Well, off hand I'd say the police have a right to identify people if there is a problem, as is said whether it is a veil or a helmet or scarf or whatever.
Printable View
Well, off hand I'd say the police have a right to identify people if there is a problem, as is said whether it is a veil or a helmet or scarf or whatever.
I agree the police should be able to identify people, but this particular law seems to be specifically designed and timed to target one sub section of society as a way of state sanctioned discrimination.
Here we go again:
CORINNE LESTCH AND BILL HUTCHINSON, DAILY NEWS WRITERS Report:
Rye Playland was shut down Tuesday after cops scuffled with Muslims upset that women wearing head scarves were barred from the rides, witnesses said.
Fifteen people, including three women, were charged with disorderly conduct and assault in the chaos, authorities said.
The Westchester County park was packed with Muslims celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr - the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
One woman, Entisai Ali, began arguing with cops over the amusement park's head scarf, or hijab, rule, said Dena Meawad, 18, of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn.
The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.
"The cops started getting loud with her and she started getting loud, too. They pushed her on the ground and arrested her," Meawad said.
Her cousin, Kareem Meawad, 17, went to try to protect the woman and was beaten by cops and also arrested, she added. Her brother, Issam Meawad, 20, was pushed to the ground and taken into custody when he tried to help his cousin, she said.
"She just wanted to get on a ride. That was it," Dena Meawad said of the initial confrontation. "It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim."
John Hodges, chief inspector of Westchester County Public Safety, insisted that police did not use excessive force.
He said up to 100 cops from surrounding departments converged on the park.
Two park rangers were injured in the melee, prompting felony assault charges against two people arrested, officials said.
The ugly incident happened just after 1 p.m. The event was organized by the Muslim American Society of New York, and attracted 3,000 Muslims from Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Westchester County.
Ali's sister, Ayman Alrabah, 24, of Brooklyn said her husband, brother and father were all tackled by cops and put into handcuffs when they tried to help her sister.
Alrabah said she was unaware of the head-scarf rule until she and her sister tried to get on the park's Dragon Coasters.
"We requested a refund and all of a sudden an argument became a riot," Alrabah said. "Cops came. They were hitting my brother, my dad. My husband was on the floor and they were handcuffing him.
She said her 4-year-old son was "traumatized" by seeing his father arrested.
"They treated us like animals, like we were nothing," Alrabah said. "They came with their dogs and sticks. We came to have fun."
'It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim,' says Dena Meawad. (Norman Y. Lono for NY Daily News)
The park was closed for about two hours because of the fracas. It reopened at about 6 p.m.
Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of Westchester County Parks, said the Muslim American Society of New York was warned in advance of the rule barring head scarves on rides for safety reasons.
"Part of our rules and regulations, which we painstakingly told them over and over again, is that certain rides you cannot wear any sort of headgear," Tartaglia said. "It's a safety issue for us on rides, it could become a projectile."
Many Muslims were given refunds as they left the park disappointed.
"In this heightened state of Islamaphobia, a woman wearing a hajib is an easy target these days," said Zead Ramadan, president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York. "Unfortunately, this turned ugly due to a lot of miscommunication."
Lots of things wrong went on here.
First off, the park had rules regarding the wearing of headgear on certain rides, for safety reasons. So refusing to allow anyone wearing a hat, or a scarf, or a hajib, was a SAFETY issue, not a religious one.
Second, the woman involved made a mistake by verbally attacking cops. Never a good idea to start with.
Third, the cops over-reacted as well, forcing the woman to the ground and assaulting her. As well as assaulting those who came to help her. And yes, there was probably a certain amount of Islamophobia involved in the police reaction. We've all seen videos of cops over-reacting, kicking and beating an apparently submissive suspect. It happens, and should be dealt with within the law.
Screaming "religious discrimination" just because a safety issue happens to interfere with your superstitious* need to wear a scarf is just as inane as getting mad because a restaurant won't let you dine naked. You don't like the rules, don't patronize the business.
* Yes, denuseri, I know you think that's condescending. I don't care. It's no less a superstition than a ball player making the sign of the cross before an at bat, or carrying a lucky penny. It might make the person feel better, but has no bearing on anything that actually happens in their lives. Except in cases like this where clinging to your superstition violates a business' rules.
Just chiming in...Rye Playland often shows up in the news as the site of death and serious injury due to their sketchy machinery and safety policies. I find it suspicious that the park informed the group that those wearing hijab wouldn't be able to ride any of the rides and yet the two parties still managed to come to a paid agreement. In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty. This incident seems like pretty clear cut religious discrimination to my atheist eyes -- especially as it comes at the end of Ramadan and 9/11 approaches.
No Thorn for your statement to be condescending you would need to hold a superior position, which you do not, and I am fully aware that you do not care, since only your beliefs are valid in your eyes... and as 13 so aptly pointed out its got nothing to do with superstition in the first place. Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.
If it was clearly pointed out before hand that no headgear could be worn on the rides, and both parties agreed, I don't see how it can be called discrimination. I've seen plenty of other places which require the removal of headgear, for safety reasons, and for all patrons. Should I feel discriminated against because my bank requires me to remove my hat and sunglasses when I enter the building?Quote:
Originally Posted by thirteen
It's an act of modesty which is REQUIRED by a superstition. Whether the superstition is religious or cultural in nature is irrelevant. Kind of like that old fashion statement about not wearing white after Labor Day. It only has relevance if you choose to grant that relevance. Otherwise it's just an annoying fad.Quote:
In addition I wouldn't call wearing hijab a superstitious act. It's an act of modesty.
Not true. Any beliefs which are based in reality are valid, though it's hard to categorize them as beliefs if they are reality. Gravity doesn't require belief, does it? It works whether you choose to believe or not. Believing in things which are unreal, or irrational, or based solely on wishful thinking, whether religious or not, would qualify as invalid in my eyes, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
I am not trying to insult anyone. I am merely stating that a belief in something which cannot be proven to exist, which cannot even be tested, and which has no explanatory value in the real world is, by its very nature, a superstition. If you disagree then you only need to show the evidence that the rabbit's foot in your pocket really does change your luck.Quote:
Insulting; yet again, every single person who believes in or adheres to a belief in something that's religious in nature as usual...clearly makes one no better really than the other Islam-a-phoebes and would be discriminators.
Additionally the wearing or not of particular pieces of clothing has more to do with culture than religion.
As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.
Doesn't matter. If the park rules forbid it, you either follow the rules or don't patronize the park.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Nice way to throw in your two cents worth and close the door at the same time. But yeah, I agree, this isn't the place. But then, I wasn't the one who hijacked the thread in the first place, was I?Quote:
As for beliefs in things that have no basis in reality...like atheism...which also has no way to prove itself any more than said rabbits foot....that's a topic best left for oh say any one of the other threads on that subject of which there are several don't you think? ...instead of using it to hijack yet another discussion just because it mentions the word religion.
My point was that I doubted the clarity of the communication. Yet even if the rule was clearly communicated, the rule itself still seems to be discriminatory. I don't know of any other major amusement park that forbids hijab. It seems doubly unacceptable as this park is owned and funded by Westchester County. What I was trying to suggest with the mention of death at the park is that Rye Playland doesn't take safety policies seriously - except apparently in the case of women wearing hijab. Westchester County is in Long Island, many people in Long Island go to work in NYC. Many people in Long Island are also white, and patriotic Christians -- you know, proper Americans. Numerous women wearing hijab, in their all American amusement parks? Right before 9/11? There are a lot people, a lot of cops in Long Island who would feel frightened/threatened/angered by such an idea.
Certainly I personally agree that organized religion is silly but this "riot" still seems to me an extremely poorly handled clash of culture and religion. The whole affair and all of the debate it has sparked has so far only served to once again highlight the depth of Islamic fear and discrimination in this country. Instead of saying kudos to the police for beating and arresting them crazy Muslims before they did something terrible like wearing a scarf on an old rickety 1950s roller coaster there are other more positive and less violent ways to approach this situation. I sincerely hope that Westchester County takes this opportunity to bring the communities together instead of pushing them further apart.
thirteen,
I understand what you're saying, and I agree that the whole incident was badly mishandled by all parties involved. And believe me, I have no sympathy for cops feeling "frightened/threatened/angered" by people because of their religious/cultural beliefs. But I also have no sympathy for those who cling to such irrational beliefs. "When in Rome" and all that. What I find ironic is that in some of the homelands of these Islamic people a woman without the hijab, whether Muslim or not, would be arrested and thrown into prison, and these same people who complain of discrimination would have no problem with such acts. The idea that "You must respect my idiotic beliefs, but don't expect me to respect your idiotic beliefs" just doesn't hold any water for me. What will bring communities together is to toss aside the old customs, for both sides, and establish new customs that all can live with.
And I still say that, based upon what I read in the article, the Muslim group was informed beforehand that the hajibs would not be permitted. They could have declined to spend their money at the park if such rules offended them. By going into the park anyway and then making a scene about it they were instigating the disruption.
For many "Islamic" people (Muslims), homeland is America. Where their families past is as close to them as a white American with an Irish background. They may celebrate a little more on St. Patty's, but that doesn't make them representatives of Ireland or in anyway linked to the current state of that country. As for Muslims who have no problem with arresting women who are hijab-less, has there been a major push to enact a mandatory hijab law by any Muslims here? Why do you think that just because it happens in their parent's land, or even in the country they lived in the past, that they condone it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I have no idea what happened in that park, and I have faith in local law officials in their duty to serve and protect. Personally, I don't like burqa's in North America, but a woman wearing one is as much part of America then the girl wearing a string bikini on a beach that same day.
Most attire worn by men and women around the world has had a scientific reason attached to it. We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners. Burqa started off as means to protect the eyes and face of women as they traveled through the sandy deserts. Burqa, started off in the second century as a means to show class and status as well, since only those with riches could afford to cover their women with so much cloth. That too, only the urban women were veiled. Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success. Men, with their low life confidence, insecurity and maturity decided to keep the tradition on. Personally, I feel the Burqa represents oppression of one's freedom of speech, freedom of movement and every other. It, to me, is demeaning for any women and none should be forced to go through it. One can argue that wearing is a Burqa is religious and to impose a ban on the Burqa is imposing the freedom of practicing religion. But that comment is flawed. Consider this scenario: A new religion is born that professes wearing no clothes ever. Would that be acceptable to the society as a whole? Would you stand next to a naked man shopping for tomatoes in a super market? I'm sure I would be uncomfortable. As uncomfortable as it makes me standing next to a women wearing a Burqa. It represents oppression, slavery without a choice, and is nothing short of humiliation to women all over the world.
Not necessarily scientific, but at least a rational reason. There have been many such rational reasons for many different practices which, over the centuries, have become entrenched in dogma. The real reasons for doing those things have been forgotten, and they are done only because it's the way they've always been done. Even though there is now no rational reason for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroFly
The reasons for wearing jeans are almost as numerous as the different brands, but none of them are considered to be requirements (except by those enslaved to the fashion dictates of designers). And they are certainly not FORCED upon half of the population by the other half of the population.Quote:
We wear Jeans because its the most convenient fabric, though it started off as a tough cloth for the miners.
That's because the clerics have made it an integral part of the religion, with disobedience resulting in death. Remove the stranglehold of religion and the problem disappears. Not as simple as it sounds, I know.Quote:
Several rulers from Iran and Egypt have tried to get rid of it, without much success.
It's not just the clerics or any one group propagating the wearing of traditional clothing.
I didn't mean to imply that it was. It's both a cultural and a religious dogma. It's a tossup as to whether the religious dogma is descended from the cultural mores or vice versa, but when the only choice is to submit to the dogma or die, you'll find few who will fight it.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Even if they (religion and culture) sometimes seem as if they are hopelessly tangled together, at least in so far as certain traditional practices are concerned...doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?
Removing religion isn't a feasible solution to this cultural issue imho.
To my mind, the French law is discriminatory on racist, religious and gender grounds and is deliberately provocative. It attacks the weakest members of the section of society it wishes to marginalise, knowing that the radical leaders (male) will respond to that provocation, while the moderates will have no option but to submit.
And who's concept of "decency" should we use? The group that claims it's indecent for a woman to show any skin below the neck? Or the group that thinks it's okay for anyone to walk around naked if they so choose? WHO gets to define what's "decent"? And while I agree that the French law is aimed at Muslim women in particular, isn't it true that it applies to ALL people in France?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Removing religion may not be feasible, but eliminating the power of religion to rule those who are not subscribed to that religion is not only feasible but mandatory. We have to put religion back in the box where it belongs. Keep it in the churches, and in your home if you wish. It does not belong in public or government.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
ANY law which limits the actions of a minority group, for whatever reasons, is going to be viewed as discriminatory, regardless of the validity (or not) of the reasons for such law. In this case, removing the chance for criminals to hide behind veils is a valid justification for this law. The fact that it steps on the toes of religious extremists is just a bonus.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
And yet different religions are indeed and have always been key components to almost every government of the past and many of the present. And not just because they are being shy-locked or something silly....the majority because the people who practice those faiths wish for it to be that way where they live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
Yeah, and just look how well THAT'S worked out!Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Why should religious cultures get special preference? And who says those preferences aren't hurting anyone? Do you believe that ALL Muslim women really WANT to wear the burka? How many of them, if given the choice without fear of repercussions, would choose to discard it in favor of something else? How many Muslims would denounce their religion if they didn't have to fear death, the "religious preference" for apostasy?Quote:
If the French practice freedom of religion...they should perhaps also practice respect and tolerance of the various religions cultural preferences when it doesn't hurt anyone else.
No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance.
"No, ANY religious culture which controls through fear and murder does not deserve any special treatment, other than ridicule and legal attacks. It certainly doesn't deserve respect OR tolerance. "
I understand the point that you are trying to make here. I understand the thought behind it. However, as I try to understand different religions across the human race, I wonder how many can we really find as such. Every religion requires the believers to follow certain traditions, certain norms, certain rules. This eventually, come from either the priests or the higher echelons of that religion. Spiritual blackmail is an integral part of most religions as I know it. 'Do good or you will go to hell' or 'Its a war and you must bomb and kill thousands, for you will have angels waiting for you in heaven' or ' Praise the lord and he will forgive all your sins ( even if you have murdered 14 children and women)' or ' You will go to hell, if you choose not to wear a burqa and disgrace god' - they all sound the same across all religions.
These are the two problems that I see:Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
1) What you wear should be optional for everybody, regardless.
But in some countries you are forced to wear for instance the burka, in others you are forced not to. Some women have claimed that they Will wear the burka as a statement of identity, but they are, I think, very few. I think the main problem is in the states where you Have to wear it, as part of the general rule set for women.
2) There is a security and cultural problem with the burka, overlooking that does not help.
The security problem is obvious - there are situtations where you might be asked to lift it for identification, or where you cannot wear it, as in places with high security. The other problem is situations where people want to see the faces on the persons they are dealing with. If we are talking dentists or doctors or the like anyone can choose, but if we are talking police, official clerks, judges, teachers, hospital staff etc then you have a right to see people's faces - that is what I think.
Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
doesn't it make more sense to simply have no laws concerning what someone wears so long as it applies universally or regionally on some kind of decency scale and leave all the rest up to personal preference?...as opposed to making laws specifically designed to isolate and increase cultural tensions?
The problem is that there is no universal decency scale. You either regulate, according to whatever, or let people choose for themselves.
I'm not talking about 'spiritual blackmail', but real, mortal danger. The standard sentence for renouncing Islam is death. The standard punishment for offending Islam is death. Not hell, not Allah's displeasure, but real death. Execution, when they can get away with it, assassination if you are in a non-Islamic country. There have been other religions, including Christianity, which have practiced similar penalties in the past. The leaders of these religions are not concerned with any spiritual punishment, but with maintaining control, and in many cases the only way to do that is to kill those who do not agree with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroFly
As an atheist, I deny the existence of gods, I deny the existence of an afterlife. Therefore religious leaders no longer have and 'spiritual blackmail' with which to try to control me. In much of the modern world, of course, I am protected by the same laws which protect those who practice religion. But in some parts of this world, simply denying the existence of the local gods is punishable by death. Simply speaking against the religious leaders is punishable by death. Obviously these religious leaders have no faith in the 'spiritual' punishments of their deities, and resort to physical punishments as a means of maintaining control.
ANY law which helps to reduce that stranglehold is, in my opinion, a good law. It does nothing to harm the followers of any religious cult, but does weaken the power of the leaders of those cults. It is the leaders of the Muslims in France who are most threatened by this law, not the women who will be liberated by it.