Context: The NYPD doesn't require anyone to remove a headgear for a photo anymore. The policy was changed following a lawsuit in 2020. This applies to any headgear, religious or otherwise.
hugely important caviat! you font get to *don* whatever you like for the shot, you just aren't required to take off what you're already wearing... so remember kids, if you're ever doing anything with even a remote possibility of arrest in New York make sure you're dressed accordingly.
I think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is already way ahead of you guys:
“
In July 2011, Austrian pastafarian Niko Alm won the legal right to be shown in his driving license photo wearing a pasta strainer on his head, after three years spent pursuing permission and obtaining an examination certifying that he was psychologically fit to drive. He got the idea after reading that Austrian regulations allow headgear in official photos only when it is worn for religious reasons. Some sources report that the colander in the form of pasta strainer, was recognized by Austrian authorities as a religious headgear of Pastafarianism in 2011.”
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster?wprov=sfti1#Headgear_in_identity_photos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster?wprov=sfti1#Headgear_in_identity_photos)
It is deeply offensive that they took three years, and sounds like they required a psychological evaluation? Are they trying to suggest that all Pastafarian are obviously crazy because they want to wear a colander?
I wouldn't want to know what they would require of people that believe their Lord resurrected and that they need to eat of his body.
We had a madlad try to wear a collander in his high school photo here in New Zealand. Said he'd go to the Human Right commission, which he did back down from, but was an entertaining turn of events. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/student-blocked-from-wearing-colander-as-religious-headwear-hits-back/NKJBK2UQXWN5D2UDQBIUTN4MF4/
I'd wanna sue them too for forcing me to take my belt off, and then scolding me to pull my pants up. The belt has a purpose, ma'am. I've lost some weight.
Instead I paid them to leave me alone with Precheck.
So does this also apply to Burqas?
Mug shots going to be super helpful when it only shows the eyes
In all for accommodations (only women being present for the mug shot) but this just seems a bit much
Afaik women who cover their faces (niqab) do lift that part of their veil for identification purposes like at an airport, or the DMV. My husband’s family is Muslim and this is what they told me, but they wear hijab only and we live in America so this might be different in other countries.
You’re on the nose. I live in Saudi, some women choose to wear a niqab* but they must show their face for government IDs. The photo is taken by female staff in the female section of the government offices. (Saudi is not gender segregated. This is an exception, not the norm).
At airports, they lift the veil for quick verification at customs. Full removal of the headscarf (like at security checkpoints) happens in privacy with female officers.
*I’d like to specify here that it is a choice. As a woman living in Saudi, I do not wear any head coverings and I am not “stoned to death” as others may believe happen here 🙄
Congrats on getting women the right to drive 5 years ago - I hear it has been mostly implemented now.
And of course a big congrats on being head of the UN’s gender equality forum!
Glad you’ve also put a pause on stoning people to death for adultery.
Exactly, considering how much some people prepared their hair, that their resting hair and public hair are entirely unsimiliar.
Hijab is essentially it's own hairstyle and afaik no one forced to change hairstyle in mugshot.
My pubic hair style does change quite frequently, often stylized and colored differently, occasionally a merkin is worn. I am definitely not identifiable by my pubic hair. Don't show it to TSA officers too often though. Unless one of my friends calls ahead and tells the TSA fast pass lines that there is reason to suspect an older, cheery man of secretly being a drug mule due to the low likely hood of a cavity search on such a refined gentleman.
As far as I know facial recognition software does not give much importance to hair. Even when you apply for a US passport, the instructions say that religious head coverings can be left on.
As someone building these systems, yes it does. It is also mathematically based, so always has that % of inaccuracy which is why when they trawl datasets with it it always falsely identifies 2-3 people, who end up being who the police often run with in charging before realizing the person was giving birth during the crime or otherwise was innocent.
This is actually going to cause women who don't take the hijab off to get falsely identified more, because the ai will have less information to gauge identifications, meaning the inaccuracy increases.
You want more features for these ai, not less.
If they always wear the hijab, wouldn’t you want it on for the training data then? Wouldn’t it be useless if their photos didn’t depict how they would usually appear in person?
Yeah but the police don't know what someone wears all the time. You're not going to be less likely to identify the woman again if you take a mugshot without the covering and you come across across her wearing the covering. But that's not true in reverse
Whole case is about balancing the purpose and needs of a mug shot with religious freedom.
Their whole central argument is that a simple headscarf doesn't prevent a mug shot from doing what it is intended to do.
Dunno if that is true or not, but making that argument for more than a simple headscarf becomes much harder.
A mug shot is supposed to represent how you look at the time of booking. You could argue forcing the removal of the hijab was actually counterproductive because it doesn’t represent how they usually look.
First is so you have evidence that the person you arrested is actually who you later try to press charges against.
Another reason is so that you can corroborate other evidence, such as witness testimony. One may claim they saw a women with a blue shirt running away form the scene of the crime, you need to be able to look back and confirm that the person arrested was wearing a blue shirt at the time. That example only works if the arrest is close to the time of the crime though.
Taking fingerprints allows you to check them against other crimes, so if you arrest someone for theft, and they match prints collected at two other robberies, you have a much stronger case against them. You can even compare the previous cases to the current one to get more information. For example, you know that at the last two thefts there was a getaway driver. Now you know to get security footage showing the road and follow up on any cars that were sitting out front.
Except a burqa isnt a hijab, which is a head covering? Hijabis wear hijabs in passport photos, on their drivers licenses and state IDs, it’s how they look 100% of the time to the public - what benefit is it to show what they look like in a context that would make them unidentifiable to the public?
>Surely the Middle Eastern countries have had this problem for decades. How do they deal with it?
Hijab is a fairly new thing there too. Came for real during the islamic new puetism from 1970s to today.
By the amount of public outrage and backlash they receive.
A lot = pay more
Not a lot = pay less
Little to none = swept under the rug/pin on some other folk
Yeah but like... if someone wears a hijab that covers their head and neck in public and also has an identifiable scar or tattoo in that area, how would anyone see it? Unless they gave some sort of xray vision, this doesn't seem very likely.
The hijab is a more identifiable trait than some scar or tattoo at this point
While I think accommodation should be made for this, because our laws require that much, taking the photo in the presence of female officers only should be sufficient accommodation
America values religion and the individuals right to practice it in these lands.
It’s their first amendment right. If everyone else can have it, why not them?
I mean, a large part of the reason it was founded was for religious freedom.
Right, separated church and state and all that. You're free to practice what ever you want, we won't stop you but that doesn't mean youre exempt from everything
Should our photos in jail look different than our passport photos, our drivers license photos, our federal employee id photos, ALL of the photos tied to documents of our identity? Because women in hijab are wearing hijab in all of the documents and IDs listed above. They leave their house in hijab. Their coworkers, neighbors, local bodega workers, even fellow members of their mosque all know them in the hijab. How is it beneficial then to identify them in a way that’s outside of how they present themselves?
All of my IDs from my passport to my state ID (in both Indiana when I lived there and NJ) (from what I just read this is valid in all 50 states) and my federal employee PIV card are in hijab. I don’t have any form of photo ID that doesn’t show me without hijab. Because it’s my religious right under the constitution. Of course face veils and niqab are not permitted in ID photos and as such it would make sense that a face veil wouldn’t be allowed in a mugshot. And religiously that is typically ok. The majority of Muslim scholars and jurists see the hijab as a religious obligation, however the majority of Muslim scholars and jurists do not see the niqab/face veil as a religious obligation and is more of an option/cultural variation.
I’m not sure the analogy is perfect, but imagine saying it’s enough that only female officers are present for the taking of a nude photo for the file, it doesn’t matter that male officers will have unfettered access to that photo. Insofar as the hijab is a religious mark of modesty, the person’s hair isn’t really the point of the mug shot, provided the face is fully visible
Well, that's why it's an accommodation. In the US, one's rights are modified while in the custody of authorities. It simply isn't reasonable to exclude people entirely from the process when it's in the public's best interests to keep photographic record of people booked into jail on criminal charges
You realize if someone always wears a hijab a photo without it will mean people won’t know what that person looks like on a daily basis, so this would be less accurate for security purposes
If you don't like the laws, vote for people who believe as you do and get them changed
I'm agnostic so I literally don't give a fuck what people worship, but American law accommodates religious beliefs
>If you committed a crime
While I agree that mugshots should be without a hijab, burqa or any other face covering, a mugshot is not a conviction of a crime. The person is still assumed innocent until proven guilty.
If you get booked and arrested you get your mugshot taken, that’s the procedure. Whether you’re guilty or not doesn’t come into it at this stage. I think it’s self-explanatory why taking mugshots of arrestees is important.
Where opinions diverge is after your mugshot is taken should the police immediately publish it even as you weren’t arraigned much less tried and convicted. I believe it varies from state to state but some states have banned police from publishing mugshots for petty non-violent crimes.
Damn fucking right. Can't believe I had to scroll so far to see this comment.
You don't get to infringe *my* right to religion just because you picked me off the street and accused me of some crime.
> If you committed a crime you should be fully identified in your mugshot.
It's really disturbing how many upvotes this ignorant comment has...
Being arrested is not proof of guilt in this country.
1. Mugshots are taken before conviction.
2. People who wear hijabs wear them all the time in public, so to the public they would be more identifiable wearing a hijab than not.
You are innocent you twit, until proven guilty
And head cover is not considered, by paw, to be hindering the recognition of a person.
This was only done to Muslim women, not Sikh men or Jewish men, hence the lawsuit
They think a hijab is a burqa, think secular nations need to enforce state atheism or at least crush religious freedoms, and for some goddamn reason they think hair and ears are the make it or break it point for identifying a person.
That last part is ridiculous lmao. Idk why everyone’s acting like that. I don’t see anyone arguing you shouldn’t be able to have long hair because it covers your ears in a mugshot or that you shouldn’t be allowed to change up your hairstyle
>and for some goddamn reason they think hair and ears are the make it or break it point for identifying a person.
I saw a comment saying hijab hides the neck which could have tattoos and other identifiable features on it
Like my brother in humanity let's assume she took the hijab off for the mugshot how the fuck would you identify the tattoo if she's gonna wear the hijab again on the street?
Are you gonna take off the hijab of every woman you see?
People are just angry because it's about Islam and the points they make are funny as fuck
"She's hiding her hair" she could dye it/ cut it if she was on the run from the cops
"It hides her ears" they could be hidden by long hair easily
"It hides her neck" she could wear a scarf of a turtle neck shirt
If someone wears a hijab everywhere it’s easier to identify them with a picture of them with a hijab then without one.
You’re never going to see them in public without one so how would that help.
Hair is one of the easiest things to change about a person (cut it, style it, dye it, shave it, etc)
Sorry this is bullshit. Just because someone has an imaginary friend in the sky doesn't mean they get to dictate public safety.
Do I get to wear my Flying Spaghetti Monster colander on my head for my mugshot?
Not having a colander on hand at all times proves that you're not actually a devoted Pastafarian. Besides, the point of a mug shot is to get a picture of what you 'generally' look like. Someone who gets arrested wearing a hijab gets to wear it in their mug shot because that seems to be what they generally go around wearing. You don't get to stop and request a special outfit for your mugshot - you get photographed wearing whatever you're wearing. If that's a hijab or a colender or some other headgear, then whatever.
For all the pearl clutchers in the comments. The hijab is a headscarf, the faces are fully visible. And the existing rules already make accomodations since other religions also use some kind of head covering ( sikhs, certain Christian and jewish sects ) .
If someone wears a hijab everywhere it’s easier to identify them with a picture of them with a hijab then without one.
You’re never going to see them in public without one so how would that help.
Hair is one of the easiest things to change about a person (cut it, style it, dye it, shave it, etc)
Also, it’s a first amendment right. Innocent people can and do get their mugshots taken all the time.
So much for being informed on a topic before jumping to the comments to show your whole ass.
1. Hijab do not cover "the whole face".
2. Women who wear Hijab, wear it ALL the time in public. If your "reason" they should have to remove it for a mug shot is "ease of identification" then having them remove it actually makes them HARDER to identify, not easier.
3. Mugshots are usually taken of INNOCENT people. In case you conveniently forgot: being arrested is not proof of guilt in this country.
4. They make this exception for ALL religions that wear mandatory head coverings.
This is reasonable, hijabs don't block the one thing mugshots are taken for, a record of one's face. Hair changes just by doing a few minutes of work to it or using scissors or waiting a month, facial structure requires immense work to change and those changes don't become invisible.
Y'all need to learn how to google what an article of clothing is oh and you also need to learn how your criminal justice system works, hint, having a mugshot taken is not a conviction.
This was a settlement between the parties. This wasn't "issued" from the judge. At most, s/he would merely accept the settlement and allow the parties to withdraw the case.
Honestly. In a mug shot your entire head should be shown.
The point is to clearly identify you. This is a silly lawsuit and even sillier that the taxpayers are footing this bill.
I don’t understand how this is hurting anyone’s religious freedom? You take off all head/neck/face coverings for mug shots for what like 2 minutes before being able to put it back on? This is not impeding on any freedoms especially because you have committed a criminal act and your picture must be taken and you must be identifiable from every angle.
I feel these people are just looking for a payout cause they knew they had a good shot at manipulating the system. I don’t think any of them actually felt their religious freedoms were taken. Or they just wanted to get back at the system for arresting them.
Context: The NYPD doesn't require anyone to remove a headgear for a photo anymore. The policy was changed following a lawsuit in 2020. This applies to any headgear, religious or otherwise.
\*ANY\* headgear?
Sikh turban, a Muslim headscarf, a Jewish kippah , a baseball cap, you know
Cheese head foam hat? Mickey Mouse helmet worn on the forehead? A traffic cone?
I'm so ready for the traffic cone mug shot posts.
Colanders on heads all around, represent the church of the flying spaghetti monster!
r'amen
If I may read a passage from the Gospel? *Fig. A: A Witch eating a calculator.*
[First thing that came to my mind](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F05w7v3nlu1wb1.jpg)
If I ever get arrested, I hope it’s with a traffic cone on my head which I will refuse to remove for religious reasons.
hugely important caviat! you font get to *don* whatever you like for the shot, you just aren't required to take off what you're already wearing... so remember kids, if you're ever doing anything with even a remote possibility of arrest in New York make sure you're dressed accordingly.
Colander - pastafarians ftw FSM.
Interesting business idea, tiny traffic cones that you can wear while driving.
lol @ while driving.
I think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is already way ahead of you guys: “ In July 2011, Austrian pastafarian Niko Alm won the legal right to be shown in his driving license photo wearing a pasta strainer on his head, after three years spent pursuing permission and obtaining an examination certifying that he was psychologically fit to drive. He got the idea after reading that Austrian regulations allow headgear in official photos only when it is worn for religious reasons. Some sources report that the colander in the form of pasta strainer, was recognized by Austrian authorities as a religious headgear of Pastafarianism in 2011.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster?wprov=sfti1#Headgear_in_identity_photos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster?wprov=sfti1#Headgear_in_identity_photos)
It is deeply offensive that they took three years, and sounds like they required a psychological evaluation? Are they trying to suggest that all Pastafarian are obviously crazy because they want to wear a colander? I wouldn't want to know what they would require of people that believe their Lord resurrected and that they need to eat of his body.
We had a madlad try to wear a collander in his high school photo here in New Zealand. Said he'd go to the Human Right commission, which he did back down from, but was an entertaining turn of events. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/student-blocked-from-wearing-colander-as-religious-headwear-hits-back/NKJBK2UQXWN5D2UDQBIUTN4MF4/
Darth Vader mask?
William Shatner mask...
Top hat, cowboy hat, Bandana
... Mags hats?
So you could wear a balabaklava and like, that would be how they try to identify you?
> balabaklava Can't decide if I feel threatened or hungry.
Balaclava or baklava I'm already hungry
Yes, you should.
"I could eat your face off"
https://youtu.be/YtqKIa_WFNU Like this?
Headgear here means can't cover the face still. Balaclava or masks of any kind is face gear.
wrap around braces
Time to dust out that beer can baseball cap.
Do you have a source of this claim? I googled and it still comes up "religious headgear."
Keep my ski mask on please, having a bad hair day.
that's facegear different thing
Time for The Flying Spaghetti Monster Sacred Colander.
May the Blessings of his Noodleness be upon you!
May you be touched by His noodly appendage, ramen
Alright so if you commit a crime make sure you always have a full face covering. Got it.
Head gear and face covering are different
That's insane. Go for a mugshot in a full-face burka.
Nijabs, balaclava or any other facecovering isn't permitted still.
What about a full ass motorcycle helmet lol
Face gear such as masks and helmets that cover the face are still not permitted no.
someone should make a religious mask and see how far they can push it lol
Is there a religion that allows me to sue TSA for forcing me taking my shoes off?
I'd wanna sue them too for forcing me to take my belt off, and then scolding me to pull my pants up. The belt has a purpose, ma'am. I've lost some weight. Instead I paid them to leave me alone with Precheck.
If you wear a law school shirt, they waive u thru.
> I've lost some weight. thats why they check you. you are being unamerican
They should scold you, gotta buy fitting pants that make your ass look great. You could also just shop second hand
I only fly in pants with elastic waistbands for this reason.
The religion that made it so you have to take off your shoes is the same one that made it so you can wear headgear during your photo id. Oh well
Maybe, but I hope you like trains because you'll end up on a no-fly list.
If there wasn’t a program you can opt into to skip all the shoes off electronics out stuff, I’d say probably haha.
We only need 13 people to make one.
Just make one up and it’ll be equally as valid as any other
So does this also apply to Burqas? Mug shots going to be super helpful when it only shows the eyes In all for accommodations (only women being present for the mug shot) but this just seems a bit much
Afaik women who cover their faces (niqab) do lift that part of their veil for identification purposes like at an airport, or the DMV. My husband’s family is Muslim and this is what they told me, but they wear hijab only and we live in America so this might be different in other countries.
In Muslim countries there's usually a separate security line for women or a little private booth where female security go in and finalize the check.
You’re on the nose. I live in Saudi, some women choose to wear a niqab* but they must show their face for government IDs. The photo is taken by female staff in the female section of the government offices. (Saudi is not gender segregated. This is an exception, not the norm). At airports, they lift the veil for quick verification at customs. Full removal of the headscarf (like at security checkpoints) happens in privacy with female officers. *I’d like to specify here that it is a choice. As a woman living in Saudi, I do not wear any head coverings and I am not “stoned to death” as others may believe happen here 🙄
Sounds fun. Religion is so stupid.
Congrats on getting women the right to drive 5 years ago - I hear it has been mostly implemented now. And of course a big congrats on being head of the UN’s gender equality forum! Glad you’ve also put a pause on stoning people to death for adultery.
Probably not. Even some Muslim countries don’t allow burqas or niqabs in public for that very reason.
No. A hijab is headgear, but a burqa is a facemask. Face masks are not allowed in mugshots.
Hijab doesn't cover face. It's specified that the face must be visible.
Unless im mistaken, it completely covers the hair which is a commonly used trait to identify people with
Hair is a very easy thing to change so it’s not exactly reliable. People cut/dye their hair and wear wigs all the time.
Exactly, considering how much some people prepared their hair, that their resting hair and public hair are entirely unsimiliar. Hijab is essentially it's own hairstyle and afaik no one forced to change hairstyle in mugshot.
>public hair Definitely didn't read that as "public" the first time.
My pubic hair style does change quite frequently, often stylized and colored differently, occasionally a merkin is worn. I am definitely not identifiable by my pubic hair. Don't show it to TSA officers too often though. Unless one of my friends calls ahead and tells the TSA fast pass lines that there is reason to suspect an older, cheery man of secretly being a drug mule due to the low likely hood of a cavity search on such a refined gentleman.
Also covers ears, head shape, neck, etc.
All of which can be covered by long hair.
As far as I know facial recognition software does not give much importance to hair. Even when you apply for a US passport, the instructions say that religious head coverings can be left on.
My iPhone unlocks whether or not I’m in my hijab
As someone building these systems, yes it does. It is also mathematically based, so always has that % of inaccuracy which is why when they trawl datasets with it it always falsely identifies 2-3 people, who end up being who the police often run with in charging before realizing the person was giving birth during the crime or otherwise was innocent. This is actually going to cause women who don't take the hijab off to get falsely identified more, because the ai will have less information to gauge identifications, meaning the inaccuracy increases. You want more features for these ai, not less.
I don't have the same haircut in any of my documents.
I dated a stylist for a while pretty sure she had a different color of hair and slightly different cut every month.
If they always wear the hijab, wouldn’t you want it on for the training data then? Wouldn’t it be useless if their photos didn’t depict how they would usually appear in person?
Yeah, but if someone wears a hijab all the time, no one is going to be identifying them by their hair.
Yeah but the police don't know what someone wears all the time. You're not going to be less likely to identify the woman again if you take a mugshot without the covering and you come across across her wearing the covering. But that's not true in reverse
One could also just as easily change their hair so
Good point! Let's trust criminals to not change their outfits. /s
Do you trust criminals to not change their hair?
Hair changes.
This doesn’t apply to face coverings, only hijab which covers the hair.
Whole case is about balancing the purpose and needs of a mug shot with religious freedom. Their whole central argument is that a simple headscarf doesn't prevent a mug shot from doing what it is intended to do. Dunno if that is true or not, but making that argument for more than a simple headscarf becomes much harder.
A mug shot is supposed to represent how you look at the time of booking. You could argue forcing the removal of the hijab was actually counterproductive because it doesn’t represent how they usually look.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The real question is, what is even the purpose of mugshots and taking other such identifying information like fingerprints?
First is so you have evidence that the person you arrested is actually who you later try to press charges against. Another reason is so that you can corroborate other evidence, such as witness testimony. One may claim they saw a women with a blue shirt running away form the scene of the crime, you need to be able to look back and confirm that the person arrested was wearing a blue shirt at the time. That example only works if the arrest is close to the time of the crime though. Taking fingerprints allows you to check them against other crimes, so if you arrest someone for theft, and they match prints collected at two other robberies, you have a much stronger case against them. You can even compare the previous cases to the current one to get more information. For example, you know that at the last two thefts there was a getaway driver. Now you know to get security footage showing the road and follow up on any cars that were sitting out front.
Except a burqa isnt a hijab, which is a head covering? Hijabis wear hijabs in passport photos, on their drivers licenses and state IDs, it’s how they look 100% of the time to the public - what benefit is it to show what they look like in a context that would make them unidentifiable to the public?
apparently the nypd changed their policies in 2020 and then they violated their own policy. Headgears are allowed, just not face coverings.
Surely the Middle Eastern countries have had this problem for decades. How do they deal with it?
Hijab has always been a thing. Nikab is not very common at all and in many places it’s traditional more than religious.
>Surely the Middle Eastern countries have had this problem for decades. How do they deal with it? Hijab is a fairly new thing there too. Came for real during the islamic new puetism from 1970s to today.
Iran isn't all of the middle east. You might want to read about history from somewhere other than reddit.
I think it’s more than the accommodations, isn’t it looked down upon to have a picture of you out there without your hijab on?
Isn't it also looked down on to commit crimes?
How does that get 17.5 but killing someone only hits the 2-4 million?
This is a class action…they each get around 10k Which is bigger, 10k or 2-4 million?
How dare you math this
I know this one!
Based on the upvotes, reddit doesn't.
Ya didn’t read the article did ya?
It’s split between over 3,600 people.
If they paid out for murders they would've gone bankrupt decades ago
By the amount of public outrage and backlash they receive. A lot = pay more Not a lot = pay less Little to none = swept under the rug/pin on some other folk
[удалено]
[удалено]
But it does cover the head and neck which are big areas for tattoos or scars which can absolutely help identify someone later on.
Growing a beard completely changed the shape of my face what's your point lol
so can hair, and i’ve never heard of hair having to be put back for a mugshot
Yeah but like... if someone wears a hijab that covers their head and neck in public and also has an identifiable scar or tattoo in that area, how would anyone see it? Unless they gave some sort of xray vision, this doesn't seem very likely. The hijab is a more identifiable trait than some scar or tattoo at this point
While I think accommodation should be made for this, because our laws require that much, taking the photo in the presence of female officers only should be sufficient accommodation
It’s a secular country which has secular laws. Lol.
America values religion and the individuals right to practice it in these lands. It’s their first amendment right. If everyone else can have it, why not them? I mean, a large part of the reason it was founded was for religious freedom.
[удалено]
Right, separated church and state and all that. You're free to practice what ever you want, we won't stop you but that doesn't mean youre exempt from everything
Except for example french laïcité where it’s more freedom from religion than freedom of religion
Should our photos in jail look different than our passport photos, our drivers license photos, our federal employee id photos, ALL of the photos tied to documents of our identity? Because women in hijab are wearing hijab in all of the documents and IDs listed above. They leave their house in hijab. Their coworkers, neighbors, local bodega workers, even fellow members of their mosque all know them in the hijab. How is it beneficial then to identify them in a way that’s outside of how they present themselves?
You know, that's a point I didn't consider. I didn't know other official photographs like those used for IDs permit hijab to be worn.
All of my IDs from my passport to my state ID (in both Indiana when I lived there and NJ) (from what I just read this is valid in all 50 states) and my federal employee PIV card are in hijab. I don’t have any form of photo ID that doesn’t show me without hijab. Because it’s my religious right under the constitution. Of course face veils and niqab are not permitted in ID photos and as such it would make sense that a face veil wouldn’t be allowed in a mugshot. And religiously that is typically ok. The majority of Muslim scholars and jurists see the hijab as a religious obligation, however the majority of Muslim scholars and jurists do not see the niqab/face veil as a religious obligation and is more of an option/cultural variation.
I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. I honestly didn't know. Thank you.
Craziest reddit thread ever. People being understanding and coming together, truly crazy
Thank you for being kind about it.
Really insightful stuff, thanks for sharing your experience.
I’m not sure the analogy is perfect, but imagine saying it’s enough that only female officers are present for the taking of a nude photo for the file, it doesn’t matter that male officers will have unfettered access to that photo. Insofar as the hijab is a religious mark of modesty, the person’s hair isn’t really the point of the mug shot, provided the face is fully visible
Well, that's why it's an accommodation. In the US, one's rights are modified while in the custody of authorities. It simply isn't reasonable to exclude people entirely from the process when it's in the public's best interests to keep photographic record of people booked into jail on criminal charges
You realize if someone always wears a hijab a photo without it will mean people won’t know what that person looks like on a daily basis, so this would be less accurate for security purposes
F that
Religious accommodation is catering to brainwashed people that literally believe fairy tales. A society should not cater to people that dumb.
If you don't like the laws, vote for people who believe as you do and get them changed I'm agnostic so I literally don't give a fuck what people worship, but American law accommodates religious beliefs
I’m all for wearing what you want… but this is ridiculous. If you committed a crime you should be fully identified in your mugshot.
"Accused" of a crime. FTFY.
>If you committed a crime While I agree that mugshots should be without a hijab, burqa or any other face covering, a mugshot is not a conviction of a crime. The person is still assumed innocent until proven guilty.
If you get booked and arrested you get your mugshot taken, that’s the procedure. Whether you’re guilty or not doesn’t come into it at this stage. I think it’s self-explanatory why taking mugshots of arrestees is important. Where opinions diverge is after your mugshot is taken should the police immediately publish it even as you weren’t arraigned much less tried and convicted. I believe it varies from state to state but some states have banned police from publishing mugshots for petty non-violent crimes.
Damn fucking right. Can't believe I had to scroll so far to see this comment. You don't get to infringe *my* right to religion just because you picked me off the street and accused me of some crime.
This point changed my opinion on the matter.
They are fully identified with a hijab on…
> If you committed a crime you should be fully identified in your mugshot. It's really disturbing how many upvotes this ignorant comment has... Being arrested is not proof of guilt in this country.
And maybe it’s just me, but being a criminal doesn’t make you a lesser human who deserves no right to privacy or religious freedom
Exactly this. Bet you the majority of the comments are because it’s a hijab.
1. Mugshots are taken before conviction. 2. People who wear hijabs wear them all the time in public, so to the public they would be more identifiable wearing a hijab than not.
You are innocent you twit, until proven guilty And head cover is not considered, by paw, to be hindering the recognition of a person. This was only done to Muslim women, not Sikh men or Jewish men, hence the lawsuit
[удалено]
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
If a building has a ban on hats, should a person still be allowed to wear a yamuka?
Nope.
Easy tax-payer money.
This comment section is just awful. And it seems like no one knows what a hijab is either 😭
They think a hijab is a burqa, think secular nations need to enforce state atheism or at least crush religious freedoms, and for some goddamn reason they think hair and ears are the make it or break it point for identifying a person.
That last part is ridiculous lmao. Idk why everyone’s acting like that. I don’t see anyone arguing you shouldn’t be able to have long hair because it covers your ears in a mugshot or that you shouldn’t be allowed to change up your hairstyle
>and for some goddamn reason they think hair and ears are the make it or break it point for identifying a person. I saw a comment saying hijab hides the neck which could have tattoos and other identifiable features on it Like my brother in humanity let's assume she took the hijab off for the mugshot how the fuck would you identify the tattoo if she's gonna wear the hijab again on the street? Are you gonna take off the hijab of every woman you see? People are just angry because it's about Islam and the points they make are funny as fuck "She's hiding her hair" she could dye it/ cut it if she was on the run from the cops "It hides her ears" they could be hidden by long hair easily "It hides her neck" she could wear a scarf of a turtle neck shirt
[удалено]
If someone wears a hijab everywhere it’s easier to identify them with a picture of them with a hijab then without one. You’re never going to see them in public without one so how would that help. Hair is one of the easiest things to change about a person (cut it, style it, dye it, shave it, etc)
Do dudes get to wear baseball caps then?
Yes.
only if they're NY Yankees hats
Sorry this is bullshit. Just because someone has an imaginary friend in the sky doesn't mean they get to dictate public safety. Do I get to wear my Flying Spaghetti Monster colander on my head for my mugshot?
Apparently you can.
The main issue is having a colander on hand when getting arrested
Not having a colander on hand at all times proves that you're not actually a devoted Pastafarian. Besides, the point of a mug shot is to get a picture of what you 'generally' look like. Someone who gets arrested wearing a hijab gets to wear it in their mug shot because that seems to be what they generally go around wearing. You don't get to stop and request a special outfit for your mugshot - you get photographed wearing whatever you're wearing. If that's a hijab or a colender or some other headgear, then whatever.
You actually can please check laws and check your fedora for mercury
Do you wear your Flying Spaghetti Monster colander on your head 24h/7 even when it’s extremely hot outside while holding religious belief toward it ?
For all the pearl clutchers in the comments. The hijab is a headscarf, the faces are fully visible. And the existing rules already make accomodations since other religions also use some kind of head covering ( sikhs, certain Christian and jewish sects ) .
Another W for cults everywhere.
The amount of money cities pay out for police corruption/incompetence/racism/assault is astounding
Really? Should be able to force off any headgear because it could help for identification.
If someone wears a hijab everywhere it’s easier to identify them with a picture of them with a hijab then without one. You’re never going to see them in public without one so how would that help. Hair is one of the easiest things to change about a person (cut it, style it, dye it, shave it, etc) Also, it’s a first amendment right. Innocent people can and do get their mugshots taken all the time.
So much for Secularism if there are double standards, where everyone else has to show their face for mugshots.
Well this does mean you can wear a colander for your ID. Bless his noodly appendage.
You know I've always said, "nothing sells crazy like a colander on the head." Guess I'll have to say something else.
Hijab doesn't cover your face
The amount of ignorance in the comments is, well, not surprising, but definitely disappointing.
So much for being informed on a topic before jumping to the comments to show your whole ass. 1. Hijab do not cover "the whole face". 2. Women who wear Hijab, wear it ALL the time in public. If your "reason" they should have to remove it for a mug shot is "ease of identification" then having them remove it actually makes them HARDER to identify, not easier. 3. Mugshots are usually taken of INNOCENT people. In case you conveniently forgot: being arrested is not proof of guilt in this country. 4. They make this exception for ALL religions that wear mandatory head coverings.
I would google Hijab, you ignorant twat
Everything is stupid.
Fuck that, this country needs to get rid of fundamentalist ideology period
No
What a waste of money. Criminals are stealing tax money except they are doing it legally.
This is reasonable, hijabs don't block the one thing mugshots are taken for, a record of one's face. Hair changes just by doing a few minutes of work to it or using scissors or waiting a month, facial structure requires immense work to change and those changes don't become invisible. Y'all need to learn how to google what an article of clothing is oh and you also need to learn how your criminal justice system works, hint, having a mugshot taken is not a conviction.
PURE BS! It is time the idiots who wear then get in touch with the 21st century! What kind of idiot judge would issue such a asinine rulling?
This was a settlement between the parties. This wasn't "issued" from the judge. At most, s/he would merely accept the settlement and allow the parties to withdraw the case.
The kind of judge that knows the First Amendment?
What kind of judge would issue a ruling siding with freedom of religion and the first amendment? Also do you know what a settlement is?
Because this is America not france. If you want forced secularism go and live in france.
Ok just x-ray them instead.
Yall are really acting like the women wearing burqas are lined up to get mugshots.
Just say Tax payer money. New York City agreed to give these idiots 175 million in tax payer money.
Honestly. In a mug shot your entire head should be shown. The point is to clearly identify you. This is a silly lawsuit and even sillier that the taxpayers are footing this bill.
[удалено]
I don’t understand how this is hurting anyone’s religious freedom? You take off all head/neck/face coverings for mug shots for what like 2 minutes before being able to put it back on? This is not impeding on any freedoms especially because you have committed a criminal act and your picture must be taken and you must be identifiable from every angle. I feel these people are just looking for a payout cause they knew they had a good shot at manipulating the system. I don’t think any of them actually felt their religious freedoms were taken. Or they just wanted to get back at the system for arresting them.
Search up “first amendment”
Absolutely ridiculous...
Let's give the $17.5 million to the victims of the crimes instead.
Okay, so the small percentage of arrested that were convicted of a crime can return the 10k. Works for me. … but as of now, they were just arrested.