Hijab-wearing Muslim woman racially profiled as 'terrorist' sues Chicago police


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2016/08/12/hijab-wearing-muslim-woman-rac.html


#2

How could she have been “racially” profiled when she was wearing a full face mask and body covering? Neither Islam nor full face and body coverings are a race.


#3

Chicago police know damn well that EVERYBODY walks at a brisk pace in a determined manner in the subway/el.


#4

Oh no! Arrest her now! If her jihad makes it to court, it will become a Muslin “Victory Court” and it’ll force Sharia law on all of us!


#5

Cue: “It’s necessary to throw people down a flight of stairs for public safety reasons.”


#6

Since race is a bullshit social construct based entirely on biased perception without any grounding in biology or genetics, it can be as easily about cultural bigotry as it can subjective perceptions of accent, epidermal melanin content, helical hairs or any other irrelevant criterion racists use to divvy up human beings into unscientific categories.

So yeah, racially profiled is an accurate term.


#7

Only in America for a year and suing an institution.

Sounds like she’s assimilating nicely.


#8

Shit. I’m an Atheist with a beard and funny name who gets racially profiled as Muslim all the time. Bigotry doesnt have a fine-tuned dial for the kind of hair splitting people seem to enjoy on this topic.


#9

Uh, no. She was behaviorally profiled while wearing a full face mask in a transit system. That doesn’t mean the cops were entirely reasonable, but what is unreasonable is to go around wearing a full face mask all the time.

Facial expressions and body posture or how we interact as humans. How we know what people mean or what they going to do. Full face coverings are anti-social. In the literal sense.


#10

[quote=“Skeptic, post:9, topic:83329, full:true”]
Uh, no. She was behaviorally profiled while wearing a full face mask in a transit system.[/quote]
A semantic difference that makes no difference.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree.


#11

Wrong. Laws are all about semantics. You can’t be racially discriminated against if you weren’t discriminated based on your race.

I’d also add the title of this post (“Hijab-wearing Muslim woman racially profiled as ‘terrorist’ sues Chicago police”) is misleading. She was wearing a full face mask, a niqab, not merely a hijab head covering. A more on point title would be:

“Full face mask-wearing Muslim woman sues Chicago police for alleged racial profiling”


#12

Sorry to respond with a WP article, but current workload precludes prolonged debate. No disrespect is intended.


#13

“The officers followed department procedure and acted appropriately”

-All police chiefs when faced with one of their maddogs savagely beating, killing or otherwise running roughshod over “little people”.


#14

You do know that there are tons of people who do not do this, right? Lots of people on the autism spectrum… people who are face blind… people who are legally blind… Are all those people anti-social too?


#15

She’s suing. Lawsuits are based on the letter of the law. So, yes, semantics absolutely matter in this case and you are wrong to say that they do not.


#16

About arguing them, yes. About hard and fast dictionary definitions, no.

And no, the “letter” of the law is not as relevant as precedent and lawmaker intent. You don’t need to write IANAL, because you 100% don’t sound like one.


#18

Even assuming you’re right, and they stopped her and removed the hijab with absolutely no knowledge of what her race was… She was still arrested and strip-searched after that point. So, even if you’re right and semantically she wasn’t stopped and assaulted based on her race, racial profiling could still have affected the rest of what happened to her.


#20

Lawmaker intent only comes into effect in court arguments when the law is not clearly written. The letter of the law when clearly written overrides intent. Words have meaning in law.

When I say letter of the law, I include case law not merely the original Statue.


#24

Not analogous. Not seeing and not showing are not the same thing.


#25

Context matters. If I saw any of those people running in the subway holding a backpack clutched to their chest I would be suspicious. Especially the last one.