On August 14, 2024, Zarmeen Azam and Shajnin Howlader were violently assaulted by NYPD officers while they peacefully protested. The women were strangled, and their hijabs were forcibly removed. The incident occurred when a large group fundraiser transitioned to a new location and encountered resistance from the NYPD. After surrounding the group, the officers began to exhibit disturbing levels of aggression towards the hijabi women, shoving them to corral and intimidate the group. During this confrontation, Sergeant Joseph Spalding seized Shajnin’s hijab and pulled it sharply, causing it to obstruct her breathing by tightening around her neck. While this was happening, Assistant Chief Stephenson put Azam in a chokehold, restricting her breathing and forcibly tearing off her hijab. The officer then completed the arrest only after dragging her on the ground while assaulting other protesters. At the precinct, Ms. Azam was denied the opportunity to adjust her hijab when an officer threw part of it onto her face, exposing her hair. Later, after being uncuffed, her hijab was damaged and failed to conceal her hair correctly. Throughout this time, Axam pleaded with the officers to allow her to modify her attire per her religious beliefs. These are just two instances in which police threaten to remove the hijab as a means of intimidation and crowd control, reflecting an increase in such occurrences across New York City. These women and others are suing the NYPD and specific officers for hindering their free exercise of religion. The complaint claims that forcibly removing the plaintiffs’ hijabs in public significantly burdened their religious practice, as wearing a hijab is a sincerely held religious belief and a necessary part of their faith.
The question at hand is whether it is unconstitutional for these police officers to damage and tarnish religious garments while making arrests. Azam and Howlader argue that this violates their right to free exercise. The recent Supreme Court case Holt v. Hobbs (2015) establishes a precedent relevant to this situation. Essentially, the Court ruled that an Arkansas prison policy prohibiting a Muslim inmate from growing a beard violated the Free Exercise Clause. This case confirms that compelling individuals to breach their sincerely held religious beliefs is unconstitutional unless the government demonstrates a compelling interest and employs the least restrictive means.
Another case with an interesting precedent is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the key holding was that government actions demonstrating hostility toward religious beliefs violate the Free Exercise Clause. Abusing one’s attachment to their religious sacraments in the manner that NYPD did during the protest feels like a similar abuse to the one suffered by Masterpiece Cakeshop where a governing body restricts the free exercise of religion.
Interestingly, this case presents a significant dilemma regarding the free exercise clause. The clause states that the free exercise of religion may be restricted if there is a compelling state interest. One could argue that the police believe limiting these women’s free exercise is necessary due to the nature of the protest. Should a police officer have deemed it essential to use such force and tactics to maintain peace and order while serving a compelling state interest? Even if someone believes that the officer's actions were entirely wrong, what protest threshold should allow a police officer to engage in the actions that occurred that day? These monumental questions highlight the importance of this case for the future of the free exercise clause because if state-funded law enforcement can determine any moment when violence is necessary, it seems unconstitutional for officers to restrict free exercise in this manner. My concern is, who’s to say they can’t consider all instances of religious protest as chances to limit freedoms? The NYPD's violence against Azam and Howlader reveals a misuse of force. It raises constitutional concerns regarding religious freedoms, emphasizing the need for law enforcement to respect these liberties and be held accountable for violations. Moreover, I believe it aligns with earlier precedents where the wellbeing of individuals isn’t harmed if someone is accommodated to fit their religious freedoms. Officers should be trained to make arrests without violating rights. For these reasons, I agree with Azam and Howlader: given the chaos caused by the NYPD officers, they should have accommodated the religious liberties of those they arrested. Even before that, they should have approached the situation with caution and not used hijabs as a means of attack.
3 comments:
I agree that the NYPD’s actions were excessive and a clear violation of their right to practice their religion freely. The Free Exercise Clause protects people from being forced to act against their religious beliefs. The government has to prove there is a greater threat in order to impose on religious practice and there is not. unless the government can prove there is an urgent, important reason for it and that they are using the least harmful way to achieve that goal. In this situation, even if the officers believed they needed to control the protest, there was no reason to target the women’s hijabs in an aggressive and harmful way. That is not using the least amount of government interference or force. Also, I agree that another problem with this case is the question of when officers can claim any disorderly moment in order to justify stripping people of their religious freedoms. This creates a slippery slope argument by allowing this kind of behavior which would set a dangerous precedent. Overall, I agree with Aidan that the NYPD’s actions were unjust and the women’s religious freedoms should have been protected.
I would also argue that the Free Exercise Clause should protect people from being arrested in this circumstance. Its intended purpose is to protect people from being arrested while protesting for religious purposes. In addition to this, it makes it worse that the police officers used force in making these arrests which resulting in the damage of the protesters religious garments. In order to protect the rights established by the Free Exercise Clause, it is important that cases like these are prioritized in terms of delivering outcomes to both the police officers and the protesters that satisfy the ability for the clause to maintain its integrity. I would suggest punishment for the police officers in some form which would prevent them from taking violent action in this scenario and protections for the protesters which give them a sense of comfort in knowing they should be able to protest however they intend.
This case reveals, what I believe to be, a clear example of a misuse of power and force by the NYPD. In forcibly arresting, harming, these women, along with obstructing their religious beliefs via tampering with their religious garments, the officers involved violated the women’s First Amendment rights. Additionally, in continuously disregarding the women’s religious beliefs by not allowing them to fix their hijabs once at the police station, the officers were intentionally disregarding their right to freely exercise their religion. In allowing behavior like this, not only is an unfair and unjust precedent being set for how law enforcement is able to treat minority religions, but how minority religions are able to freely exercise their religions overall.
Post a Comment