Associated Press – June 13, 2007:
The city’s police department can forbid a Muslim officer from wearing a head scarf on the job, a federal judge ruled.
Kimberlie Webb, 44, who has been on the force more than 10 years, filed a discrimination lawsuit in October 2005 after the department said she could not wear a khimar at work because the religious symbol violated uniform regulations.
U.S. District Judge Harvey Bartle III on Tuesday sided with the city and dismissed her lawsuit, ruling that the police department did not discriminate or retaliate against Webb.
Wearing a khimar would hurt the department’s nonsectarian image, Diaz said. “We want people to be comfortable that the police department has no sectarian interests,” he said.
Here’s the part I find interesting…
Lance James, an attorney who represented Webb, said he was surprised that the judge ruled against his client.
James pointed out that the Department of Justice had given support to Webb’s cause, ruling that the police department appeared to have violated her rights.
Why would the federal Department of Justice intervene in a state case involving apparel restrictions of a city police officer? If Bush’s cronies are involved, this case isn’t over yet.
“Why would the federal Department of Justice intervene in a state case involving apparel restrictions of a city police officer?”
Because they have been very proactive about religious discrimination (of course, ignoring other kinds). I think this is probably because of the administration’s Christian persecution complex.
How can you NOT discriminate against people who makes things up out of thin air, then expect everyone else in the world to change everything in life to suit some oddball fantasies – and to obey those oddball fantasies without question – or they will kill you?
In such cases, shouldn’t discrimination be mandatory?
I don’t see this as an issue – A lot of police depts ban external signs of affiliation. Locally here a female cop got thumped for having one of those pink ribbon breast cancer pins on her uniform. A couple of years back a cop had a big cross outside of his shirt – was ordered to put it under the shirt.
Cops (for better or worse) are a psudo military organization – uniform standards are just part of the game.
Hooray! Some common sense.
Look in a lot of cases we are told “If you think the person pulling you over, or approaching you is not a police officer you don’t have to stop until you reach what you feel is a safe public place. One of the ways the police combat misidentification of an officer is called a uniform. A uniform in this case typically refers to a uniform mode of dress. Not individual, not different, not special, not gaily colorful covered with pins and sticker… Uniform.
If you want to be a cop but object to the fact you cant personalize it then get another job. You are endangering the public. This is like a construction worker saying he cant wear a hat because its against his religion. Gimme a break.
That was the definitive statement.
#6, Richard
If you want to be a cop but object to the fact you cant personalize it then get another job. You are endangering the public.
Please explain. How would a policewoman wearing a headscarf be endangering the public?
Shoot, around these parts, the patrolman must buy his own uniform. That explains why only a few city officers are identically dressed. Then the Sheriff’s Department has different dress codes then the city. And the state are different still. Of course, those uniforms are for the uniformed police, the Detectives, including most of the feds, wear whatever they darn well please.
Then the city either wear peaked hats or baseball hats. Often they are hatless. The County usually doesn’t wear hats, but do have Stetson’s for those special occasions. The state troopers wear “Smokie” hats, when they wear them.
So after you explain how this policewoman endangered the public, please explain how these non-uniform uniformed law enforcement people don’t endanger the public.
I remember a number of years ago a male cop in Florida tried to buck the system because he got reprimanded for wearing an ear ring while in uniform. Needless to say, he lost. The reason was simple. He was out of uniform.
I wonder what would happen if the public found out the military has grooming standards and that if you overtly disobey orders to be compliant in those grooming standards, the consequences are far graver than a verbal reprimand.
Oh well. Life goes on.
#5,
Cops (for better or worse) are a psudo military organization – uniform standards are just part of the game.
The correct term is paramilitary. There is nothing pseudo (sic) about them. Even military organizations are not uniform in their use and applications. Females generally wear different hats then men. Often women will wear skirts instead of pants and have higher heels then male shoes.
Uniform standards only apply when they suit the urge to discriminate against those who are / want to be different. Your examples of the large cross could be worn under the shirt without any problem. The pink ribbon is in keeping with so many other “causes of the month” that police and military often wear. Do you think there would have been a problem if she wore a “MIA” pin instead?
8. Each law enforcement agency is entitled to have their uniform be different from another. Now whether or not an individual’s superior enforces those standards on them is another matter. Regardless I’d wager that her scarf is not listed as appropriate uniform attire.
The woman wants to be an individual in an agency with a specific uniform code. She knew it going in and she knows this now. However, she’s probably allowed to wear some form of jewelry that shows her faith if she so desires so long as it is not excessive. It’s a frivilous lawsuit.
At least we didn’t go like the French and outlaw scarves in public schools.
10. And those differing hats and uniforms are clearly defined. There is no ambiguity over what can / cannot be worn by male / female members of the military.
Heck the military even defines how big your mustache can be if you have one and how long you can have sideburns if you choose.
There is no discrimination in this case. It’s a case of someone wanting to see something that is not there.
With regard to the MIA pin, there are probably supervisors who would look the other way, but if it is not allowed, it is not allowed. If the police will get in any sort of trouble its when the supervisors are caught cherry picking when they want to apply those standards when those standards should otherwise be applied 100% of the time.
It’s not the agency at fault for having standards, it’s the supervisors for not applying the standards to everyone.
“Please explain. How would a policewoman wearing a headscarf be endangering the public?”
It was a symbol of her obedience and submission to the Muslim religion. I wouldn’t want to get in a fight with a Muslim and have her show up with her cross on her sleave.
What’s the point of a uniform if individuals can put on what they want to wear?
What’s next?
American Indian Police Officers wearing feathered war bonnets as they patrol the streets of New York City?
paramilitary: A group of civilians organized in a military fashion (especially to operate in place of or to assist regular army troops)
pseudo: (often used in combination) not genuine but having the appearance of
Close call, but since police never act in place of army troops and vice versa (martial law is not troops acting as cops), I’d give pseudo the nod–dont want those lietenants and captains getting a swelled head.
OP: Diaz said. “We want people to be comfortable that the police department has no sectarian interests,”
They mean “no Muslim interests”… They really don’t have an issue with Christians…
I’m not against the police saying she can’t wear the scarf. If you feel that adhering to the symbolic clothing habits of your religion is more important than following the uniform code of your job, then you need to have a different job.
I just hope that the code is applied to everyone and that we aren’t making a list of “approved and unapproved” religions.
I’d just like to remind all infidels:
Islam = Religion of
PeacePolice.My religion is pinstriped shirts. As an employee of EDS, Ross Perot forbid them. I got over it.
19–Fair response, and as stated, it is “close.”
Probably, if you want to generally support some police related issue, you call them paramilitary, and if you want to criticize or belittle them, you say pseudomilitary, although that again is close.
I think one definition of “endangering the public” is to make individuals afraid, or uncertain, or nervous, or suspicious of the police. Over time, police authority breaks down, and society is impacted. Again–I don’t want to get in a fight with a minister, and have a cop show up wearing a crucifix. I don’t want to get into a fight with a head of lettuce and have a cop show up with a “la Raza” pin.
Clearly, freedom of speech and association should be curtailed when performing police functions.
#20 – bobbo
I’m with ya.
“Again–I don’t want to get in a fight with a minister, and have a cop show up wearing a crucifix. I don’t want to get into a fight with a head of lettuce and have a cop show up with a “la Raza” pin.”
Reminds me of an ancient joke; a rabbi is sitting in his car at a red light, minding his own business, when a Catholic priest not paying attention rear-ends him. A cop arrives, looks over the accident scene, goes over to the priest and asks in an Irish brogue, “So how fast was he goin’ when he backed inta ya, Father?”
I expect objective, neutral decisionmaking from any representative of our secular government, not rooted in that individual’s prejudices and preferences. I can’t prevent the gov’t from hiring people who personally believe in ridiculous things, but if they’re forbidden to advertise those beliefs, at the very least it serves to remind them that those beliefs, and other peoples’, have no relation to their job functions. It’s about nothing other than fairness, and we all have every right to expect that above all else.
#21, Lauren, I expect objective, neutral decisionmaking from any representative of our secular government…
You and me both, but I guess we can all wish in one hand and whiz in the other, just to see which hand fills up faster. 🙂