Police arrest 15 at Playland in dispute over Muslim headwear

Posted Wednesday, August 31, 2011 12:22 PM | Contributed by Lankster

A melee broke out Tuesday afternoon at Playland Amusement Park when Muslim visitors became angry that the park was enforcing its ban on headgear by prohibiting the women from wearing their traditional head coverings on some rides. Police from at least nine agencies converged on the park beginning at 3 p.m. after county police sought assistance in responding to the disturbance, which involved 30 to 40 people.

Read more from The Journal News.

Follow up: Loose clothing rules vary widely by park.

Related parks

Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:13 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

Face, meet palm. Palm, meet face. You'll be spending a lot of time together over the course of this thread.


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:15 PM

Lord Gonchar said:

jonnytips said:
But, it doesn't mean the rule necessarily makes sense (nor is it the first and only rule to not make sense). I don't really see it as a choking hazard at all, especially given that it's supposed to be secure on your head. If anything, a glasses lanyard in this case might be more of a choking hazard.

Still doesn't make it any less of a park policy.

...obviously fighting isn't the best way to prove your point in this situation. And yes, they probably should have checked the park rules before even going there.

Well there's your solution right there.

You just typed the paragraph in the wrong order. ;)

It was meant either way for interpretation, but yes and agreed

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:17 PM
mlnem4s's avatar

As I mentioned yesterday, if I can be nearly strangled from a required uniform tie getting caught in a restraint system then I can easily see a headscarf doing the same. I also can recall that Stealth at PGA opened with the requirement that women (and men too) with long hair being required to rubber band it up to ensure it didn't get caught anywhere on the train while in flying position. I believe that is why the extra flap was added behind the headrests. These concerns are not "unusual/abnormal" in any way from the viewpoint of park operations.

I take the park at its word that they carefully informed their guests about this policy because it sounds like they were booked through group sales. Parks aren't in the business to discriminate, especially Rye Playland which has its own issues of funding, government ownership, etc. The response sounds excessive of course but I wasn't there to see what actually transpired.

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:28 PM
rollergator's avatar

"We are NOT at war with Islam. I repeat, we are NOT at war with Islam."

Thank you, and goodnight!

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:19 PM

The organizers of this outing had the opportunity to choose another park to visit when they were originally told of the safety restrictions. By choosing to book at Playland, they agreed to all safety rules Playland has in place. This really doesn't have anything to do with Islam... rather, it's simply a group who decided they didn't have to obey rules they were told about in advance. No sympathy for them, and frankly, the park shouldn't have even offered refunds. You can ride the rides according to the rules, or you can not ride the rides, just like every other amusement park in the country. If the guests weren't told of the rules by the event organizers, the guests need to complain to the organizers, not the park management and employees.

What happened with the police is far too much of a "he said she said" deal to judge without being there. I do agree with the person who said that "assisting" someone getting arrested is a bad idea. If the cops are overbearing and violent, do what you can to get witnesses or video, then seek out a good lawyer.

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:21 PM
Jeff's avatar

Majorcut said:
Jeff, maybe you are by defending them. You seem to forgotten that it was muslims that started the war they wanted on 9-11.

I'm happy to relieve you of your membership. Agree or not with Playland's policy, this is ignorant hate mongering, and I have no use for people like you in our community.


Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:33 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

::Slow clap for Jeff::

Thank you! He was going to make me boil over. I have no tolerance for people like that.


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:03 PM

"Choking concern" perhaps a stretch, but saftey/operational concern is 100% valid. Even earlier this year, there was a report of a rollercoaster rider losing their 'headgear' while on the ride and it becoming lodged in the wheels, causing a malfunction and (minor) injuries to others.

Having a policy that generically states 'headgear' is the proper way to go as while a hijab might be a little less likely to fly off than a ballcap, it takes any possible confusion off the shoulders of the ride op.

Bottom line, the policy is reasonable, the riders reaction was not, the police response was what it was. To me, sixty cops cars doesnt seem too excessive for a park that has had attendence in the 20,000 range. How many were just there for crowd control and how many were intimately involved with the situation we dont know. But on it's face, a case can be made that the police response was reasonable.


zacharyt.shutterfly.com
PlaceHolder for Castor & Pollux

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 5:20 PM

2Hostyl said:
"Choking concern" perhaps a stretch, but saftey/operational concern is 100% valid. Even earlier this year, there was a report of a rollercoaster rider losing their 'headgear' while on the ride and it becoming lodged in the wheels, causing a malfunction and (minor) injuries to others.

Having a policy that generically states 'headgear' is the proper way to go as while a hijab might be a little less likely to fly off than a ballcap, it takes any possible confusion off the shoulders of the ride op.

Bottom line, the policy is reasonable, the riders reaction was not, the police response was what it was. To me, sixty cops cars doesnt seem too excessive for a park that has had attendence in the 20,000 range. How many were just there for crowd control and how many were intimately involved with the situation we dont know. But on it's face, a case can be made that the police response was reasonable.

I agree with PD response. Had tempers seriously flared from bystanders, and they didn't have that many cops, people would be talking about how poor the police response was and how that was racially motivated.


Great Lakes Brewery Patron...

-Mark

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 7:04 PM
LostKause's avatar

Good job, Jeff. I was just about to reply to that ignorance. So happy that I don't have to.

I have respect for Muslims even though I really don't understand many of their practices. (Even though I don't agree with the reasons that they do it, ) Muslim women should, of course, be allowed to wear their masks while walking around the park. However, for safety reasons, I understand and support the rule of not allowing the head-ware on a ride. Those women who wear them should try to understand it as well. It's not a personal attack (or it shouldn't be, anyways). It's a ruloe for safety.

If the park thinks a rule like this is a good idea, than they have every right to enforce it. This is America, darn it. They didn't ban Muslims from wearing headware on the rides. They banned people from wearing headware on the rides.

And referring to the 911 comment (darn I just can resist), just because a marathon runner happens to be a taxi driver doesn't mean that all taxi drivers are marathon runners.


+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:28 PM
OhioStater's avatar

It's called racism & discrimination. USA! USA! USA!

It's just very, very sad that some people cannot see hate for what it is. Q was correct; humans have a very. very long way to go.

Last edited by OhioStater, Wednesday, August 31, 2011 8:32 PM
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:03 PM

That was very low of Q.

Wait for it...


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:21 PM
CoasterDemon's avatar

Who's Q?


Billy
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:28 PM
67440Dodge's avatar

he's omnipotent


Just another Mike..

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:31 PM
rollergator's avatar

Ensign Smith said:
That was very low of Q.

Two thoughts:

1. The opposite of which is "haiku"? ;)
2. Lo-Q sucks (or is great, depending)... :)


You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:39 PM
CoasterDemon's avatar

This thread is having me look up all kinds of things.


Billy
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:42 PM

Three cheers for enlightenment! Reminds me of a joke.

You know what the Buddhist said to the hot dog vendor?


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:13 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

67440Dodge said:
he's omnipotent

LOL, you totally beat me to it!


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 10:19 PM
67440Dodge's avatar

Ensign Smith said:
Three cheers for enlightenment! Reminds me of a joke.

You know what the Buddhist said to the hot dog vendor?

Don't go to Rye Playland on Tuesday while wearing you Marriage is So Gay t-shirt?


Just another Mike..

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:16 PM
LostKause's avatar

I know the punchline to that very old joke, but I won't ruin it.

I'm still wondering who Q is. I'm happy I'm not the only one who didn't get it.


+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...