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 11:21 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

It's like Deja Q with you and Billy.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

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

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:25 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

Here:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Q+is+omnipitent


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:25 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

Instead of being totally Q-Less, you guys need to ask Q-Who?

I'm sure someone will tell you all about the True-Q.

:)


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

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

+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:26 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

They could just Q what I did, and go on over to Q-gle


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:27 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

What the Q?!


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

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

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 12:23 AM

The article mentions that the incident began as a fight between two groups of visitors-- both Muslim. It also mentions that there were thousands of people at the park as part of the Eid festivities. This indicates to me that the entire incident was started by a small group of troublemakers who now want to make this a freedom of religion issue.

If all but 40 people in the park had no problem with complying with the rule, why should a small minority try to turn this into a discrimination case, and justify physical violence on one of their religion's holiest days? A 17-year old has come out saying that she started it because "this is her religion" (wearing the hijab). All well and good, if you're required to wear it, you can't ride certain rides. I see no discrimination here.

If it had been a group of Catholic nuns wearing veils and habits, and they had claimed discrimination if they were refused admission to certain rides, I highly doubt many people on this site would be defending their rights and their religion. On the contrary, many of you would be bitching about how they're trying to use their religion to break rules and shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats. This is a park owned and operated by a municipal agency after all.

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 2:03 AM

I call BS on the park claiming this is some safety issue. I've seen countless people at other parks with headwear on rides and it's never seemed to be an issue. If they can survive MF and TTD at CP without flying off, I don't think some little ride at Playland is going to cause an issue. You should probably ban jackets, long hair and baggy clothing too if you think this is a legit safety issue.

I'd stop short of claiming outright discrimination by the park, or defending the response by the patrons and police, but it's definitely a poorly thought out rule. If you're going to ban hats, then ban hats. There's no need to apply some overreaching and illogical policy across the board. Use a little common sense.


And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 7:20 AM
birdhombre's avatar

Is it really that unreasonable to think a hijab might get caught on something? I realize a go-kart is different from a roller coaster since the rider sits lower and thus closer to the wheels, but the principle is similar.

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 7:46 AM

Like I said, if that's considered a safety risk, then you'd better outlaw a whole slew of other things that I don't usually see forbidden on those kinds of attractions.


And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 8:11 AM

That is why they use the general term "headgear," so that it is applied to anything on the head, so as not to cause any confusion about anything. As silly as it may seem to you, a park policy is a park policy. If they feel there is a reason for it to exist, then they should enforce it. What good does a safety policy do if you are making exceptions?

Great, you don't agree that the park should have this policy, but in this situation, it doesn't really matter. It is what it is, and there was no discrimination. Someone else mentioned a Jewish group that had no problem complying with the rule. The park did what they should have done, objectively enforce their policy, not selectively enforce it.


Original BlueStreak64

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 8:12 AM

Whether it actually is a safety risk or not is a moot point. The park is allowed to set their own rules, and one of them is no headwear on rides. It's non-discriminatory and fairly straightforward.

Whether other parks allow you to wear hats on a ride doesn't even enter the equation because this didn't occur at other parks, it occured at Playland.


John
+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:33 AM

"Non-discriminatory" is the key word. If Playland's enforcement of their policy is uniform and universal, this story is a non-story. If that's not the case, then it's a very big story indeed.


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:38 AM

Agreed, but there's nothing in the story to indicate that other people with hats were being allowed to ride and that the muslim women were being singled out.


John
+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:40 AM

Actually, I wasn't trying to imply that was the case. Merely trying to boil the controversy down to its logical nucleus.


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:48 AM
Carrie J.'s avatar

Almost, Mike. There's still a story no matter what in a group of people breaking out into violence because they didn't get their way. Unfortunately, that's a concept that transcends all ages, genders, ethnicities, and religions.

Even if you don't agree with the rules...even if there's injustice in the rules... you still don't have any rights to respond the way the folks in this story did.

It's all very sad if you ask me.

Last edited by Carrie J., Thursday, September 1, 2011 9:58 AM

"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 10:02 AM

You're completely right about that. And it seems that in every culture, every ethnic group or religion, there are those who 'know' that they are being discriminated against, and therefore look for this discrimination in every interaction they have with others. Well, guess what? If you look for something hard enough, you're gonna find it -- whether it's real or not.


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 12:18 PM

If my religion says I cannot eat, say, butter, and i walk into a restaurant that has signs saying: We cook with Real Butter. Is it okay for me to start a fight based on the restaurants lack of concern over my religion? Should I become outraged and shove a waitress for their insensitivity to my needs?


Great Lakes Brewery Patron...

-Mark

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:19 PM

Smoke329 said:


xanderl said:

I won't defend the park in their handling of the situation, nor the police in theirs

What did the park do wrong other than maybe saying "choking hazard"? as silly as that sounds. They were even refunding peoples money.

As for the Police and security. They are trained to subdue/detain unruly people. If you do not comply or go in a peaceful manner then force can be used and the amount of force is determined by the actions of the suspect. Even if you say with a smile "Please turn around and I am going to put the handcuffs on" people still resist. The group was already out of control when units arrived there. Then they proceeded to assault officers!Hmmm FELONY! Officer safety is number one. Number two is to defuse the situation and it always isn't in a polite please and thank you manner. 60 units might seem like a lot, but if more were available they would have been there too.

The group is at fault here for their actions.. Not the park or the Police

I simply meant that I wouldn't defend either of them because I was not there to see how they approached the situation. I was just throwing in my views to defend the park's policy itself and show my support for it.

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 1:53 PM

FLYINGSCOOTER said:
If my religion says I cannot eat, say, butter, and i walk into a restaurant that has signs saying: We cook with Real Butter. Is it okay for me to start a fight based on the restaurants lack of concern over my religion? Should I become outraged and shove a waitress for their insensitivity to my needs?

Yes it is. And yes you should. Its your right. ;)

I have a theory about why there weren't nearly as many kids with allergies when I was a kid: they all died in bike accidents because they weren't riding bike helmets before the allergies could manifest themselves. :)

+0
Thursday, September 1, 2011 3:26 PM


I simply meant that I wouldn't defend either of them because I was not there to see how they approached the situation. I was just throwing in my views to defend the park's policy itself and show my support for it.

Fair enough!! :)

+0

You must be logged in to post

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