RSS Feed
Maryland - MD Attorney General: Religious Garb Open To Security Searches |
|
| |
Text Size
|
The opinion addresses a sensitive issue that has sparked debate and outcry in recent years, including protests over the French government's ban several years ago on the Muslim hijab, or head scarf, or any religious apparel in public schools, and questions raised in the United States about the right of Muslim women to wear head coverings in driver's license photos and in courtrooms.
Responding to questions from the Prince George's County sheriff, Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler's office said it weighed the First Amendment right to freedom of religion against the state's interest in securing courthouses. It found that for security or identification, law enforcement could require individuals to temporarily remove masks, veils and other face coverings at security checkpoints if the policy is applied consistently.
To minimize potential conflicts, Gansler's office suggests that security details have male and female officers and that a private space be set aside at courthouse entrances for those whose religion discourages them from removing a head covering in public or in front of a member of the opposite sex.
But David Rocah, an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union who reviewed the opinion, said he worries that women will be routinely asked to remove the niqab, an Islamic facial veil, and that it won't be done in the "respectful" way that Gansler's office suggests.
While Gansler's opinion deals specifically with facial coverings, Rocah raised concerns that it could be interpreted to apply to other kinds of head coverings, such as turbans worn by Sikhs or habits by nuns. "From the perspective of religious adherents, they don't care whether it is a law of general applicability," Rocah said. "All they know and experience is that something for them that's a religious tenet is suddenly illegal or not allowed."
Bash Pharoan, president of the Baltimore chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, acknowledged that security guards might have a legitimate reason to ask people to remove facial coverings. But he also urged respect and noted that President Barack Obama, during his speech Thursday in Cairo, Egypt, defended the choice of some Muslim women to don the head scarf.
"This is really about personal identity and religious freedom," Pharoan said. "A woman who wears the hijab is obeying the call of God."
The Prince George's sheriff's office sought the opinion after deputies heard of cases concerning Muslim women in other courthouses and wanted guidance, said Sgt. Mario Ellis, a spokesman. "Nothing happened locally," he said. "We were just trying to be proactive and get an answer before this issue comes up here."
Many disputes arise out of cultural ignorance, said John Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. He said that for Muslim woman, the hijab or niqab is a matter of chastity and propriety. He compared forcing the removal of that garb at a security checkpoint, rather than in a private setting, to subjecting any woman to a public strip search.
"The parallel would be for a deputy sheriff to require a woman going through security to take off her brassiere right there in the inspection section," he said.
More of today's headlines
“Tehran - Riot cops riding motorcycles charge directly into a massive crowd that is packed into a street. Moments later, the video cuts to one of the bikes engulfed in...” Tehran - Video Of Iranian Police Storming Into Anti Ahmadinejad Protesters
Israel - Orthodox Jews May 'Koogle It' 6 Days a Week on Kosher Search Engine
Total21
Read Comments (21) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 14, 2009 at 10:15 AM Milhouse Says:
The difference between a head covering and a face covering is obvious. And it's equally obvious that when people need to be identified it's necessary to look at their faces. Overly-PC sensitivity is how one of the 7-Jul bombers was able to escape from the UK, wearing a burqa and using his sister's passport.
2
Jun 14, 2009 at 10:33 AM blah Says:
religious rights under attack
3
Jun 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM Anonymous Says:
Sikhs are generally law-abiding and quiet people. The only problem is that they have to carry a ceremonial dagger (it looks nasty, but the way a Sikh co-worker explained, it's sort of like tzitzis for us, and it's never used in anger). Of course, if they have to go someplace with a metal detector, the security guards go crazy and start tackling them, especially because guards aren't smart enough to know the difference between them and a real bad guy.
They'll have to search nuns, Swedish grandmothers and everyone in proportion to their percentage in their population or else the ACLU (Feh!) will scream bloody murder....
4
Jun 14, 2009 at 11:17 AM Anonymous Says:
Religious garb "open" to security searches...lol no pun intended?
5
Jun 14, 2009 at 11:16 AM Anonymous Says:
“ religious rights under attack ”
This has nothing to do with religous rights being attacked you cant identify who these people are when they wear all those coverings
6
Jun 14, 2009 at 10:58 AM anonymous Says:
In view of the fact that Red Crescent ambulances carried explositves and the strong hateful statement by some Muslims I believe it is warranted that positive identification should be established of all people entering a court house INCLUDING MUSLIMS
7
Jun 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM Dag Says:
Would the Yated or Hamodia publish the photo that goes with this post?
8
Jun 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM Anonymous Says:
hope this doesn't spill over into tichels
9
Jun 14, 2009 at 11:54 AM Anonymous Says:
what the hell is wrong with showing your face in court .this is how suicide bomers ans other maniacs get in these places. it is not like public strip search
10
Jun 14, 2009 at 12:29 PM Anonymous Says:
“ religious rights under attack ”
Safety is not religion. Unfortunately they hide behind there religion . It's like wearing a mask!!
11
Jun 14, 2009 at 12:28 PM Anonymous Says:
“ hope this doesn't spill over into tichels ”
Tichels don't cover your face and hide your identity.
12
Jun 14, 2009 at 02:39 PM awacs Says:
Suppose I was going to go into a court to commit mayhem, or murder, or whatever.
Oh, no! I have to show my face on the way in! My plans are frustrated! I'll never be able to machine-gun the occupants because ... I'LL HAVE TO SHOW MY FACE!
Ok, I'll go shoot up a movie theatre instead.
Which is all this is - security theatre.
13
Jun 14, 2009 at 02:47 PM jewish mother Says:
tichels, mitpachot, sheitals, snoods, hats DO hide your identity, also know as a woman's essence. This is why we wear them.
We all protested when the Rockland County police forced a frum woman to remove her sheital for a mugshot. Now we should protest the removal of the niqab or hijab or else it will be our women who are also subjected to the denial of their religious right to dress modestly.
Just as we might think it is unnecessary to cover the face, so do the secular Jews and non Jews in government believe about hair covering.
14
Jun 14, 2009 at 04:34 PM Anonymous Says:
absolutely one should uncover their face and possibly also their head so that proper identification can be made. after that. covering up should obviously be permitted. the confusion that coudl ensue woudl be tremendous. and while we discuss this. i say that all driver license photos shoudl show the face and possibly also their hair. (you really need to see the whole person to make an ID). I did wear a kippah on my drivers license photo. but you can clearly see my face and head. i would have had no trouble removing it if asked. how anyone can think they could remain hidden from the world is absurd. i understand you wishing to be modest in public. but where a proper Identification is required. who can permit someone to remain hidden. i am sure that the american justice system will win out.
15
Jun 14, 2009 at 05:33 PM Anonymous Says:
“ absolutely one should uncover their face and possibly also their head so that proper identification can be made. after that. covering up should obviously be permitted. the confusion that coudl ensue woudl be tremendous. and while we discuss this. i say that all driver license photos shoudl show the face and possibly also their hair. (you really need to see the whole person to make an ID). I did wear a kippah on my drivers license photo. but you can clearly see my face and head. i would have had no trouble removing it if asked. how anyone can think they could remain hidden from the world is absurd. i understand you wishing to be modest in public. but where a proper Identification is required. who can permit someone to remain hidden. i am sure that the american justice system will win out.
”
your argument makes no sense; if it's for id purposes, then someone who would never be out without a head covering davka should have a photo with it on. face is one thing, but to id by hair is ridiculous. people can cut, dye, or shave their hair off altogether. there is no reason to demand that hair be shown.
16
Jun 14, 2009 at 06:07 PM Jewish mother Says:
“ absolutely one should uncover their face and possibly also their head so that proper identification can be made. after that. covering up should obviously be permitted. the confusion that coudl ensue woudl be tremendous. and while we discuss this. i say that all driver license photos shoudl show the face and possibly also their hair. (you really need to see the whole person to make an ID). I did wear a kippah on my drivers license photo. but you can clearly see my face and head. i would have had no trouble removing it if asked. how anyone can think they could remain hidden from the world is absurd. i understand you wishing to be modest in public. but where a proper Identification is required. who can permit someone to remain hidden. i am sure that the american justice system will win out.
”
And what if I wear a curly blond wig one day and a straight black wig the next. If you need to see the whole person to make an ID, then you would need to outlaw all women's headcoverings and any woman wearing a wig would have to remove it to enter a court or even when being pulled over for a traffic infraction or to get on an airplane.
17
Jun 14, 2009 at 07:20 PM Anonymous Says:
“ absolutely one should uncover their face and possibly also their head so that proper identification can be made. after that. covering up should obviously be permitted. the confusion that coudl ensue woudl be tremendous. and while we discuss this. i say that all driver license photos shoudl show the face and possibly also their hair. (you really need to see the whole person to make an ID). I did wear a kippah on my drivers license photo. but you can clearly see my face and head. i would have had no trouble removing it if asked. how anyone can think they could remain hidden from the world is absurd. i understand you wishing to be modest in public. but where a proper Identification is required. who can permit someone to remain hidden. i am sure that the american justice system will win out.
”
Your kippah isn't an issue of modesty! You need to see the "whole person" to make an i.d.? Well, I guess that means you won't mind your wife being asked to strip naked so they can see her "whole person" and make sure they got the right one. What a stupid comment. Shows how little you all understand why women cover their heads. It is one and the same with going without my blouse or any other piece of outer clothing in public. That cover becomes part of my identification. And yes probably "american justice" will win out by stripping Jewish women of their dignity while the likes of OIC and CAIR scream at how the Western Infidel defiles their women and keep their right to being covered.
18
Jun 14, 2009 at 08:16 PM bigwheeel Says:
“ Sikhs are generally law-abiding and quiet people. The only problem is that they have to carry a ceremonial dagger (it looks nasty, but the way a Sikh co-worker explained, it's sort of like tzitzis for us, and it's never used in anger). Of course, if they have to go someplace with a metal detector, the security guards go crazy and start tackling them, especially because guards aren't smart enough to know the difference between them and a real bad guy.
They'll have to search nuns, Swedish grandmothers and everyone in proportion to their percentage in their population or else the ACLU (Feh!) will scream bloody murder.... ”
...Yes. But you can't compare wearing Fringes "Tzitzis" to wearing a "ceremonial" dagger. With the latter you could do harm, whereas with Tzitzis no one is [potentially] harmed!!!
19
Jun 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM David Says:
Perfectly reasonable requirement. My wife has had to remove her hair covering at airports when a hairclip set off a metal detector. She was permitted to do so in the presence of a female officer, in a private area. That is a very fair accommodation.
20
Jun 15, 2009 at 07:41 PM Modern Orhthodox Rabbi Says:
Sorry, but this time I am on the ACLU's side.
After they are searched in private, they can be issued large ID's to wear on top of their garb, and they should be allowed to dress how their faith requires them to.
21
Jun 15, 2009 at 10:44 PM PMO Says:
I have no problem with the authorities asking for face or hair to be uncovered for security. So long as they can let women go to a private room with no men (even for mugshots and driver license photos), I have no problem with it. If you don't want mugshots of you taken without your sheitel, don't commit crimes and don't get a driver's license. Seems simple to me!