U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 5,416,464 times
Reputation: 1613

Advertisements

California: Muslim defendant sues county over hijab removal in jail - Jihad Watch

"The 11-0 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit by Souhair Khatib against Orange County, where officers made her take off her hijab for security reasons while she was held in the cell to await a court hearing."

Well, at least its the 9th circuit court so we know that they'll be overturned as they always are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:34 AM
 
43 posts, read 13,376 times
Reputation: 10
Terrible decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 10:35 AM
 
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
14,095 posts, read 23,009,013 times
Reputation: 7957
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
California: Muslim defendant sues county over hijab removal in jail - Jihad Watch

"The 11-0 decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit by Souhair Khatib against Orange County, where officers made her take off her hijab for security reasons while she was held in the cell to await a court hearing."

Well, at least its the 9th circuit court so we know that they'll be overturned as they always are.
Idiot every one of them. You go to jail then jail security over rules your freedom of religion if it represents a security threat or could be used to commit suicide. Everyone with an legal sense should know this. Says a lot about this court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:01 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,158,127 times
Reputation: 589
Before we all go nuts over what some third party anti-Islamic website has to say, let's actually look at what the Ninth Circuit said, shall we?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/08-56423.pdf

In this case, a Muslim woman (Khatib) was held in a pre-hearing detention at the Santa Ana courthouse. At the booking counter, an officer asked Khatib to take off her headscarf. She said it would violate her religious beliefs, and did not want to do it. Under threat of having the headscarf taken off her physically, Khatib reluctantly did it herself. She was released several hours later, complaining that she suffered immense discomfort, distress and humiliation.

In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Part of this law prohibits state and local governments from imposing “a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution” unless the government demonstrates that imposing that burden “is the least restrictive means” of furthering “a compelling governmental interest.”

The lower court dismissed the case because they held that the pre-trial detention area was not an institution under the definition of the Act; the Ninth Circuit unanimously disagreed with that. They reversed the district court's decision and remanded it back to the district court to continue the case. It is possible that on remand, the government might argue that removing the headscarf was a means of ensuring prisoner and officer safety, but the facts on the record as stated by the court suggest that the officers did not make any substantial effort to use the least restrictive means of achieving that goal. They could have had a female officer take Khatib to a separate room to inspect the headscarf before bringing her back to the detention cell, allowing her to keep her headscarf on while in there.

If this case involved a woman who was actually in a state jail or prison, there would have been no question that Khatib would have been allowed to keep the headscarf. The issue on the appeal was only whether or not the pre-hearing detention facility counted as an institution under the Act of Congress. I hope that this post helps to stop people from complaining about sharia being implemented in this country, or that the courts all have a pro-Muslim bias, but I doubt that many posters in this thread will do much more than read the title and then post an anti-Islam one liner and leave.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Neither here nor there
14,810 posts, read 13,581,940 times
Reputation: 32926
“a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution”

Personally, I don't see removing a head scarf as imposing a substantial burden on a religious exercise.

Now if they had prohibited her from praying, I would agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,136,638 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach View Post
“a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution”

Personally, I don't see removing a head scarf as imposing a substantial burden on a religious exercise.

Now if they had prohibited her from praying, I would agree.
I have to tell you... I have absolutely nothing good to say about Islam.

But in truth, the public removal of the hijaab is, in Islam, the commission of a sin.

That's pretty substantial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:15 PM
 
6,486 posts, read 5,491,784 times
Reputation: 1267
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
I have to tell you... I have absolutely nothing good to say about Islam.

But in truth, the public removal of the hijaab is, in Islam, the commission of a sin.

That's pretty substantial.
There are a lot of things that people claim they need to do for their religion that violates other people's rights, or can compromise security in jail. While we should attempt to respect religion, if it causes a safety issue, the rights of the individual to practice their religion should be trumped in this case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:19 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,158,127 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach View Post
“a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution”

Personally, I don't see removing a head scarf as imposing a substantial burden on a religious exercise.

Now if they had prohibited her from praying, I would agree.
You may be right. However, this is a case about a person's free exercise of religion. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Khatib's right to free exercise was subject to the Act of Congress. If this is a case about somebody being deprived of their right to free exercise of religion, then the government must meet a strict scrutiny standard; meaning that they used the least restrictive means possible to meet a compelling governmental interest.

The county may have a strong argument that ensuring the safety of officers and fellow detainees in the pre-hearing detention cells is a compelling interest, but even then, the county also has to show that it used the least restrictive means possible to achieve that goal of detainee and officer safety. As I stated in my previous post, there was at least one way to be significantly less restrictive than having a male officer force Khatib to take off her headscarf in front of a big group of male officers and prisoners who were strangers, which was a violation of her religious beliefs. Further, the Act of Congress explicitly stated that any ambiguities in the law are to be resolved “in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted.”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,136,638 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvinist View Post
There are a lot of things that people claim they need to do for their religion that violates other people's rights, or can compromise security in jail. While we should attempt to respect religion, if it causes a safety issue, the rights of the individual to practice their religion should be trumped in this case.
Agreed completely. I am certainly no fan of the hijaab.

But as you appear to concede there are competing imperatives here. That is why we have courts... to settle them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 12:24 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,193,311 times
Reputation: 17979
Nineth circuit says it all;the most overturned in the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top