Another case of Amerika’s Police State mistreating an inoffensive Muslim woman, leaving her devastated, distraught, agitated, humiliated — and so a lawsuit follows.
From Yeni Safak:
“A Muslim woman who was left devastated after she was forced to remove her hijab sued New York’s Yonkers City on Wednesday due to its “demeaning and humiliating” policies.
Ihsan Malkawi stated in a federal civil rights lawsuit that she was arrested, along with her husband, in Yonkers due to “false allegations of abuse” made by their daughter, which were deemed “unfounded” after the case was investigated by child services, NBC News reported.
Until the case was investigated, the police had both the right and the duty to book her. Their daughter’s charge of child abuse was too serious to let them go free before Child Services had made its investigation.
Malkawi’s daughter, desiring to return to Michigan where the family formerly lived, tried to run away from home on Aug. 25, 2019 whereupon the couple found her and brought her back.
The next day, when Ihsan and her husband were out enrolling their daughter in school, the girl unexpectedly called 911 and claimed that her mother and father had attacked her with a belt and curtain rod, the lawsuit explained.
Ihsan was arrested, handcuffed, taken to a booking cell and ordered by a female officer to remove her hijab for a mugshot. “You can’t take a photo or go into a cell with this,” the officer told her, according to the lawsuit.
The hijab is worn as a sign of modesty, to foil the libidinous male gaze. If, as it appears, the person taking the mugshot was the female police officer, that would suggest less reason for Ihsan to worry. She would have been locked up in a cell – until her husband arrived to bail her out – in the women’s wing of the jail, with female guards. So it appears that without her hijab, she was not being looked at by men. Or was she? It is unclear why she was not allowed to put her hijab back on in the cell where she was held. Was this police policy, or simply an oversight? Did she ask for it back, alerting the police to her need to have it, or did she say nothing more about it?Did the police offer her a scarf to wear instead? Questions, questions.
Ihsan, who has never been asked to remove her hijab in public before, explained to the officer that her veil was not a fashion accessory but deemed as an obligation by her religious faith. However, officers refused her by saying, “It’s the law.”
She was never asked to remove her hijab before because she never had her mugshot taken before.
Anxious, distraught and afraid of further criminal charges, Malkawi “reluctantly removed her hijab to be photographed,” and then left in tears. She was also forced to wear a short-sleeved shirt instead of the long-sleeved one she was originally wearing.
Was Ihsan Malkawi really “anxious” and “distraught” for having been asked to remove her hijab for her mugshot? Displeased, perhaps, at not getting her way, but is there not some exaggeration in her claim? This description was no doubt written by a member of CAIR, the group that is representing Malkawi, possibly with some editorial input by the lawyers at the law firm Emery Celli Brinkeroff and Abady.
After spending 36 hours without her hijab, she was bailed out of jail by her husband on Aug. 28, but her head-cover still was not returned to her till she was in the parking lot outside.
In order to have spent 36 hours “without her hijab,” she would have had to have been picked up by her husband very late the next day — in fact, she would have been picked up, at the earliest, at 11 or 12 pm. Is that what happened?
A Yonkers’ spokeswoman told NBC News that the city can’t comment about the lawsuit in question.
This is the part of the case that is troublesome. Why was her headgear not returned to her once the mugshot was taken? Was that the usual procedure, in other cases where headgear had been removed — to return it only once someone being held on bail is freed? In the lawsuit we will find out what the Yonkers police department offers by way of justification.
The Yonkers Police Department violated Malkawi’s religious rights, said lawsuit director of CAIR NY, Ahmed Mohamed.
“This is not a one-time incident. This is a policy. This is something that has happened to a lot of people,” Mohamed told NBC News in a phone interview.
The fact that the removal of headgear was not a one-time incident but “is a policy” strengthens rather than weakens the case for the police department. No one was out to get or embarrass Ihsan Malkawi. She was merely being asked to conform to a policy that applied across the board, to people of all religions. and none. who are asked to remove head coverings so that they might be more clearly seen in the round. One hopes that the judge will find this a sufficient state need to withstand the “strict scrutiny” test that is constitutionally applicable.
In addition to Yonkers, various cities across the country have similar policies such as Dearborn Heights, Michigan; Portland, Maine; and a number of jurisdictions in California.
“The police department’s policy goes beyond being demeaning and humiliating. It’s a First Amendment right that we have here as Americans to be able to wear religious head coverings. We don’t lose those rights because we have interactions with law enforcement,” Mohamed said.
The police department’s policy is neither “demeaning” nor “humiliating.” It bears an understandable and reasonable relation to the declared goal of taking mugshots that show the face and head as fully as possible. If the policy were applied only to Muslim women, that would be unacceptable. When It applies, as here, to all head coverings – the shtreimel, spodik, or kolpik of Hasidic Jews, the turbans of Sikhs, the headscarves of Orthodox Jewish women — then it should be allowed.
Mohamed, underlining that “Yonkers has a significant Muslim population,” stated that the lawsuit is not only limited [sic for “limited only”] to Muslims but also covers people who believe in wearing their religious attire.
The fact that Yonkers has “a significant Muslim population” is irrelevant to the policy of removing head coverings for mugshots, unless it can be shown that the policy had not been in place before but was instituted in response to that growing Muslim population.
“We are in the year 2020. Police forces have to abandon policies that cling to the past of not being religiously inclusive and not respecting religious freedom. We hope there will be a policy change,” he concluded.
If the policy of requiring the removal of headgear applies to people of all religions, how can Mr. Mohamed claim that the policy is one of “not being religiously inclusive”?
Did the required removal of her head covering – the hijab — a requirement made of everyone, including Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, as well as Sikhs – really impinge on her “religious freedom”? Do you think a Hasidic Jew asked to remove his shtreimel would bring a lawsuit if he had been made to comply? Or a Sikh asked to remove his turban? Or an Orthodox Jewish woman asked to remove her headscarf? Would any of them feel that their “religious freedom” had been diminished as a consequence? Would anyone but a Muslimah have sued?
Ihsan Malkawi and the CAIR representative who has appeared to help her are well aware of the similar lawsuits by Muslim women who were asked to remove their hijabs and won what are grotesquely large settlements. In New York City, in separate cases, three women won a total of $60,000 apiece, merely for having had to remove their hijabs for mugshots. Yonkers is practically part of New York City. Were the police in Yonkers unaware of those settlements? If they had been, they might have made sure that at no time was Ms. Malkawi seen by any men without her hijab, and would have promptly returned it to her,not kept it, as they did in this case, for many hours longer. The claim that she was without her hijab “for 36 hours,” however, is surely exaggerated. Assuming her daughter did not call at the crack of dawn, but sometime during the first day, and then the police had to find the parents, bring them to the police station, and only then – how many hours had gone by? — asked her to remove her hijab, and then, sometime the next day, having been kept in a cell overnight, she was released and given back her hijab. But the exact number of hours she went without her hijab is not the point. Was she given the option of wearing a scarf supplied by the police? If so, and she refused to wear it, that weakens her case, her claimed sense of being “devastated.” The reports about the case do not provide any information about this.
So here are the questions a court should consider
1. Was the removal of headgear by the Yonkers police required of everyone getting a mugshot?
2. Was the mugshot taken by a female guard? Were any males – guards or detainees – present to see Malkawi without her hijab?
3. Did she ever request, during her overnight stay, that her hijab be returned to her?
4. Was she ever offered a scarf to wear as a replacement for her hijab?
5. While she was without her hijab, when she spent the night in the women’s wing of the jail, was she seen by male guards?
6. When did she become aware of the large sums that Muslim females have been awarded for having had to remove their hijabs for mugshots?
Police departments nationwide should be alerted to this and similar cases. They should be advised not to have males present while the hijab is removed, and to return the hijab promptly to its owner after her mugshot is taken. Even that may not be enough. Given the unfortunate results in too many instances, in order to stop spending so much time and, especially, money on settling these cases, perhaps a new rule should be universally adopted: headcoverings will no longer need to be removed unless they obscure any part of the face. This might be seen as a retreat; I’d characterize it as a strategic withdrawal. The game is not worth the candle.
The goal should be to minimize, or ideally, end entirely, payouts to “devastated” and “distraught” Muslim women. For the real interest here of the Muslimah and her CAIR advisor and her lawyer is to squeeze as much as they can from the state, though they claim to be suing for a principle, as stout defenders of religious freedom, in order to ensure it is upheld. Where, in what Muslim country – there are so many — is there now, or has there ever been, complete “religious freedom” for any non-Muslims? As Finley Peter Dunne once said, “When someone says ‘it’s not the money, it’s the principle’’ – it’s the money.”
Frank Anderson says
The hijab, like a belt is a potential weapon for a jail fight. It men are required to surrender belts, the hijab is fair also. Not to mention the potential use as a “suicide” tool as we have seen recently in a famous NY case.
DiploNerd says
I used to live in Saudi Arabia. There, women take their hijabs off in front of other women all the time. No big deal. At parties just for women, where men are absolutely not allowed, you’ll seldom see a hijab. A picture taken without it, though, really would be a big problem. Women who wear the hijab typically won’t allow you to take their picture without it, even if you’re a woman, because they don’t know who else will see that picture. The U.S. embassy allows the hijab for passport and visa photos, as long as it does not cover the face. Most Muslim women really DO see the hijab as a matter of modesty. Taking it off is almost like going topless. We have enough to deal with when it comes to Islam; we need to let Muslim women dress as they please.
Frank Anderson says
This is not Saudi Arabia. This is the United States of America. If we let her do as she wishes and everyone else do as they wish, we collapse. That is their goal to destroy us.
Savvy Kafir says
Yep. We need a zero tolerance policy regarding attempts to Islamize the U.S. and other civilized societies.
Wellington says
Seconded, Frank. When in Saudi Arabia, follow its customs and laws (and which is why I will never go to Saudi Arabia, not the least of reasons being that I won’t be able to pick up a six-pack) and when in America follow its customs and laws.
Besides, the entire implication behind the hijab (which I see as a sartorial symbol equivalent to a swastika since both Islam and Nazism are mortal enemies of liberty) is that it is incumbent upon women to stop men from lusting for them (Note to Muslim men: Grow the hell up, will ya’.) There is also the matter of non-Muslim women who don’t wear an hijab that they are essentially immodest women deserving of molestation—yet another sickness which is so Islamic.
Hope you are doing well. Happy Easter.
Frank Anderson says
Happy Easter and Joyous Passover! We are watching 10 Commandments and Greatest Story Ever Told.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Frank, Savvy Kafir, and Wellington.
And Happy Easter and Passover to all who celebrate–and a lovely Sunday to those who do not.
Mobuyus says
Yes let them dress as they please, not as their men folk and imams demand. Though dressing as they please could very well be a death sentence were they to exercise this right among rank and file muslim men. You are a nerd of the diplosaurus sort, the kind that gets women killed.
DiploNerd says
Yes, let’s fight for a woman’s right to dress as she pleases. Let’s prosecute the men who forcibly shave the head of the women who refuse to wear the hijab, and let’s prosecute any man who infringes on her right to decide what to wear or not wear. But when we try to tell women they can’t wear the hijab, we are infringing on her rights just as much as the one who tells her she must. Let’s protect her right to leave Islam if she wants, too. Let’s protect her right to not be beaten, the right to custody or at least visitation with her children if her husband decides to divorce her. Let’s protect all her rights, including the right to decide whether to wear or not wear the hijab.
Wellington says
No one, DiploNerd, is denying confused Muslimas (excuse the redundancy) to dress as they please but IF, as in this case, allegations of child abuse might interfere with complete proper identification, then the interests of society as a whole must take precedence to any sartorial religious dictate.
Or don’t you see this? So far I think you don’t. And I have to wonder more expansively if you either deny or lie about what Islam would do to freedom in America if only it had its way entirely. After all, can you name a single Muslim-majority nation, of which there are over fifty, where real liberty exists?
Your turn if you care. Give it a shot because I look upon argument as a sport. In other words, don’t be a wuss.
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
winoceros says
It “pleases them” because without it they are beaten or killed. So they feel super modest and dedicated to wearing the hijab. I don’t wear immodest things or go topless when I hang out with my girlfriends (nothing that is documented anyway), so why should they want to take the hijab off when they are amongst only one another? Simple. Another woman won’t rat them out or beat them.
It’s not a fashion preference or a modesty preference: it’s a survival preference positioned as modesty so as to not seem unreasonable. They are conditioned like Pavlov’s dog.
gravenimage says
This is true in many cases. But there are also supremacist Muslim women who wear the Hijab as they would gang colors. Not all Muslim women are helpless victims of Islam.
Glyn david says
Not to mention the $$$$$ they are no doubt chasing
rubiconcrest says
She can walk around the USA dressed as she pleases but when it comes to the law Islam does not have any special rights not afforded to others. This is point DiploNerd. We are equal before the law. This protects Muslims as well as non Muslims. She is not above the law and cannot expect to be treated differently. The officers should have explained this to her.
gravenimage says
DiploNerd, criminals have hidden drugs, money, and even weapons in their clothing. I very much doubt that Muslim countries allow women in jails to cover up. In all accounts I have read of women in prison in Dar-al-Islam, this is hardly the case.
william carr says
No we need to educate women and the men also that it is not necessary in a free society; otherwise all women without head covering are sinners going to hell. If you believe such nonsense
JTLiuzza says
She already CAN dress as she pleases.
Once you get arrested, rules necessarily change.
Lynn Miller says
You are correct. My first thought was that the hijab could be used to commit suicide. However, it could also be used to strangle an opponent in a fight.
Ben Kennedy says
Her own family started this. If they want to remain in a wrap around casket to hide their identity, then don’t invite conflict by abusing our laws. Since her own family created the situation, and then sue the law they they provoked, the charges against the law smell like a fund raising event to me. Perhaps the family member who make the false charges should also be arrested for wasting the time of Western World Police Forces who are charged by Society to enforce the laws of our civilization in this country without exception. Moslem exceptions to our laws seek only to destroy our way of life, and install their way of life in it’s place; leaving us all destitute in our own Country. I have personally heard from a Sunni moslem (he told me, after 9-11) that he was going to own everything I owned, even my wife and children, when their work here was done.
gravenimage says
I have personally heard from a Sunni moslem (he told me, after 9-11) that he was going to own everything I owned, even my wife and children, when their work here was done.
…………….
Hideous, Ben. But this is as you know orthodox Islam.
Kilauea says
If you don’t like it carry your ass back to Sandlandistan. No one asked you to come here.
Savvy Kafir says
Exactly! There should be ZERO accommodation made for Medieval Muslim practices and sensitivities. If they’re not prepared to assimilate to the more enlightened standards of the West, they’ve got no business being here. (Actually, NO Muslims should be allowed to live in the civilized world; but troublemakers like this one should be on the fast track to deportation.)
mortimer says
35% of Muslims are non-practicing.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, you have earned my friendship and respect while I disagree with your view on this one question. If they do not practice because they see the evil nature of islam, why don’t they leave? And are they raising their children to be muslim or helping them see leaving as an option? As long as their children are raised muslim, it doesn’t matter what doubts they refuse to turn into action. Is the fanatic, mindless, ancient brutality being continued because they refuse to act? Kuffar selling or deprogramming believers is, politely to you, wishful. I wish you well every day, including this special day. Frank
Savvy Kafir says
Many slack-ass, “non-practicing” Muslims have decided at some point to take their religion much more seriously — often with dire consequences for local infidels. And even if they don’t go full-on, sword-swinging jihadi, they become part of the stealth jihad and demographic jihad.
There is simply no good reason to allow Muslims to remain in the civilized world — and many excellent reasons to rid the West of Islam.
gravenimage says
I question those figures. Moreover, as Savvy Kafir notes, many a “non-practicing” Muslim has suddenly turned to Jihad.
Anjuli Pandavar says
SK, “many excellent reasons to rid the West of Islam.”
—
Agreed, but merely ridding the West of Islam is not enough. After all, it was once rid of Islam. Jihad will never stop, unless it is stopped at source. I’m not knocking what you said. I’m supporting you. Ridding the West of Islam would provide significant relief, but the problem will be far from solved.
It is another version of the “they should go back to where they came from” approach, which presupposes that they came for reasons other than jihad.
Savvy Kafir says
We need to deport all Muslims from the West to Muslim-majority countries … then isolate those countries via travel bans and trade bans … and weaken the Muslim world economically by developing hydrogen fuel cell technology and infrastructure so we can stop buying their oil. That would be a pretty good start.
Frank Anderson says
S.K. PLEASE learn more about the comparative cost of all “alternative energy”. The basic limitations of efficiency, which cannot be overcome cause them to be staggeringly expensive to the point that what we consider normal industrial and commercial activity would be impossible. There is no free lunch.
I once had a friend who has since died who said with pleasure he would pay 10 times as much for a hydrogen powered car as he did for his gasoline car. He drove about 15 miles each way twice a week to attend services and events at the Temple. What a person can do for entertainment would cripple or kill another’s economic life. If you want a hydrogen fuel cell car, look at what it would cost to assemble and then what it would cost to operate, then what it would cost when it wears out. Compare that with alternatives.
I looked into converting my 1993 Honda from gasoline to natural gas. It would take about 10,000 dollars for the conversion kit and the compressor to fill the tank. I would save next to nothing, and my insurance would not cover the increased value of the car, so if it were wrecked I would get less than a thousand dollars. So much for entertainment.
Savvy Kafir says
Frank — Many new technologies are very expensive in the beginning, but become FAR more affordable as they are adopted on a large-scale basis, and as the technology is refined. Considering the enormous advantages a hydrogen economy could provide — indefinitely — many experts consider the development of hydrogen fuel cell technology and infrastructure to be well worth the investment, and a very wise move.
Frank Anderson says
S.K. there are limits on the economy of any project. There are only so many hours in a year. A machine can run no more hours than are in the year. For example, wind mills. A 5 million dollar 3000 Kw windmill could produce 3,000x 8766 kilowatt hours per year IF the wind blows steadily at 40 miles per hour, its rated maximum speed for maximum output. At 20 miles per hour it produces less than 1/8th its rated output because of the Cube Law, which I can explain if you wish. The Cube Law is an unchangeable law of physics. Nowhere in the United States, according to a US Government survey has winds that blow in the operating range of windmills (Max 40 to Min 15mph) more than 2500 hours out of 8766. So you have a 5 million dollar windmill sitting idle over 2/3rds of the time, but still costing money to build, own, operate and maintain. And then after 30 years or less it has to come down and its carcass be disposed.
Nuclear electricity was supposed to be too cheap to meter in the 1950’s because the fuel is cheap. But with a new plant costing now over 8 BILLION (milliard) dollars, and the plant only able to operate 18 out of every 21 months at best, the cost of the power is over 40 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 10 or so for coal. And that is after 70 years of worldwide “development”.
Computer costs do not illustrate with any value the trend of costs for other projects that have entirely different constraints. A computer that occupied a fairly large room now appears in my watch. But that does not change the limitations of energy projects. PLEASE if you think you can do better try it.
gravenimage says
We were mostly safe from Jihad before we began letting Muslims flood into the West. Got Muslims? Got Jihad.
Chistopher Watson says
This is a terrible case of simply misunderstanding the moslem approach to facial deformity. Indeed this woman should never show her face in public. Even her daughter phoned the police when she saw it. The WHO should immediately install a programme to look into why so many middle-eastern women are afflicted with face-deforming illnesses. (It might be interesting for them to do something useful.)
Ordinary Joe says
It always given them fat faces .
MekaLekaHiMekaHineyHo says
Allah did that so Muslim men could enjoy pork.
rooare says
Using our freedoms in order to destroy those freedoms is CAIR’s agenda aka civilization jihad.
mortimer says
Yep. They actually hate our freedoms and they hate the freedom of women especially. Sharia law is like the digestive juices of an anaconda.
Wellington says
“Sharia law is like the digestive juices of an anaconda.”
Interesting (and accurate) simile, mortimer. I’ll keep it in mind.
somehistory says
“We don’t lose those rights because we have interactions with law enforcement,” Mohamed said.”
Oh, the continual lies told about the “freedoms and rights” by moslims who supposedly know American Law.
When a person…no matter who…meets up with the law, on the wrong side of it, certain “rights” and “freedoms” can be. and frequently are, lost. A man is arrested and booked for assault of a stranger on the street; during the booking process, he must empty his pockets, take off his socks, shoes and belt, and have his photo taken. If he is wearing a tie, he must also remove it. And certain States now require a DNA sample, along with fingerprints. Some consider this an invasion of privacy, and running afoul of the 4th Amendment, but it happens to those who break laws. Or, are even innocent, but accused.
If a person goes to trial and is convicted, they lose the “freedom” to go where they wish to go, eat when and what they wish, and many other things most people take for granted. Of course, in recent years, moslims have sued prisons over food…what and when…and the other accoutrements of their foul beliefs…and “judges’ have allowed them to win.
The principle has always been, however, that when a person runs afoul of the law, they lose.
She should have been made to put it over her ugly face after the photo. Probably didn’t ask for it back in order to strengthen her ‘case’ for a lawsuit. How many charges made by c.a.i.r. have been found to be hoaxes or full of lies to bolster the ‘case’ so big bucks are the result. This is “lawfare” to make money and to make people afraid…or terrorized…into giving them whatever they demand.
One other thing, when I have gone to have a photo taken for a drivers license, I have had to remove my hat and my sun glasses, though I wear both as protection from light…not just the sunlight, but artificial light to which I am allergic. If I have to remove these when they are *necessary* for my health..and I have not broken any laws…, then moslims should not be allowed to wear their ugly scarves…which is a choice, as we all know…for reference, see the account of the Notre Dame ‘professor’ who used this item as a means to show not all moslims act exactly alike when it comes to their evil book’s ‘rules’… and is not ‘required.’
To compare the “health” reasons for wearing a hat with a religious ‘reason,’ see the part about “pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness” in the Declaration of Independence…one is not happy without good health. And the ‘religious’ freedom is not absolute, as in the people in NM who used an illegal drug, and the snake handlers in some other States, or the parents who refuse to have medical care for their children and the children die, etc.
It is totally sickening that these ugly, creepy moslims can claim to be “devastated”…they should be made to define the word, like they define ‘peace’ and ‘innocent’ and every other word they use as weapons against the rest of us…and get money and comforts.
.Bridgette says
If it’s the law then her suit should be dropped. Here’s hoping. Enough with their supremacist insanity.
PRCS says
“The hijab is worn as a sign of modesty, to foil the libidinous male gaze.”
Plagiarizing an old television commercial: not exactly.
Qur’an 24/31 reflects 7th century Arabia’s definition of modesty; an ignorant worldview of the time which specifically permits an ‘uncovered’ Muslim woman’s eunuchs–and her slaves–to view her.
https://quran.com/24/31
Qur’an 33/59 was another of Muhammad’s ‘just in the nick of time’ revelations. This one, however, was primarily a non-verbal expression of Islam’s “supremacism”.
As women of the time were being ‘abused’ during nocturnal trips to outdoor facilities. “Allah”, we’re told, directed Muhammad to tell his wives and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves a portion of the outer garments typical of the time.
Essentially, it told Muslim men: abuse them not us.
https://quran.com/33/59
Given the veil’s written purpose, will whomever adjudicates the lawsuit ask dear Ihsan Malkawi questions she’d likely not want to answer?
*Has Qur’an ever been changed?
*Have any of its passages been made irrelevant or invalid-anywhere on the planet-by the passage of time?
*As the U.S. is governed by man-made law, from whom does the veil protect you–here?
Kerry Wade says
Yet another perpetrator of a barbaric ideology ‘playing the victim.’ Sickening.
tim gallagher says
I think, well, if you don’t like the laws in our non-Muslim countries, then stay the hell away from our countries. Stay in your Muslim countries. Just bugger off and leave us alone. It is, of course, the usual Muslim supremacism and our countries are supposed to surrender and let them have their way. The only answer is to keep Islam, and all the trouble it inevitably brings, out of all non-Muslim countries. The Muslim whingeing and whining on all sorts of issues is extremely annoying and Muslims definitely aren’t worth the trouble (Islam is just totally incompatible with our values) they bring to any country foolish enough to let them in. I believe that all this Muslim headgear is the way they say to us that they are separate from the non-Muslims and won’t ever integrate into infidel societies.
gravenimage says
Muslimah Asked to Remove Hijab For Mugshot “Devastated,” Lawsuit Follows
…………….
How many here are tired of this ludicrous Muslim victim-mongering? This is the law for everyone, not just Muslims, and is intended to protect police and jail staff.
And the description of the crime here seems *very* questionable. Usually allegations of child abuse result in the child being taken into temporary protective custody and the parents or other caregivers being cited while the case is investigated. They are *very* seldom immediately arrested and jailed unless there is actual clear evidence that they have abused the child.
Especially given how rife child abuse is in Islam, I wonder to what extent this bs is intended to distract from the crime?
somehistory says
Count me in, g, as “tired” of it, sick of it, disgusted by it, irritated and angered by it.
Every person who is arrested has to go through a process of ‘booking.’ Giving up articles of clothing is a part of that process and a complete photo is taken so the perp can be identified if they are allowed out on bail, or by some chance, escape the clutches of law enforcement. The photo goes in a file, and if the person is convicted, it is part of a data base that is used later when similar crimes are committed, the police are searching for the perp, and photos are needed for a photo line-up.
If moslims didn’t commit crimes, they wouldn’t be put through the process, just as other people don’t commit crimes and are not booked.
And, I found it suspicious that they were arrested and then immediately bailed out. Investigations of child abuse don’t happen overnight. Did c.a.i.r. put the girl up to making the claim or did they pressure her to change her story after making the claim? Something smells in this case.
Jayell says
So this female specimen feels ‘distraught’ and ‘humiliated’? Two things come to mind:-
1. It’s strange to see how these same people aren’t ‘distraught’ at seeing all the death and destruction and plain degradation that THEY cause to others, e.g. the wonderful Shamima Begum was not at all phased by the sight decapitated heads in buckets put there by her chums in ISIS; and
2. Feelings of ‘humiliation’ tend to be reserved for those with a big opinion of themselves. So the higher up you place yourself, the bigger the bump when you’re not venerated as think you should be. So our muslim fiend here felt her rightful status so comprised that she just HAD to take it to court to re-assert her ‘respected’ position. Let’s hope that the court reminds her of the somewhat more modest level of respect she actually deserves.
Larry the Libertarian says
When my brother (not Muslim) was in jail in Oregon (for extremely serious charges, prior to trial), he was non compliant and a suicide risk. I was surprised to hear that they removed from him his clothes altogether, and made him sit naked for extended periods of time (apparently offering him the “reward” of clothing as the only leverage they could get over him), and when he first met with this court-appointed attorney he was totally nude at the time.
This means 1) That intentional humiliation and infliction of emotional harm is indeed a practice in at least some facilities in the US.
2) Removal of a hajib “ain’t nothing” when compared to the experience undergone by at least one other citizen in a US jail.
My brother died in jail awaiting trial. We were told he had a heart attack a week before his trial was to start. I suspect it was actually suicide or abuse, but the body was never examined.
Given my brother’s experience, I wonder if it might not be possible if this woman was indeed mistreated, and want to me careful to not jump to conclusions that this might be as simple as having been asked to reveal her face for a picture.
somehistory says
I’m sorry about your brother. Your words carry your stress and grief. I am sorry, too, that you have unresolved questions about his death.
Almost any article of clothing can be used to commit suicide. (And murders have been committed using socks to strangle.)
Perhaps that is the reason, (suicide) your brother was treated as you say. If he exhibited suicidal traits, threatened to, etc., then it was the duty of the police/guards to do everything they could to prevent it.
As for moslims…the women always make a complaint about their headgear. There have been those who didn’t want to take it off for a DL photo, refused to take it off in Court, complained about “abuse” from jail staff when arrested and told to remove it. The rag can be used as a weapon, or can hide a weapon.
They always have a ‘story’ to tell about being “humiliated,” “distressed,” “devastated,” etc. and c.a.i.r. gets involved and the suits for large sums of money, the claims of being harassed, seen by males, etc. begin.
If there had been no other such accounts, and there was no c.a.i.r. involvement, one might be able to believe she really had been mistreated. But, it is necessary to take head coverings off for photos in order to see the entire face, hair, etc. She wasn’t made to strip bare, nor was she made to sit bare to humiliate her.
gravenimage says
Larry, I’m so sorry about your brother.
But the idea that in the case of a suicidal inmate that taking clothing that can be used to hang yourself is intended as humiliation seems unlikely. It sounds more as though it was intended to keep him safe.
And the implication that having someone remove clothing while being processed where they could hide drugs or weapons is meant to humiliate is bizarre–unless you think that taking measures to protect inmates from harming guards and fellow prisoners is “humiliation”.
David Darman says
Yonkers should defend this lawsuit to successful conclusion and then sue the plainitiff for malicious prosecution to recover the attorneys fess/expenses incurred defending this nonsense. All successful defendants in these kinds of phoney lawsuits -lawfare- should do the same.
Frank Anderson says
D.D. some states have adopted what they call a Litigation Accountability Act. There is also available steps in some Rules of Civil Procedure to force an early end to groundless litigation.
Please consult a currently licensed attorney practicing in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
OLD GUY says
Just another attempt to change America towards sharia laws and islamic rules. If she is so devastated by our laws why not move to a country that follows her sharia loving rules. Try this shit in one of the muslim/islamic countries she loves and they would stone her ass to death. Live by our laws and rules or get the hell out.
gerard says
Question: Was this really a family plot to get a Lawsuit Payday? (was daughter told to drop a dime so mom would get arrested and be able to get a lawsuit payday?)