View Full Version : Should a female Muslim police officer be allowed to
Jenny
09-13-2008, 11:58 AM
Everyone in Canada has the fundamental freedom of religion as well as the freedom of expression according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#freedoms). It's black and white to me.
It's certainly fairly easy to establish whether or not something is a religious requirement. This is something that courts and tribunals have a lot of practice and have some fairly standardized requirements for. It's certainly not about how deeply one feels things. What "reasonable accommodation" is is a little different. Like there is no question that the Sikh turban is a religious requirement; whether that means that Sikh employees (for example) should be able to not wear a hard hat because of it is a different matter (I don't think they can).
As for a full face covering; I think you could make a reasonable argument that a person on the street being able to recognize a police officer on the street from her ID is an important part of the job. Even if that argument were accepted, I'm not sure it means that she couldn't be accommodated at all. Like surely there are police jobs that don't involve interacting with the public on the street. Maybe she could do one of those jobs. But I don't think you can make a reasonable argument that for an orthodox muslim it is personal preference over religious mandate or that the prohibition is not constructive discrimination.
Jenny
09-13-2008, 12:06 PM
Well, it is not the government that is saying anything of the sort. It is the local police departments policy and the police are not a governing body.
I don't understand. Are you trying to say that the police are not a part of the government? Because I'm pretty sure they are.
Jenny, truthfully you make a lot of very good points. In my opinion though there are practical reasons why it's a bad idea. I just don't agree that women should be able to hide their faces if they want to be involved in law enforcement. Call me old-fashioned but, someday, if there is a shoot-out in downtown Boston and three kids are killed by police gunfire I want the legal system to be able to identify which Muslim policewoman may have fired the fatal shots...
Very reasonable point and I'm sure there are other reasonable points that could be made. However, if I may point out, what you are doing here is saying "these are the reasons it is a bona fide job requirement that cannot be waived or accommodated" and that is very different than saying "everyone should have to conform to the uniform regardless of ability or necessity" which was a lot more like your first point. For this particular question I would ask - is the only way of knowing who fired these shots by having her face uncovered? I mean - aren't certain riot police (who will be generally the ones involved in these sorts of activities) always covering their faces? Or do I watch too many movies? I mean, we obviously don't view eye-to-eye identification as mandatory for all police officers all the time. Is there no other record of shots fired or who is on the scene? I mean reasonable accommodation is all about determining how much someone can be accommodated as well as whether the accommodation is necessary.
In any case, I make it a habit not to get involved in religious debates and I have already dragged myself deeper into this one then I intended. I don't agree with some of what you are saying here Jenny but I admire your tenacity...
See, I don't view this as a religious debate. I view it as a discussion about discrimination.
See, I don't view this as a religious debate. I view it as a discussion about discrimination.So treating this muslim police officer exactly same as everybody else is discrimination?
Jenny
09-13-2008, 12:59 PM
So treating this muslim police officer exactly same as everybody else is discrimination?
In this instance yes.
yoda57us
09-13-2008, 01:01 PM
See, I don't view this as a religious debate. I view it as a discussion about discrimination.
Well, sometimes you can not separate the two.
hockeybobby
09-13-2008, 01:04 PM
See, I don't view this as a religious debate. I view it as a discussion about discrimination.
The concept of "Reasonable Accommodation" seems (to me anyway) to be the most, well, reasonable way of dealing with this type of thing. A head scarf, and possibly even a face veil could be accommodated in some fashion, even if it involved not dealing with the public. A minority of the people polled above do not believe it should be accommodated for various reasons. This is how it went down with the Mountie turbans too at the time.
I wonder if the fact that it is a muslim thing/requirement makes it particularly hard to be generous about it? The US, and other nations, are at war with muslim extremists/jihadists. This is maybe an especially hard time to be accommodating to muslims, though I acknowledge that the fact that it is a muslim thing has not been cited in the reasons given. :thinking:
In this instance yes.
Lets get this straight. You are saying that people should be given preferential treatment due to their religion?
xdamage
09-13-2008, 01:30 PM
Lets get this straight. You are saying that people should be given preferential treatment due to their religion?
This is my argument in message #50 http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1706526&postcount=50
Although not really mine but my crappy re-interation of an argument made by others such as Dawkins. Of course Dawkins has a whole book to do it in. I had to do it in a few paragraphs. But in effect, it is a premise of our society, that if you believe in a supreme being, and enough others do too, and they can roughly agree on some rituals that the group must perform, then yes, our society believes we should make special accomidation for them.
Bob_Loblaw
09-13-2008, 01:36 PM
So treating this muslim police officer exactly same as everybody else is discrimination?
It's discrimination because she was suspended for her unwillingness to compromise her religious beliefs. Everybody else did not get suspended for refusing to compromise their religious beliefs. The fact the beliefs of everybody else may not be in conflict with the uniform policy does not equate to everyone receiving the same treatment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http://www.eeoc.gov/) (who enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)) has already sided with her.
From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The term "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and
practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is
unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective
employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the
conduct of the employer's business.
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.
Jenny
09-13-2008, 01:41 PM
Lets get this straight. You are saying that people should be given preferential treatment due to their religion?
No. I'm denying that different treatment under certain circumstances is preferential. Providing someone in a wheelchair with a ramp is not "preferential" because it was not provided to people capable of using stairs.
Bob_Loblaw
09-13-2008, 01:48 PM
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u282/BobLoblaw61191946/Hijab_100S81_3.jpg
Jenny
09-13-2008, 01:52 PM
The concept of "Reasonable Accommodation" seems (to me anyway) to be the most, well, reasonable way of dealing with this type of thing. A head scarf, and possibly even a face veil could be accommodated in some fashion, even if it involved not dealing with the public. A minority of the people polled above do not believe it should be accommodated for various reasons. This is how it went down with the Mountie turbans too at the time.
Very much so. It is about what can reasonably be demanded from the employer. Like if you have a club that is only open on Saturday (I can't imagine why) you can't really accommodate a 7th day adventist who requires Saturday off. If you have a club that is open 7 days a week and a policy that everyone must be available to work saturday - you can. The 7th day adventist is not getting "preferential treatment" because he is getting different treatment. She is getting what she needs.
I wonder if the fact that it is a muslim thing/requirement makes it particularly hard to be generous about it? The US, and other nations, are at war with muslim extremists/jihadists. This is maybe an especially hard time to be accommodating to muslims, though I acknowledge that the fact that it is a muslim thing has not been cited in the reasons given. :thinking:
I think probably. Also while people won't admit the conformity issue, I have a hard time believing it is not there. I think people have an easier time accepting for example the muslims if they are good western muslims who will integrate seamless and uncomplainingly into christian society. Like if they are willing to be muslims only in their own homes. There is something very offensive to some of us about seeing a muslim guy who wants to fit in, but on his own terms. Like - you know, we set the terms for fitting in, not you! You will do what we say, or you will remain an outsider.
yoda57us
09-13-2008, 02:00 PM
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
Thanks Bob
doc-catfish
09-13-2008, 02:25 PM
You know we could really draw a number of "what ifs" from this question, like what if a police officer (or any government worker) had a strong conviction against working on their religion's respective Sabbath. If my historical senses remember, a lot of folks were concerned about such when JFK was running for office.
I remember a case many years back where a police officer who happened to be devoutly Christian lost his job because he refused to protect access to an abortion clinic as he was ordered to do. Could we say that guy was being discriminated against too?
Sometimes people have to choose between their religious convictions and a secular job that may entail duties that said religious convictions may forbade. Thats just the way it is.
hockeybobby
09-13-2008, 02:31 PM
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u282/BobLoblaw61191946/Hijab_100S81_3.jpg
Here's what it looks like in Australia.
http://images.newsphotos.com.au/images2/Lores/17054156.jpg
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/26/27SUKKAR_ent-lead__200x257.jpg
from ninemsn.com.au
21:54 AEDT Fri Nov 26 2004
Maha Sukkar made Victoria Police history by becoming the force's first officer to wear the traditional Muslim headpiece. Constable Sukkar, who was born in Lebanon, came to Australia two years ago.
After graduating on Friday Constable Sukkar will take up a role with the transit police in February. "This is a very proud day for me and my family," she said. Constable Sukkar was closely involved in the design process for the newly developed velcro hijab, which she will wear on duty. The specially designed headwear had to be designed to meet both religious and occupational health and safety standards.
Constable Sukkar applied to join the police in 2002. She completed a Victoria Police Recruit Bridging Course at Adult Multicultural Education Services as part of the preparation for her entry into the police academy.
Here is an alternative look:
http://images.newsphotos.com.au/images2/Lores/20333209.jpg
Australian police officers will be still walking the beat in hijabs, after the Muslim head scarf was added to the acceptable uniform of one State force. NSW police would consider adding the hijab to the uniform, after West Australian police yesterday said it would allow the head scarf, in regulation police blue.
Assistant Commisioner Garry Dobson said there was no shortage of Muslims joining the force in NSW and none ever had asked to wear the hijab. “[But] if the hijab was a barrier to them applying , then we would look at it.” He said.
West Australian police added the Hijab and the turban to its uniform list in a bid to encourage more sikh and Muslim people to enlist. At yesterday’s announcement, police Commissioner Kari O’callaghan said the innovation was a milestone in the 152 year history of the WA force.
The new directive allows officers who have religious or cultural requirements to adapt their uniform to meet these needs. Suresh Rajan of the WA police ethnic advisory committee said it would make a difference. “People from these communities can look at the people in the police service representing them and feel some sort of affinity,” he said.
From: Muslimvillage.com (http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2004/11/26/27SUKKAR_ent-lead__200x257.jpg&imgrefurl=http://muslimvillage.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t7323.html&h=257&w=200&sz=10&hl=en&start=3&usg=__kuOcw12CAODzPtvSpF9eI3QzEgg=&tbnid=xGhgUHCOeZisLM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Daustralian%2Bmuslim%2Bpolicewoman%26g bv%3D2%26hl%3Den)
Jenny
09-13-2008, 02:43 PM
You know we could really draw a number of "what ifs" from this question, like what if a police officer (or any government worker) had a strong conviction against working on their religion's respective Sabbath. If my historical senses remember, a lot of folks were concerned about such when JFK was running for office.
I think religious convictions regarding working the sabbath should be accommodated. If it were to come to an issue that no government workers would work Sundays THEN you would have an argument that it could not be accommodated. Or are you concerned about veracity? Like that people who do not have religious requirement faking it?
I remember a case many years back where a police officer who happened to be devoutly Christian lost his job because he refused to protect access to an abortion clinic as he was ordered to do. Could we say that guy was being discriminated against too?
Interesting question. I think this is different than working the sabbath. Like I'm not sure that police officers should get to choose the victims of the cases they work. In this particular case I think he could have been accommodated, but in general I don't think you could reasonably accommodate a police officer who says "I have strong religious conviction about women and gays and therefore cannot serve and protect them as I would others." But it is the same question - is it a bona fide job requirement, can it be accommodated without violating or changing the basic nature of the job? I don't think anyone is really claiming that a hat is necessary or integral to the job; they just don't think religious difference should be accommodated on principle, not because it would make them less able police.
Sometimes people have to choose between their religious convictions and a secular job that may entail duties that said religious convictions may forbade. Thats just the way it is.
Sometimes they do, I agree (hard hats!). Not everything can always be accommodated. But I don't think they should have to do that unless it is integral and necessary to the job at hand.
hockeybobby
09-13-2008, 02:55 PM
You know we could really draw a number of "what ifs" from this question, like what if a police officer (or any government worker) had a strong conviction against working on their religion's respective Sabbath. If my historical senses remember, a lot of folks were concerned about such when JFK was running for office.
I remember a case many years back where a police officer who happened to be devoutly Christian lost his job because he refused to protect access to an abortion clinic as he was ordered to do. Could we say that guy was being discriminated against too?
Sometimes people have to choose between their religious convictions and a secular job that may entail duties that said religious convictions may forbade. Thats just the way it is.
Reasonable is the operative word. It seems it was still possible to accommodate the police officer:
Two courts have upheld the denial of requests by police officers to refuse to protect abortion clinics. A court held that the availability of a transfer to a district without an abortion clinic was a reasonable accommodation of a police officer’s request to refuse to protect an abortion clinic in his assigned district, but that the police department had no further obligation to accommodate the request if the officer chose to stay in a district with an abortion clinic. Rodriguez v. City of Chicago, 156 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 1998). Another court upheld a police department’s refusal of a police sergeant’s request to refuse to arrest any persons blocking access to abortion clinics, by holding that accommodating the request would be an undue hardship of potentially jeopardizing the “duty to uphold the law which has been passed by the people in order to protect society” and threatening the protection of “individuals inside abortion clinics from others’ interference with their legally protected rights.” Parrott v. District of Columbia, 1991 WL 126020 (D.D.C. 1991).
The whole big, long story (http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29127leg20070320.html)
Bob_Loblaw
09-13-2008, 03:14 PM
Here's what it looks like in Australia.
Good find hb. Sometimes a visual representation of what's being discussed is much better at establishing the context than trying to explain everything in words (i.e., a picture is worth a thousand words).
I remember a case many years back where a police officer who happened to be devoutly Christian lost his job because he refused to protect access to an abortion clinic as he was ordered to do. Could we say that guy was being discriminated against too?
No because he refused to do his job. The issue of officers wearing a head-covering does not interfere with their ability to protect the public.
lestat1
09-13-2008, 04:37 PM
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u282/BobLoblaw61191946/Hijab_100S81_3.jpg
That doesn't cover the face, and the only loss to identification would be hairstyle and color, but both of those are easily changed anyway by someone trying to go unnoticed. I don't see any big problem with leaving it on for a license photo.
cinammonkisses
09-13-2008, 04:49 PM
Yes they should be allowed to. Anybody can impersonate a police officer. And I'm certain a muslim trying to get away with impersonation is not going to be wearing her headscarf.
As for seperation fo church and state... I don't see them trying to force you to be a religion. I see police officers wearing crosses all the freaking time. Should they stop as well.. or is it only okay because they believe in Jesus? If someone is a police officer, they have gone through NUMEROUS checks to make sure they are safe to their surroundings. A headscarf or a cross isn't going to make them suddenly a horrible bomb-toting human being.
If you're going to take a Jew's Yarmulke, take the fuckin' Christian's crosses as well.
Fuck!!
But seriously, anybody willing to die defending what they believe in while wearing their belief in plain sight is okay by me. She's not hurting anyone. She's saying, "I am Muslim and you can hurt me for that - but I still choose to protect you and my country knowing full well I could be killed for who I am." That's a lot of freaking faith and I'll be standing near her in a gunfire, lemmetellyou. :thanx: I need to seriously get out of this thread before I explode! >:(
cinammonkisses
09-13-2008, 04:51 PM
A Muslim police officer in the US? No, she should wear the official uniform that every other police officer has to wear. If she is not happy with the regulations and policies that the job entails she may simply choose to do something else for a living.
There are muslims in the US military and they are allowed to cover. Same as men who are in the fire and police department. They wear Kufis (little hat muslim men wear) So what's the difference.
ahmeerah
09-13-2008, 04:54 PM
I would think that everyone should have to follow the same standard rules. I feel like police officers, service men and women should stick to the uniform. No one shown favoritism. Also, nothing should detract from what they're in service to do. Wouldn't want anything to make them a target.
It might be easier for me to say - I'd never take on a job that made me wear a uniform everyone else was wearing. ANd I'm not religious.
BUT women some muslim women who take my fitness classes take their head garment off for when they take class. I guess that's not really related though.
cinammonkisses
09-13-2008, 04:54 PM
It's discrimination because she was suspended for her unwillingness to compromise her religious beliefs. Everybody else did not get suspended for refusing to compromise their religious beliefs. The fact the beliefs of everybody else may not be in conflict with the uniform policy does not equate to everyone receiving the same treatment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (http://www.eeoc.gov/) (who enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html)) has already sided with her.
From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
The term "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and
practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is
unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee's or prospective
employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the
conduct of the employer's business.
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or
otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of
such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his
status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin.
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u282/BobLoblaw61191946/Hijab_100S81_3.jpg
Thanks again Bob! My blood pressure is going down now..:)
yoda57us
09-13-2008, 06:43 PM
There are muslims in the US military and they are allowed to cover. Same as men who are in the fire and police department. They wear Kufis (little hat muslim men wear) So what's the difference.
Well, there is "cover" and then there is cover. My initial take on this topic was that Muslim women wanted to be able to cover their faces. Seems I was wrong, at least according to examples that are being posted here. .
I have no problem with someone's headgear as long as it does not cover their face.
Lysondra
09-14-2008, 12:41 AM
Most Muslim women just cover their hair. The whole face thing I think is purely a country's standard, not a religions one. Maybe it's because my best friend growin up was Muslim I know this.. but she only covered her hair. Ever.
High-Heel-Lover
09-14-2008, 08:10 AM
Can someone educate me on why the head scarf? what does it represent?
Casual Observer
09-14-2008, 10:45 AM
^ Subservience to men and submission to their control, borne of the fear of women's sexuality. You can dress it up as modesty all day long, but the reality is that any headcovering for women from any religious cult--Jewish, Islamic or Catholic--is about controlling and subjugating women. Talk about anachronistic...
A Muslim police officer in the US? No, she should wear the official uniform that every other police officer has to wear. If she is not happy with the regulations and policies that the job entails she may simply choose to do something else for a living.
Indeed. An individual's religious requirement is not the organization's religious requirement.
Does no one find irony in the recent lawsuit in Minneapolis regarding Muslim Somalis protesting the wearing of protective garments and having to handle pork...in a meat-packing facility? Are they supposed to accommodate that as well?
xdamage
09-14-2008, 11:14 AM
Just to ensure people are on the same page here, the officer in question is fighting for the right to wear a khimar (http://www.muhajabah.com/khimar.htm) while on duty. A khimar covers the head but not the face. She is not fighting for the right to wear a veil.
Good point Bob.
In the end for me it is fine. For many people religion is part of their lives. Societies don't exist in vacuums. Without people, there are no societies. Societies are US, made by us, for us, constantly being redefined by US.
So if the majority want a religion, then it is by definition reasonable that accommodations be made for religious preferences. That doesn't mean people of religion should be given uncontrolled freedom to have anything they want. Absolute power corrupts and all and it is no less true of people who justify their wants for religious reasons... it means that it should be on the table, they should fight for it, others in society fight back, and compromises both can live with should be reached.
Jenny
09-14-2008, 11:16 AM
Does no one find irony in the recent lawsuit in Minneapolis regarding Muslim Somalis protesting the wearing of protective garments and having to handle pork...in a meat-packing facility? Are they supposed to accommodate that as well?
Depends. Are there reasonable alternatives to the protective gear? Is pork packed separately than say beef? Like can you assign such a person to a beef room? Is there such limited work that such a solution is untenable? I mean, the answer to these questions is always the same. If it can be reasonably accommodated, then it should be accommodated. Trying to find examples of where accommodation would be unreasonable won't undermine that. They are just examples of where accommodation is unreasonable.
hockeybobby
09-14-2008, 11:42 AM
Can someone educate me on why the head scarf? what does it represent?
Here is a pretty decent explanation:
Why do muslim women cover their heads? (http://www.islamic.org.uk/hijab.html)
PrettyCurlieQ
09-14-2008, 12:01 PM
I think for her own safety she should wear the same as any other uniformed officer, otherwise they're not very uniform, right? But in any other case, like if she's a detective or whatever where you wear street clothes, she should be able to. Unless the policy is to wear whatever head gear you deem fit, she should follow the rules. Just like Officer Joe can't wear a baseball hat with his uniform. I realize religion and sports are not the same, but you can't blur the line in just one case and expect precedent not to be set.
High-Heel-Lover
09-14-2008, 05:44 PM
So it is to not call attention to the opposite sex in a sexual manner.
TheSexKitten
09-15-2008, 02:55 PM
^ Subservience to men and submission to their control, borne of the fear of women's sexuality.
Wrong and right. :)
"Many believe that the veil is a way to secure personal liberty in a world that objectifies women. Several women have argued that hijab allows them freedom of movement and control of their bodies. Understood in such terms, hijab protects women from the male gaze and allows them to become autonomous subjects. Others have argued that the veil only provides the illusion of protection and serves to absolve men of the responsibility for controlling their behavior." -
It's a personal judgment call. Either way, the motivation behind wearing the head covering has little to do with refusal of an employer to accommodate her religious expression.
Does no one find irony in the recent lawsuit in Minneapolis regarding Muslim Somalis protesting the wearing of protective garments and having to handle pork...in a meat-packing facility? Are they supposed to accommodate that as well?
This is ridiculous. As in the law Bob posted, if the accommodation would significantly hinder a worker's job performance, the company is not under obligation to allow the request. However, in this case, it's not unreasonable for her to ask to cover her hair with a cloth.
threlayer
09-17-2008, 01:37 PM
Odd that the newer Muslims coming into this country wear that, while the first generations of them (those whose kids are senior citizens now) never did that traditional thing. Seems that those people are a lot more conservative than their predecessors. To me that's odd, and shows inability to assimilate well; that's worldwide too.
threlayer
09-17-2008, 01:47 PM
"Many believe that the veil is a way to secure personal liberty in a world that objectifies women. Several women have argued that hijab allows them freedom of movement and control of their bodies. Understood in such terms, hijab protects women from the male gaze and allows them to become autonomous subjects. Others have argued that the veil only provides the illusion of protection and serves to absolve men of the responsibility for controlling their behavior."
Their belief is that of sexual modesty - it is a statement that this womkan is NOT available sexually. They only take it off indoors and then only in front of family.
I would give the uninformed that the officer is going to be demure and not aggressive enough. That scarf is bound to get in the way of watching out for dangerous things. Thus it is a job hazard.
Further, if I saw a cop wearing that or, say, a turban I would wonder what kind of nationalistic statement that cop is making. And I know already what the skinhead cops are 'saying'.
TheSexKitten
09-17-2008, 02:23 PM
Further, if I saw a cop wearing that or, say, a turban I would wonder what kind of nationalistic statement that cop is making.
At least we finally get down to the real meat of the issue!
Lysondra
09-17-2008, 02:28 PM
Did you just compare a muslim to a skinhead? :O
Bob_Loblaw
09-17-2008, 10:55 PM
Further, if I saw a cop wearing that or, say, a turban I would wonder what kind of nationalistic statement that cop is making.
That cop is not making a nationalistic statement at all because no nation is being represented. Religion crosses over the invisible lines we refer to as borders.
I would give the uninformed that the officer is going to be demure and not aggressive enough. That scarf is bound to get in the way of watching out for dangerous things. Thus it is a job hazard.
I'll have to disagree here. My understanding of the idea behind modesty for women has more to do with the intention to protect men from themselves (i.e., temptation). A women who aims to be modest does not equate to a woman who is demure.
Did you just compare a muslim to a skinhead? :O
No, threlayer was referring to the opinions of racist cops regarding this issue.
kitana
09-18-2008, 08:14 AM
What about requiring Jews to work on the Sabbath? Can Jews just take a break from being fire fighters? or police? or working in hospital? because it is the Sabbath day? The rest of our society doesn't stop on that day. Criminals don't stop committing crimes. Fire are started. People are sick. Now it is a tougher matter because all of their peers have to work those days. Further, chances are if a Jewish person living in our culture breaks a bone, or house caught fire, or he was attacked, on the Sabbath day, would expect someone to be working and to help him.
Honestly though, the main thing to remember in Judaism (besides G-d of course!) is preservation of life and protection of life.
So YES, it is fine for Jewish peoples to work on the Sabbath if their job is preserving life.
Anyway, back on topic, no I do NOT think she should be allowed to work with her scarf. She knew the job uniform when she started in 95, the same year she converted (suspicious IMO, but I do have a tin foil hat), she made the decision to go ahead with both aspects of her life even though they were opposing.
And WHY THE FUCK is it just NOW being brought to our attention 13 years later?!
kitana
09-18-2008, 08:17 AM
I know, but it remains a gray area.
What if she/he is just being called in to do paper work? Or to be on the job in case of a fire but no lives will be lost only property? Or at facility not to save lives but to provide care to the needy, but they wouldn't die either if they missed it for a day? Or if the fellow officer would not die, but would just remain in a lot of discomfort until help arrives?
Doesn't matter, they didn't know that going in. There are varying "levels" (if you will) of Judaism, and the most strict are very strict, and reform is very lax about most everything, including dietary laws, and Shabbot.
threlayer
09-18-2008, 02:52 PM
Did you just compare a muslim to a skinhead? :O
Read again. That was NO comparison. It was about impressions a person could get.
threlayer
09-18-2008, 02:56 PM
That cop is not making a nationalistic statement at all because no nation is being represented. Religion crosses over the invisible lines we refer to as borders. Nations are not countries. You could say that all the Arab countries are one nation. And old Yugoslavia used to be several nations.
I'll have to disagree here. My understanding of the idea behind modesty for women has more to do with the intention to protect men from themselves (i.e., temptation)...
That would be your own understanding. But in the teachings of Islam what I said is correct. And the demure thing is another's impression, not she may really be like. Impressions are important to maintain authority.
No, threlayer was referring to the opinions of racist cops regarding this issue. Almost correct.
TheSexKitten
09-18-2008, 06:11 PM
Nations are not countries. You could say that all the Arab countries are one nation. And old Yugoslavia used to be several nations.
Funny, considering there are Muslims (Islam is a religion, not a nation) scattered throughout India, Western Europe, North Africa, US/Can, Southeast Asia, etc...
Also, when you say the head scarf would make the woman more demure, your reasoning is flawed. The woman is either demure or not regardless of whether she is wearing her head scarf (perhaps less so if she feels covered and comfortable), and how would she pass through police officer training if she really were too demure to be an officer?
Lucy in the Sky
09-18-2008, 07:47 PM
I vote yes. I would have voted yes anyway but the pictures in post #67 confirm to me there is no reasonable cause to not allow it.
threlayer
09-19-2008, 05:47 AM
Funny, considering there are Muslims (Islam is a religion, not a nation) scattered throughout India, Western Europe, North Africa, US/Can, Southeast Asia, etc...
Also, when you say the head scarf would make the woman more demure, your reasoning is flawed. The woman is either demure or not regardless of whether she is wearing her head scarf (perhaps less so if she feels covered and comfortable), and how would she pass through police officer training if she really were too demure to be an officer?
I was using a metaphor about Arabs, not Muslims. Muslims in large numbers range from Indonesia thru southern Asia onto West Africa. Believe me, I know about their extent; I've been there, or where I haven't been, I've met and talked with people from there. Also if you read the definition (*below) of 'nation', you will see what I'm saying. It was just an auxiliary point anyhow.
My reasoning, once again, about the hair covering is about initial impressions; of course if one does not see that because of other headgear, the point is moot. Also if one does not understand the meaning of the head covering, it is also moot. But due to so much involvement in Muslim practices, I suspect that many people, including those about to come under police directives, would understand what it signifies. Their initial reaction might be to assume she, at least if alone, has less power and can be easily dismissed; so they might act more aggressively than they would against an officer on traditional garb.
I am talking mostly about safety issues due to exposure to criminal elements, not about what that person is really like. Do not get that confused with discrimination somehow.
________________
* NATION: "Though "nation" is also commonly used in informal discourse as a synonym for state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State) or country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country), a nation is not identical to a state. The people of a nation-state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state) consider themselves a nation, united in the political and legal structure of the State." Excerpted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation
mr_punk
09-19-2008, 08:42 PM
fuck no. no, turbans, taqiyah (kufi) or yarmulkes while on duty.
TheSexKitten
09-20-2008, 11:40 AM
Aww, yarmulkes wouldn't even be visible under a cop hat. :( How about we ban crosses then? It's either all PC or nothing, you can't have a little of both.
threlayer
09-20-2008, 09:02 PM
I'm sure dreadlocks are generally hazardous. Anything that allows the head to be pulled around is dangerous in that kind of job, as well as in work about machinery. Besides the practice is, well, stupid and medieval. IMO.
mr_punk
09-21-2008, 03:57 AM
Aww, yarmulkes wouldn't even be visible under a cop hat. How about we ban crosses then? It's either all PC or nothing, you can't have a little of both.i don't want both. i'm fine with banning crosses as well.
TheSexKitten
09-21-2008, 11:35 AM
Besides the practice is, well, stupid and medieval. IMO.
It's just a cloth wrapped around the neck and head.