently, these days.

The cynicism of hijab jihad is just disgusting.

Posted by: Abscedere at December 7, 2007 8:06 PM

"She cried a great deal and experienced humiliation, a sense of having had both her religions beliefs and personal integrity violated," the lawsuit says.

Hmmm...reminds me of the part in Gone with the Wind after Scarlet's second husband, Frank Kennedy, has been killed and Scarlet cries to Rhett that she's responsible for his death, that she stole him from her sister so she could pay the taxes on Tara and that she was afraid of going to hell because of it. Rhett astutely points out: "If you had it to do all over again, you'd do no differently. You're like the thief who isn't the least bit sorry he stole, but he's terribly, terribly sorry he's going to jail."

It appears that Scarlet Jameelah Medina is invoking an inverted version of "flying while Muslim". She doesn't want to do the time, since she did the crime, so it's time to whine.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 7, 2007 8:10 PM

Superior Court records show Medina pleaded no contest to a single charge of identity theft on Nov. 15, 2002. Records show her case was dismissed after she completed three years of probation on Jan. 5, 2006.

Honest and upright. Of course the ACLU will defend her.

Of course the deputy making muslim comments should not negate her crime. Or that her scarf should come off.

Posted by: Borg at December 7, 2007 9:53 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019067.php#comments

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 7, 2007 10:08 PM

Nitpicked to death: the epitaph of the West?

Islam: the deathcult of peace minces onward.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 7, 2007 10:22 PM

Note that the original offense was just two years ago. I'm guessing the lawsuit is just getting in under the statute-of-limitations wire.
Also note a previous conviction for identity theft.
Then note she's a graduate student in education at Claremont. Wonderful! Just the sort one wants in the teaching profession.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 7, 2007 10:52 PM

Nowhere in the Koran does it mention that women must wear head scarves. This is an arbitrary cultural practice and not a religious practice. Moreover, imported cultural practices are null and void - or should be in a sane society - when they conflict with the norms of the host culture and its laws.

This woman should be deported forthwith. She is an antisocial subversive with no interest in taking advantage of all the opportunities for a happy and prosperous life that the US has extended her.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 7, 2007 10:54 PM

The ACLU needs to be broken down as the big mafia outfits were. The mafia, if anything, is more legitimate, from a capitalist and human perspective, because it sells products that people want to purchase, even if illegal. At least the mafia has some real market-based value. The ACLU is simply a repressive Stalinist organization that works to subvert the law for the sake of subverting the law. What does the ACLU sell that people want? It only peddles in its own crap. Who funds the ACLU, anyway? George Soros? Nihilists and haters of humanity?

Breaking up the mafia was a good thing for society. Why can't we break up organizations like the ACLU and CAIR and all the rest that are even worse for society than the mafia ever was? Have we been completely castrated by political correctness?

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 7, 2007 11:03 PM

"This woman should be deported forthwith. She is an antisocial subversive with no interest in taking advantage of all the opportunities for a happy and prosperous life that the US has extended her."
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble

Deport her by all means if she is an immigrant. The articles I looked at didn't specify her native country. From her picture, I would guess she's a native-born Black Muslim, and thus not deportable.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 7, 2007 11:06 PM

Wimbledon Womble -

You are dead on. Arab women in Mohammed's time did not wear veils or hijabs or head scarves. The veil was imported from the Byzantines. Who knows were the custom of "Islamic dress" came from, but it was not from Mohammed.

If the practice of ones faith requires the wearing of "special" clothing -
1) It can't be much of a faith.
2) It puts God in the fashion business. (you would thing that running the universe thing would be just a little bit more important).
3) It reveals the religion as a kooky cult.
4) If every aspect of a believers behavior HAS to have rules, it sounds more and more like a political ideology.

Posted by: tanstaafl at December 7, 2007 11:16 PM

ebonystone said:

"Note that the original offense was just two years ago. I'm guessing the lawsuit is just getting in under the statute-of-limitations wire.
Also note a previous conviction for identity theft.
Then note she's a graduate student in education at Claremont. Wonderful! Just the sort one wants in the teaching profession."

She probably sat on it and stewed about it until her MSA and CAIR friends whipped her up into a frenzy and got her some "legal representation." She is probably more motivated by a quick buck than by her "hurt pride." If she were really a gung-ho Islamist, she would have found a way to sue earlier.

On the other hand, it is often difficult with Islamists to separate their love of Allah from their love of money. They want to submit but they want to screw people and make money just as much.

This whole thing looks like a case of a "hurt" and money-hungry criminal woman hooking up with MSA/CAIR and then the ACLU, which has essentially found a new calling as a CAIR lackey.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 7, 2007 11:18 PM

ebonystone said:

"From her picture, I would guess she's a native-born Black Muslim, and thus not deportable."

The link does not have a picture of her. This does bring up some additional issues.

It's hard to say what's going on behind all this. Clearly, CAIR and the immigrant Wahhabi groups view the Nation of Islam ant black Muslims in general as illegitimate. Clearly, also, there is a lot of anti-black racism in the Arab world (look at the caricatures of Condeleeza Rice in the Arab press). So perhaps CAIR passed on this one because she was a black American Muslim. On the other hand, CAIR is opportunistic and has championed black Muslims in the past. It depends on what CAIR thinks they can get out of it.

CAIR may or may not be involved in this one. If it is not, I would chalk it up at least in part to contempt for black Muslims, since CAIR has backed much less "meritorious civil rights" cases in the past. CAIR may well be involved, though, since when CAIR often prefers to have third parties do its bidding. While they have plenty of on-staff Islamist lawyers, they often contract out their lawsuits to others.

Organizations like the MSA and their close non-university allies CAIR seem to have a up-and-down relationship with black American Muslims. They use them sometimes, but generally treat them as illegitimate Muslims.

I'd like to learn more about this woman's story, since it might reveal much about the relationship between black American Muslims and Immigrant Wahhabi organizations. My guess is that MSA and/or CAIR helped her hook up with the ACLU, and that she is motivated partly by feelings of being "hurt" and being a "victim" and partly by a desire for a quick buck.

Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 7, 2007 11:50 PM

Another story and photo at

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_H_lawsuit07.3362836.html

Posted by: Winnie-the-Poe

Wimbledon, here's the link with the photo. As I say, I'm just guessing she's native-born; she could easily be a Moslem immigrant.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 8, 2007 1:31 AM

This woman is a criminal.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_H_lawsuit07.3362836.html

Superior Court records show Medina pleaded no contest to a single charge of identity theft on Nov. 15, 2002. Records show her case was dismissed after she completed three years of probation on Jan. 5, 2006.

And yet, she felt naked, and humiliated, and exposed? B.S.

"She cried a great deal and experienced humiliation, a sense of having had both her religions beliefs and personal integrity violated."

Muslim women wear the hijab to show their respect to God, said Munira Syede, a spokeswoman for the Southern California chapter of the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations.

"It's done because God has commanded women and men to dress a certain way," Syede said. "It shows modesty."

The Quran contains language that says women should be covered, and the prophet Muhammad details how that covering should be worn, she said.

This is just another attempt to cram the KRAN into how American law is enforced.

And there's CAIR, right in the mix. Every time there's a situation like this, there they are, right in the middle of it.

This case should be tossed in the dumper immediately.

Posted by: Prickzilla at December 8, 2007 5:14 AM

"Nowhere in the Koran does it mention that women must wear head scarves. This is an arbitrary cultural practice and not a religious practice."--posted above by w womble

Exactly. Not religious, cultural. No mention in Koran, again, exactly.

Posted by: darcy at December 8, 2007 9:26 AM

We're going to have to get over this nonsense that any behavior which is religiously motivated is permissible, indeed sacrosanct and a right.

And here I have to issue a challenge (a friendly one, but sincerely meant) to my believing fellow posters.

I am an atheist, and from my point of view sanctity is in the eye of the beholder.

There is nothing universal or objective about it.

It is therefore irrelevant to the pursuit of justice.

(A)
If a thief is beautiful, they remain a thief and a criminal and must be punished.

If a thief is devout, they remain a thief and a criminal and must be punished.

(B)
Just because one person regards something as sacred doesn't mean that another must also regard it as sacred.

(C)
Religious ideas can be objectively evil. If my religion calls for child sacrifice (as many have over the ages) that doesn't make child-sacrifice is morally acceptable.

(D)
Morality is absolute. Sanctity is subjective. That is to say -- murder is always wrong everywhere under all circumstances -- by contrast, you may regard a picture of your favorite pastor as sacred due to his moral leadership, but to me it's just a photo.

(E)
We must as a culture resolve the seeming conflict between your right to practice your religion and the objective fact that your religion may promote, indeed even demand criminal behavior.

(F)
We already have laws on the books that deny people the free excercise of their rights if they are criminals. Felons cannot vote etc... In fact, jail itself is a restriction of your rights. Logically this principle applies to your right to exercise your religion as well.

If your neighbors, through agency of the state, have the right to lock you up in solitary confinement, they also have the right to demand that you wear standard prison issue clothes and not run around wearing a mask.

In criminal matters, the rights of the victim come before the rights of the criminal.

(G)
It is particularly important that we fight the jihaddis in criminal matters, as it is particularly in criminal matters that the society asserts its moral standards.

They have got to be forced to accept the fact that our moral standards come first.

Posted by: joeblough at December 8, 2007 10:30 AM

After seeing this woman's face, I agree with the ACLU.......she should have been able to leave the hijab on, but only to cover that ugly mug!

Posted by: DownWithIslam at December 8, 2007 6:13 PM

If she had not been engaging in criminal activity and gotten herself arrested she would not have had to worry about taking her babushka off. She is crying foul to divert attention from her criminal actions. She wishes us to believe that she is a devout and deeply religious muslim that would never commit the crime that she did. They really do think that we infidels are quite stupid. The funny thing is that they don't seem to realize that so many of us see straight through their BS!

Posted by: HereticInfidel at December 8, 2007 6:15 PM

Basically, Medina was stealing a fare. Perhaps the court should go ahead and give her religious beliefs the respect she claims she wants. Leave the head scarf on and chop off her hand.

Posted by: OMGNowWhat at December 9, 2007 7:10 AM

DaninVan, to answer your question:

Having worked for a PD with a jail, yes, I would have an arrested observant Jew remove his yarmulke as well. Since there are equal opportunity offenders, you have to follow suit.

(And I'm a Gentile Christian who loves Jews and enjoys exploring my Jewish heritage.)

This was the SOP for arrestees:

Remove shoes (if they have laces or anything that can be removed and converted to a noose or weapon) - Male/Female
(Shoes that have soft soles and do not have laces may be worn - officer and jailer's discretion)

Remove any extra shirts or clothing, only one shirt or "complete outfit" (shirt/pants) per prisoner - Male/Female
(Suicide watch prisoners had to wear a paper gown with no underwear)

Remove all jewelry and/or headgear (to include barrettes and ponytail holders) - Male/Female

Remove bra - Female (although there WAS this ONE guy ... but that's for another forum!)

Confiscate purses/bags for search and/or seizure as evidence - Male/Female

Posted by: Lori B. at December 10, 2007 12:23 PM

oh please her head scarf. The ACLU needs to disband their usefullness is over. They were once a great (believe it or not) protector for the underdog, not anymore they have become absurd.

furryface

Posted by: furryface at December 11, 2007 2:09 AM