Two Muslim women were arrested on two separate occasions but unfortunately had a similar experience. Jamilla Clark, from Cedar Grove, New Jersey, was arrested on January 9, 2017, and the other woman, Arwa Aziz, from Brooklyn, New York, was arrested on April 30, 2017. Both were arrested for protection order violations that may or may not have been legitimately necessary. The women claimed that these protection orders were filed by manipulative and vindictive people in their life. When they were arrested they were taken to a New York Police Department They were taken in for processing and were asked to remove their head coverings for the mugshots. Since they were asked in a public space they both said that they could not remove the covering. This led to both cases the women’s head coverings being forcibly pulled off in front of male officers and inmates which cause significant distress to Clark and Aziz. It was also added that an officer in the room mocked the Islamic faith during this event. Even though these reports were not connected at all, both recorded that the women sobbed during this event. The two women filed a case against New York City saying that they failed to protect the rights of Clark and Aziz. The report also clarified that “Requiring a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in public is akin to demanding that a secular person strip naked in front of strangers…”. The New York City Police Department said in response “We are confident that the police department’s religious head covering policy passes constitutional muster. It carefully balances the department’s respect for the customs of all religions with the legitimate law enforcement need to take arrest photos…” The policy also states that there are places set apart for people who do wear religious head coverings to go in, however, this accommodation was not provided for Clark or Aziz. They decided to file a lawsuit against the New York City Police department with women’s advocacy group, Turning Point for Women and Families. The city said in response that they will review the policy and the lawsuit but are confident that the police department was following the guidelines. This lawsuit is not affecting these women’s journey through the legal system and have already had hearings for the crimes that they allegedly committed.
I believe that the policy that is said to be enacted is constitutional. It allows members of a particular faith that requires head coverings to not forced to commit a sin or feel exposed while still accomplishing what the state truly has an interest in, processing people who have supposedly broken the law. However, when the police department was faced with an issue that required the use of this policy, they chose to ignore it and photograph Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz in a public area. This put a substantial burden on them because they were forced to choose between whether they listen to their god or to the civil magistrate that is telling to remove it. Like I previously quoted, “Requiring a Muslim woman to remove her hijab in public is akin to demanding that a secular person strip naked in front of strangers,” this was not as simple as the physical act being forceful and demeaning but it also is a very emotional encounter. While the state has an interest in making sure that people who are reported to have broken the law are properly documented, this forced public removal of the hijab puts a substantial burden upon these women’s right to freely exercise their religion. The polices actions based on the Sherbert test fail on two accounts because it puts a substantial burden on religion, and there were less restrictive means. It does pass on the fact that there is a compelling state interest to allow the policy to photograph those who are accused. Because of the fact that the process did not stop for Jamilla Clark and Arwa Aziz, I do not see this as a way to get out of going through the system but rather as a sincere violation of their religious rights. If the original policy had been enacted then there wouldn’t be an issue because a religion wouldn’t have been restricted or mocked so openly. But since it wasn’t and these women had to endure this discrimination against them and their region, I believe that the lawsuit will be ruled in their favor if it goes to court.
https://www.apnews.com/b118f088d29b4ad6b8d707b2e7ffb712/Lawsuit:-NYPD-forced-Muslim-women-to-remove-head-coverings
7 comments:
I think in this specific case it is clear Clark and Aziz were likely discriminated against and treated with no respect due to their race. I agree with you that a policy that allows for accommodations to women who need to wear head coverings in public is constitutional. As you mentioned, it is an extreme burden on their religion to remove their head coverings in public (and this was clearly evidenced by their emotional response to the officers forcing their head coverings off). I have no question that these women will win the lawsuit, as many previous cases have established precedents of accommodations for laws that impose a substantial burden on their religious beliefs/ actions (Wisconsin v. Yoder,for example)
I agree that the policy asking for religious heading coverings etc. to be taken off is constitutional. The policy itself reminds me of the court case, Goldman v. Weinberger, where an Air Force regulation mandated that headgear could not be worn indoors except when an armed security police is performing their duties. In certain settings, modifications to certain Constitutional rights must be put forth. However, it is clear that Clark and Aziz were not treated with respect. It was a simple request to allow the women to remove their head coverings in private. This accommodation is actually allowed as part of the policy. Not allowing the women this courtesy shows a complete lack of respect for their right to religious exercise. The police department disregarded a major part of the policy and was ignorant of Clark and Aziz's religious obligations.
Like discussed in class and mentioned in this post, there have already been predestined arrangements made for those choosing to wear headscarves and other coverings for religious purposes to still comfortably pass through security arrangements, in some cases, or in this case not be faced to "go naked" in public, while still observing their religion. This situation could have easily been avoided, were the police officers who supposedly ripped off the headscarves properly respected the women's free exercise rights. Additionally, the situation described is certainly not the 'least restrictive means' to uphold the compelling state interest of ensuring quality mug shots to obtain security and safety in the prison. Allowing those who choose to wear headscarves is included within the free exercise of religion clause, and these women were violated of this right.
I agree with the comments here, it seems unnecessarily discriminatory and a violation of the free exercise clause to force these women to take off their head coverings in public, especially when there was a perfectly Constitutional policy in place for situations like this. It seems clear that their religion was not taken seriously or treated properly. I think the quote about how taking off their head covering is akin to forcing a secular person to strip down naked in public sums this up fairly well. It clearly was not the beliefs of the police officers in question that these women needed to be covered, but by forcing their beliefs upon these two women, they have forced them to go against their religion in a fundamental way and have violated their Constitutional rights.
I believe that the NY State policy is indeed facially neutral to all religions and therefore constitutional. Primarily, there is an overriding compelling state interest. If these women are in custody, odds are it is for a legitimate reason. Thus, they must abide by the same rules and regulations as any other citizen would. If they were granted not to, it would be a favoring of a religion. Additionally, the policy maintains respect for various religions by granting those who refuse to take off a religious garment access to a private facility. Although these women were not treated with the dignity and respect they deserve, it is a violation of the policy, not the constitution. Moreover, similar to Goldman v. Weinberger, it does not favor one religion over another nor does it leave the civil magistrate to determine what validates a religious garment. Rather, it is is facially neutral because it restrains from excessive religious entanglement.
I believe that the policy that should have been enacted is consitutional. However, in this case since the policy was not enacted and the officers acted unconsitutionally prohibiting the women’s freedom to excerise religion. This case was a clear violation especially because there were less invasive means that the officers could have used. Even without the policy being in place, the officers could have easily given the women a female cop, something that is done often regarless of religion.
I think that the police officers in this case acted unconstitutionally and violated the womens' right to free exercise. If there is a constitutional policy in place as was mentioned in the article it is undeniable that the police officers did not choose the least restrictive means and acted unconstitutionally discriminatory towards these women due to their faith. In terms of the policy mentioned, I think that it is reasonable and constitutional to allow accommodations to women who believe that their faith requires them to keep their head covered. This policy allows for less restrictive means for this situation and is also facially neutral. The women in many religions believe that their head must be covered and this policy is neutral among these religions. Had the police officers followed the constitutional rule in place, the practice of religion for these women would not have been restricted.
Post a Comment