(Via Islamophobia-Watch.com)
Altercation at New York amusement park after Muslim women banned from rides for wearing headscarves
A New York amusement park was temporarily shut down Tuesday after a large-scale altercation erupted between Muslim patrons and park rangers over a disagreement on headgear rules.
Muslim women in a tour group at Rye Playland in Westchester County were reportedly denied access to several rides because they were wearing hijabs – their traditional headscarves, MyFoxNY reports.
“Our headgear policy is designed to protect the safety of patrons and safety is our first concern,” said Deputy Parks Commissioner Peter Tartaglia. “This policy was repeatedly articulated to the tour operator, but unfortunately the message did not reach some of the members of his group.”
The altercation began when park officials offered refunds and members of the Muslim group got in a scuffle, Tartaglia told The Journal News. Two park rangers were injured when they jumped in to break it up, he said, and were taken to local hospitals.
Dozens of police vehicles from nine agencies then rushed to the park, where officers arrested 15 people – mostly for disorderly conduct, authorities said. The disturbance involved around 30 to 40 people.
All other visitors were not allowed into the park between 4 and 6 p.m. ET, with exit ramps from I-95 closed as well.
The tour group – the Muslim American Society of New York – was at the park to celebrate Eid-ul-Fitr, an Islamic holiday that marks the end of Ramadan, MyFoxNY reports.
“Everybody got mad, everybody got upset,” Amr Khater, a Brooklyn resident, told The Journal News. “It’s our holiday. Why would you do this to us?” Khater said park rangers notified him of the headgear rules upon arrival.
The Journal News reports: “Lola Ali, 16, of Astoria said she witnessed a group of girls and women wearing hijabs go to park security to confront them about the headgear issue. She said the women were upset and yelling. She said the security officers started pushing them away and the girls stood their ground, at which point the security officers grabbed them, pushed them to the ground and handcuffed them. Men within the park saw this and tried to intervene, Ali said, and the situation went downhill from there. ‘They were beating down the girls, then they started beating down the guys,’ she said of the security officers.”
August 31st, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Need comments on this loon video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHDKT1tasN8&feature=related
August 31st, 2011 at 4:29 pm
That park security officials denied hijabi’s access to several rides is understandable, considering the speed and swift motions can make it unravel and then get caught up in machinery, with potentially life-threatening consequences.
In the Netherlands, a woman’s hijab unraveled while riding go carts. Her scarf got caught in the rear axis, and she nearly was strangled to death. She then sued the company running the go cart track for lack of safety precautions. However, had the company refused her to drive the go cart in hijab, undoubtably she would have made a scene, and complained of discrimination.
The lesson being, that if on wants to make use of go carts or amusement park rides with your head covered, one should consider wearing a hooded sweatshirt. Granted, it doesn’t look as stylish: but at least you’d get in the ride with no safety hazards.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:44 pm
In fairness, if it is part of their safety protocol they can’t just ignore it on the spot, they would at least have to take it to the authorities, if something does go wrong they will be liable. I recall a similar incident of a hijab-related accident happening near Sydney within the last two years. Perhaps they should look into what styles of hijab would be more appropriate for amusement rides.
August 31st, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I think this Image sums up the loons pretty good
http://www.ratemyfunnypictures.com/index.php/14025/rate-my-top-150-funny-pics-of-the-month/
August 31st, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@ patrick
I find several things extremely objectionable about this video. Apart from the minor issue of the announcer’s misquoting Imam AbdulRauf percentage remark, this is sooooooo typical of the sort of Islam bashing we Muslims are used to. A 17 second blurb was played, and the rest of the 6 minutes and 44 seconds was given over to these to uninformed men’s vitriol. The very first, enflamatory and emotive remarks of Mr. Adler as examples of Sharia “law” have NOTHING at all to do with Sharia law. Unfortunately, it is a fact that Muslims are people, fallible as the rest of humanity, and just as capable as anyone else of misusing and twisting religion around for their own agendas. As an American (white, 12th generation American), I lived in the Middle East for almost 30 years. I’ve attended church services in Egypt and the UAE. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in harmony and peace with each other for centuries, except for the past 50 or so, and only in certain places, for the simple, political, non-religious reason that members of a particular religious group felt it was their moral duty to usurp the land of a people who’d lived there for millenia, while doing their utmost to make the lives of those who survived the onslaught/invasion a constant living hell. (Yes, I have been to Palestine.) Most of the objections that Mr. Coren has about Sharia law is exactly what is present, and often to a much stricter degree, in the Torah…which btw literally means “the Law”. There is SO much to disagree with in this clip, I’m at a loss to proceed further. Adler and Coren are not espousing/putting forward a balanced report, but neither do countless others. This sort of thing happens so often, that most Muslims have stopped responding/ defending. What’s the point? It’s getting harder and harder to find anyone with an open mind who can think for himself anymore.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Here is a video and the first news reports of the fight.
Notice how ‘muted’ the story has become in favor of the police in just a few hours by ‘omission’ of other factors.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:27 pm
@Patrick; you ran into some islamophobes who throw this video in your face, or what?
It’s not the first time imam Rauf has been attacked over his comment that the US Constitution actually being much more in line with Sharia than most people would assume. This is because when Westerners hear ‘sharia’ they immediately think of the part where it prescribes severe criminal punishment for adultery, theft, apostasy; or it’s rather minimal standards for marriage contract, or it’s inheritance precepts.
However, when Faizal Abdul Rauf speaks of sharia, he is first and foremost talking about certain priniples of good governance, and the relationship between the government and citizens. In judging whether a state is sharia-compliant, Rauf looks at what he sees as the core principles of sharia, namely: the right to life, the right to dignity, the right to education, and so forth.
Rauf: “Seven centuries ago, the most important jurists said that all of shariah law is basically the fulfilment of five fundamental human rights: 1. the right to life; 2. the right to freedom of religion; 3. the right to family; 4. the right to property; and 5. the right to – what is called, under Muslim law – ‘mental well-being’”
http://www.therightscoop.com/imam-rauf-sharia-law-pretty-much-just-like-the-constitution/
Rauf notes that this is very similar to a phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence which proclaims the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So when Rauf claims that Shariah law is 90% fully compatible with American constitutional law, this is because when talking about sharia, he has it’s principles in mind.
Of course, one could ask him: well, but what about stonings, beheadings, floggings and cutting of limbs? What about the raw deal women get in divorce courts? What about inheritance laws? What about the rights orthodox sheikhs give to fathers to wed off their underage daughter (the father being their guardian)? Aren’t those things part of sharia law, or do you think they shouldn’t be, since they do not conform to the right to life, human dignity and mental well-being?
But instead of asking him in all earnesty how he proposes to solve the theological problem this creates (one way would be to say that the specifics of shariah can differ for different times and different places, according to the needs of specific societies), islamophobes just start berating him.
And not just that, but they hurl silly retorts ad the man, like in your video, where the presenter says:
“Very odd, considering the US constitution says nothing about killing your relatives who dishonor your family or blinding women with acid when they make an independent decision about their own education or family life..”
Apparently, mr Adler doesn’t realise that sharia law doesn’t actually condone those things. He confuses Muslim practices with the precepts of their religion. It’s like saying that catholic teaching allows one to fornicate, since a lot of catholics sleep around and then, if they’re practicing catholics, just make a confession to a priest and all’s well. But as any devout catholic will tell you, the fact that people act that way, doesn’t mean the religion condones that behavior.
Michael Coren (the guest) is a British right wing talk show host. So why is he commenting on Shariah Law? He’s as little an expert on the matter as my opinionated neighbor is.
Furthermore, Coren is lying through his teeth when he says that may of his friends in the Arab world who are Christian, say that it’s permissible according to Islam for Muslims to tell lies to non-Muslims (the so called ‘taqiyya’-doctrine). I know it’s a lie, because this is a smear that has been going around the islamophobe blogs for some years now, and it’s an invention of islamophobes entirely. Most Muslims haven’t never heard of taqiyya, so how could Michael Coren’s Christian arab friends have heard of it? Maybe they’ve spent too much time on islamophobe websites.
Then, Adler asks if Rauf can be called a moderate, since Rauf extols the virtues of ‘shariah law’. But it’s a straw man argument, since Raufs understanding of what shariah law is really all about, differs entirely of what countries like Pakistan or Saudi-Arabia make of it.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:38 pm
So let me get this straight. LoonWatch is attacking a theme park for enforcing a set of rules to ensure the safety of those attending. If a scarf got caught, I’m sure LoonWatch would still be crying discrimination and claiming Islamophobia and the parties would sue the park into bankruptcy.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:43 pm
“So let me get this straight. LoonWatch is attacking a theme park for enforcing a set of rules to ensure the safety of those attending. If a scarf got caught, I’m sure LoonWatch would still be crying discrimination and claiming Islamophobia and the parties would sue the park into bankruptcy.”
It’s the American way.
August 31st, 2011 at 5:55 pm
@Rocky Lore; I don’t think the big issue is they got refused for the ride.
“She said the security officers started pushing them away and the girls stood their ground, at which point the security officers grabbed them, pushed them to the ground and handcuffed them. Men within the park saw this and tried to intervene, Ali said, and the situation went downhill from there. ‘They were beating down the girls, then they started beating down the guys,’ she said of the security officers.”
August 31st, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Rocky Lore
“…attacking a theme park..”
Where the attack? It seems they just reported the incident, and I have read the same from other sources. Reporting Incident = Attack??
August 31st, 2011 at 7:06 pm
It’s strange this is here, as it’s the kind of news Jihadwatch uses to advance their agenda.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Rocky
1. There are THeme parks all over the world i have yet to read 1 single story about a hijab getting cught in one of the spinning teacups at disneyland and killing someone. Heck they have rides in muslim country were people wear hijabs and I still yet to see a report someone getting killed most of the times its the rides breaking and then someone dies but that is bad construction in these countrys
2.Were these rules posted or visible or were they made on the fly say because of someone view on _______ people?
3.As a security officer you cant tackle or do anything like that because YOU ARE NOT A COP your a rent a cop they dont have the training know how to do same stuff the police does what if there miss handleing got someone killed They are only allowed to observe and report and when there is trouble call the real cops and most of these security guys are ex gangbangers and criminals with arrests who cant get real jobs because of there recod who do these jobs because it pays more when flipping burgers what prob happend was the security guy lost his temper and then the above applys
August 31st, 2011 at 7:34 pm
@Rocky Bore,
Since when did a retarded teabagger like you care so much about Muslim women’s security? Oh wait, you don’t…you simply want to vent with your usual anti-Muslim nonsense.
The park has a right to restrict to access to those rides which pose a danger, even though I personally find the whole “headgear” argument lame. I would be happy to spend a night in jail pushing away those 6 PIGS in uniform for assaulting one Muslim woman.
August 31st, 2011 at 8:01 pm
If you are worred about the GroundZero guy here is a few quotes
“Lord, give us righteous judges who will not try to legislate and dominate this society. Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court.” –Pat Robertson
We at the Christian Coalition are raising an army who cares. We are training people to be effective — to be elected to school boards, to city councils, to state legislatures, and to key positions in political parties…. By the end of this decade, if we work and give and organize and train, THE CHRISTIAN COALITION WILL BE THE MOST POWERFUL POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AMERICA
– Pat Robertson, in a fundraising letter, July 4, 1991
There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.
– Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.
“I don’t know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We’ve had an earthquake; we’ve had a hurricane. He said, `Are you going to start listening to me here?’ Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. ”
–GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, speaking at a Sarasota, Fla., rally on Sunday (Aug. 28). She was quoted by the St. Petersburg Times
August 31st, 2011 at 8:03 pm
The explanation for not allowing hijab sounds fishy. What about loose hair? Many women have their long hair tied in a ponytail or have it open falling to their shoulders or backs. So let’s say if the hijab has a chance to get stuck in some thing, the long flying hair has a far worse chance to get stuck in something and it could pull the scalp off or the head off. Now if they were saying that a hijab can fall off and get stuck in machinery and cause damage to the ride apparatus, it would have made more sense. But I have seen in many roller coaster parks that some people take off their hats or caps since they know they will lose them but some keep it on. I have never seen any park official comment that the flying cap is a hazard.
So basically if I am able to prove that a) long hair has a far worse chance to get stuck somewhere and far worse consequences and b) park officials in the parks don’t object to flying caps or hats then this park’s explanation makes no sense.
Six Flags routinely holds Muslim days so we know for sure that there is no problem being in a roller coaster and wearing a hijab.
Oh Allah, the Islamophobia! I pray Rye goes bankrupt, Amin.
August 31st, 2011 at 8:44 pm
So throughout this whole ordeal, nobody considered asking maintenance or engineers about their opinion on the matter? figures.
As I see it, the guys that stood with the women were doing the right thing.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:13 pm
British schoolgirl strangled to death in freak karting accident in (Hong Kong, 19th February 2010)
Family sees mother strangled by hijab in freak go-karting accident (Australia, April 9, 2010)
Girl sues go-kart track for damages after being strangled by her headscarf getting caught (Netherlands, 08 april 10 – indicent occurred in 2007)
Girl strangled in late night go-kart accident (Perth, UK, Dec 15, 2009)
August 31st, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Here is a Snopes article about scalping and rides:
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/scalped.asp
So there are at least 3 documented articles about long hair and scalping. Does Rye ban long hair? I have yet to find an article about hijab and strangulation.
BTW wasn’t FIFA concerned about strangulation too when they banned the Iranian team from playing football? The Iranian women were not running around at roller coaster speeds now were they?
And if Rye is going to mention falling debris, do they ban cameras, cell phones, eye glasses, purses, handbags, and things of that nature? Do all the playland guests leave those things with the park officials before getting on a ride?
Bring on the lawsuits.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Jack,
Did you notice that in the first link that you posted, Amy Rose (obviously not a Muslim) was wearing the scarf around her neck? Do you recognize the fact that wearing a scarf around the neck as supported here by Alba:
http://www.ladiesaccessory.com/2011/06/women-neck-scarves-make-a-style-statement-in-present-fashion/
has become quite a fashion statement among women?
So do you propose that women with ANY type of neck scarf (and this could get extended to men with neckties as well) should be asked to take it off by Rye Playland (or others) or do you feel that the strangulation hazard exists only when it’s a Muslim woman and when she is wearing a hijab?
August 31st, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“And if Rye is going to mention falling debris, do they ban cameras, cell phones, eye glasses, purses, handbags, and things of that nature?”
Actually, yes. On several theme parks they most definitely do.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Actually Jack you did a good thing that you posted that first link (by mistake or by intention).
BUT gazillions of women (and men) wear the neck scarf these days. If any lawyer is reading this, bring these Rye Playland people to court and ask them why they haven’t prohibited neck scarves for women or men?
a) If it’s a matter of strangulation hazard, the neck scarf has a much higher probability to be caught and get pulled up than a traditional hijab?
b) If it’s a matter of flying debris, the scarf has a much higher probability of being blown off than a hijab that most women secure with pins?
So what is it then: a) strangulation hazard or b) flying objects or c) plain old Islamophobia that makes these scumbags object to hijabs?
August 31st, 2011 at 10:44 pm
@AJ; obviously, if one refuses headscarves on certain rollercoaster rides and go-kart attractions because of safety hazards, one should also demand of people wearing scarves that they either take them off while riding the cart/rollercoaster or tuck them in their coats.
In fact, I’d think that scarves are even more dangers since they have long sleeves flying in every direction. It could easily get stuck in machinery.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:49 pm
“Actually, yes. On several theme parks they most definitely do.”
I have had the chance to visit Six Flags MD, Cedar Point OH, Busch Gardens VA, Disney Land, Disney World and Universal Orlando. I have been asked to secure my things but HAVE never been asked to relinquish any of my personal items. I have even worn flip flops on roller coaster rides with no bases where there is a strong chance to lose one’s shoe but I have not been asked to take off my shoe.
And now as I have presented the case of neck scarf that could be the closest thing to a hijab:
Has Rye playland asked anyone to take it off or worse yet, wrestled to take it off a woman?
Color it any twist you want, it comes out only as Islamophobia.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:51 pm
@AJ; how do you know that Rye doesn’t demand people either take their scarves off before getting on a ride or tucking it in?
You only assume that they don’t demand that because their hasn’t been a newsreport about sleeve-wearing, scarve-wielding women making a raucus about wanting to get on the rides while letting their scarves fly freely.
But people should try it out and tape it, going on the rides with long scarves dangling along their torso. If the staff doesn’t object, then yeah, the Muslim Association of America should sue. (In fact they might want to sue anyway for rent-a-cop brutality, but they’d make a stronger case if they could prove this was a clear case of scarf discrimination.)
August 31st, 2011 at 10:54 pm
“In fact, I’d think that scarves are even more dangers since they have long sleeves flying in every direction. It could easily get stuck in machinery.”
Well there you go! Sue the bastards or make them ban the neck scarf as well.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Where does it say they were asked to relinquish the items?
http://www.lohud.com/article/20110830/NEWS02/110830004/Dispute-sends-scores-police-Playland-park-reportedly-closed
“The park was crowded with Muslims celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr, one of Islam’s two major holidays. Most were from community groups in Westchester and New York City as part of a daylong event arranged by the Muslim American Society of New York.”
So, the MAS arranged the event with the park, if it’s so “Islamophobic” a park, why accept the event at all?
“Parks officials “painstakingly” told the organizer about the headgear ban, said Tartaglia. But he said that the rules might not have been communicated by the organizer to some attendees.”
The park made clear abou the safety precautions on some rides. The organizer neglected to properly inform the group.
“Three accidents on Playland rides that killed two children and a park worker between 2004 and 2007 were unrelated to clothing the victims were wearing. But the headgear ban was among safety rules that went into effect after those deaths.”
The ban was in effect for all, not only Muslim headgear. That’s not discrimination. It’s the opposite of that.
This news is curious as it seems to be used by all to advance a point of view. JW is touting it as an example of Muslim supremacism, and here as an example of bigotry.
It’s neither. It’s a bunch of people who acted like violent idiots because they felt entitled to something. Their religion is irrelevant. I’ve seen groups of people act like that from every religion and ethnicity. But’s not an example of anti-Muslim sentiment.
August 31st, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Jack said:
“@AJ; how do you know that Rye doesn’t demand people either take their scarves off before getting on a ride or tucking it in? ”
They could have asked the Muslim women with loose head scarfs to tuck in their scarfs as well
I don’t think that the neck scarf is banned or otherwise we would have heard about in all the stupid strangulation excuses that Rye is giving out about Islamic “headgear”.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:03 pm
HGG,
Banning the hijab when an equivalent cloth accessory in not banned is anti-Islam bigotry. The Muslim women shouldn’t have created the drama that they did, they should take them to court. Hooliganism doesn’t solve anything, making them bankrupt does.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:07 pm
And while they are at it, make them ban loose long flyaway hair as well, its a scalping hazard.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:35 am
@Aon Neach and Jack
Thank you very much for your comments on the video link that i posted on loon watch. As a french speaking muslim i was trying to make you guys aware of these islamophobes here in Canada mimicking the kind of spencer and other. I hope loonwatch specially the great Danios take care of them in few postings.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:02 am
What equivalent cloth accessory hasn’t been banned?
The park has the rules:
“All items and clothing must be appropriately secured while on a ride; some smaller items can be stored/secured in cargo pockets or waist pouches. Hats must be secured, and jackets/sweaters must be worn properly and not around the waist while on a ride. Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind.”
*headgear* of any kind.
It’s a strange form of Islamophobia that allows them to go to the park, and only prohibits certain rides, based, not on religion, but on what they are wearing.
This isn’t an islamophobic incident, and trying to paint it as one, when the guilty parties are those who couldn’t restrain themselves from violence, actually hurts the cause.
September 1st, 2011 at 2:17 am
Hey AJ, stop pulling the Islamophobia card every time Muslims are clearly in the wrong, as is the case here. You’re like black people who pull the race card when they get pulled over for clearly doing something wrong.
Do you like to pull up 70 excuses every time a Muslim is clearly in the wrong, as it is here? We all know you think every Muslim is perfect compared to the evil kuffar you often whine about on here.
I just get the impression now that all this site does is gives Muslims an excuse to continue to engage in a victimization mentality in the West and make them believe that they do nothing wrong and that Muslim countries are much better than the Western countries they often belittle on a regular basis. Self-criticism is seen on here as treacherous and tantamount to Islamophobia, because no Muslim is EVER so capable of wrongdoing, right?
September 1st, 2011 at 3:27 am
Setting aside the inappropriate over reaction of the security officers, I think it is well within their rights to deny entrance to some rides for certain attire. It isn’t just hijabis; patrons wearing drapy long skirts, saris, and shawls aren’t allowed on certain rides either. Shawls getting caught in the engine of electric trishaws and shopping mall escalators have killed before; some of us have seen the pictures and they aren’t pretty.
Hijabis have the options of tucking in their hijabs into thir collar for the rides, or wrapping them a certain way, or wearing strangle-safe hijabs like the ones worn by swimmers. Most theme park officers allow these, some will even kindly suggest them.
September 1st, 2011 at 4:05 am
@Dan
“We all know you think every Muslim is perfect compared to the evil kuffar you often whine about on here.”
No one has said Muslims are perfect, and we can have different opinions about this incident.
In person and in writing, I have witnessed a great deal of reflection and self-criticism on the part of Muslims. I don’t get the impression you’re indulging in dinner conversations with Muslims on a regular basis, but maybe you should.
Loonwatch has a different mission. There is no shortage of hateful anti-Muslim propaganda that goes well beyond legitimate criticism, and the point of Loonwatch is to counter it.
If would be a difficult trick to indulge in self criticism AND counter the mountains of criticism directed at Islam simultaneously.
September 1st, 2011 at 4:44 am
HGG,
I think you don’t get it. We are going around in circles.
I am not accusing the park of Islamophobia because of the manner they handled the incident. They were implementing the rules and were right to stop the women from getting on the rides. Rules are rules. The Muslim society is seriously foolish to not have investigated this earlier, to have wasted everyone’s money, time and energy and to have spoiled what should have been a joyous occasion.
I am accusing the Park of Islamophobia because of the no-hijab policy on certain rides. Only Sikhs and Muslims wear “headgear” because of religious reasons so it’s not really an optional “headgear”.
IF the park is going to devise such a rule because of “strangulation” hazards, it should be investigated whether they have banned equivalent or worse strangulation hazards such as neck ties and neck scarves as well. If not, preventing a head gear (such as hijab and the Sikh turban) should be considered Islamophobic and Sikhophobic as well.
And IF their rule for neck ties and neck scarves or any other potential cloth accessory (that is a strangulation hazard) is that it should be secured before getting on rides, then they should have the same rule for hijabs as well.
September 1st, 2011 at 4:49 am
I don’t see any wrongdoing by the park rangers. It’s the rule for their safety, and the women threw a hissy fit about it and the rangers had to jump in.
This isn’t islamophobia, just a bunch of people who couldn’t follow rules set by an establishment.
September 1st, 2011 at 6:20 am
Actually, AJ, the reason we’re going in circles is because you keep making up stuff to support your non existent claims of Islamophobia.
You bring tangents like neck ties and strangulation, which were only offered here, in this discussion, as one of the probable reasons for the safety measure. The park rules don’t offer motives nor explanations. The ban is on all kinds of head gear for security reasons. What those reasons may be are irrelevant.
That’s their prerogative. It’s privately owned and the owners may do whatever to ensure the safety of those that attend the park. If the religious convictions trump the desire for leisure activities (as they should) they are welcome to go someplace else. They don’t, however, have the right to force those convictions on anyone else.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:59 am
@AJ; As it turns out they don’t have a special hijab and turban ban. All loose items such as camera’s, glasses, etc are forbidden. You can’t wear a sweater round your waste. Headgear is only allowed if firmly secured, and on some rides, its banned altogether.
This information is on their website, regarding park safety rules. HGG already quoted it:
“Loose articles and personal possessions such as electronic devices, keys, hats, glasses, backpacks, purses and stuffed animals should be left at home, kept in a locker or left with a non-rider while at the Park or on rides. Lockers are provided for a fee, and some rides provide shared bins. All items and clothing must be appropriately secured while on a ride; some smaller items can be stored/secured in cargo pockets or waist pouches. Hats must be secured, and jackets/sweaters must be worn properly and not around the waist while on a ride. Some rides do not allow backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind.“
So the fact the women got turned down for certain rides isn’t a case of discrimination, since they don’t permit headgear of any kind on those.
The issue is how park security personnel and police handled the row that ensued. Did they act professionally, or did they get carried away in a heated exchange, and pounce on the angry Muslims?
September 1st, 2011 at 10:12 am
“The issue is how park security personnel and police handled the row that ensued. Did they act professionally, or did they get carried away in a heated exchange, and pounce on the angry Muslims?”
I beg to differ. I don’t care what the security personnel did. I want to know why in the first place such rules exist. Muslims and anybody to whom taking of their head covering in public is tantamount to being asked to take off their pants in public, have the FULL right to challenge these rules and get to the bottom of this since such situations can happen in future too.
So far “strangulation” is the ONLY reason offered and this explanation doesn’t suffice in case the religious garb is SO TIGHT over the head that loose long flyaway hair has more chances to get stuck somewhere than the garb on it.
HGG, Rye is government owned. If you are not forcing your conviction on me by virtue of you desiring to keep your pants on in public places, I am not forcing my conviction on you to desire to cover my hair in public places. The sooner you understand this about Muslim women; perhaps it would be easier to work together with Muslims on this than to create more hindrances.
Safety and security of the park attendees is an easier issue to fix and can be achieved by prescribing specific head gear for those who wear it religiously.
Islamophobia is however a more difficult issue to fix.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:32 am
OK…
We have begun arguing with Islamophobes about women’s rights? This is totally off the mark here.
This is NOT about the right of women to wear thier scarfs on the rides…because it was prohibited by the park for EVERYONE…including the women who protested.
If we are ALL honest, it was up to the event organizers to find out the rules, and let those who participated in the event those rules…like ANY other ORGANIZED event. If women were not allowed to wear thier scarfs…and were informed by the organizers of the event…the women could have chosen to…take thier scarfs off to ride…let thier children enjoy the rides by themselves…or another event they could enjoy without taking it off….so part of the fault is the organizers.
What probably happened is…they let a worker tell a woman…who had NOT been informed of the policy she could not ride ‘because of the scarf’…an employee who simply follows the rules. The employee is not equipped to handle delicate issues…and the conflict between the employee and the women (again misinfomed) escalated.
The question here is why…highway exists had to be blocked, and so many police agencies had to be brought in to quell 2 people arguing. The question is…why the polcie pulled a woman down by her clothing…slamming her to the ground, and why they beat people who went to her help.
What the Islamophobes you keep arguing with here want to draw away the attention of…is the panic they feel when Muslims are involved.
Watch the parts of the video that have been edited out of the story you put here…and stop falling for the Islamophobe baiting…!!!
September 1st, 2011 at 10:41 am
Nur,
YES, I have the right to argue my point on asking to be told how to dress but not asked to undress in public.
You have the right to argue how the police handled the case. I am not telling you how to proceed.
Thats the beauty of freedom of speech.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:05 am
I don’t think there was an discrimination or Islamophobia at all. Maybe the alleged tackling and beating of the women by security guards is a big issue but as for the headscarf rule I believe it is the Parks right to ban what they consider unsafe.
As a Muslim Ive witnessed this behavior from my fellow Muslims here in America. Some attempt to do something that is clearly against the rules of whatever situation they are in (which also makes that against the rules of Islam, since Islam obligates you to follow laws and rules unless they actively prevent you from being a Muslim).
And most of these incidents Ive noted that the Muslims do not seem to be all that religious anyway. If they had followed the teachings of the Prophet (s.a.w) they would know not to cause such controversies where they shouldn’t exist i.e not to disturb the peace for no reason at all. It was simple decision: Do not get on the rides or stay far away from them. Its for their own safety anyway, many Muslims will cry bigotry until someone they know gets her head snapped off riding a roller-coaster. SO Yeh inshallah this is resolved peacefully.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:10 am
^CORRECTION
I said above “The alleged tackling and beating of women…”
I said that before seeing the evidence. The tape shows alot of unnecessary and brutal violence.
This is the big issue….
September 1st, 2011 at 12:14 pm
ALL the reports of scarfs being entangled are related to ONLY go-cart rides. ALSO the policy whould be scarfs must be tucked in. Muslim women will have no problem with that. But rye park is denying MUSLIM women from many rides and roller coasters is noting but bigotry.
September 1st, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Who do these mooslim debris think they are? Time’s coming when we roll them all up in their stupid prayer rugs and ship them the hell outta here.
September 1st, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I said that before seeing the evidence. The tape shows alot of unnecessary and brutal violence.
I saw police officers using the necessary force to take down someone purportedly resisting arrest.
September 1st, 2011 at 2:44 pm
I wouldn’t think denying women wearing headscarves as a matter of safety isn’t Islamophobic at all.
But the reaction that came after has me wondering. I mean, seriously. What kind of a response to a complaint is pushing on someone?
And because the rangers didn’t respect these women at all, they overreacted and became violent against the women. Despite what RDS claims, resorting to brute force against unarmed women is NOT acceptable whatsoever. There are very few men out there who will stand by and watch their sister/mother/wife/daughter be manhandled like that, except maybe RDS. Allahu alem.
The response that follows proves that, indeed, an Islamophobic element was in play. Who the HECK blocks exits of a park because of a fight? It wasn’t a riot, despite what anyone claims. No one was in danger except the Muslim women.
White men saving brown women from brown men? If that’s their definition of “saving”, I’ll stick with the brown men. Thanks anyway.
September 1st, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“I saw police officers using the necessary force to take down someone purportedly resisting arrest.”
Of course, when one wishes to cause as much pain and injury to another they throw a similiar excuse out there. Necessary force means one or two officers holding the woman by the arms and moving her to the side. What we see is unecessary and brutal violence against an individual who does not have the strength to harm the police. Anti-black racists use similiar excuses in police brutality against blacks. ” all i saw was the police acting in self defense and using necessary violence to stop a criminal.” you don’t need five or six trained cops to take down a single woman….
September 1st, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Necessary force means one or two officers holding the woman by the arms and moving her to the side.
I believe protocol for resisting arrest is to bring the person to the ground and make an arrest. Don’t know why you keep mentioning the suspect’s gender. Protocol treats females resisting arrest just the same as males.
you don’t need five or six trained cops to take down a single woman….
Yet you did see that many so it is clear to me there was a bit of resistance from that woman. Having more police officers make an arrest prevents excessive force imo. One police officer is more likely to throw a punch or slam someone too hard to the ground but a swarm of police officers can better partition their efforts so that no single hold or shove from a police officer is as likely to be too strong if there are several other officers restraining that person as well.
September 1st, 2011 at 8:51 pm
The response that follows proves that, indeed, an Islamophobic element was in play.
Do you have any evidence that officers treat non-Muslims who resist arrest differently from Muslims?
Otherwise your post is drenched with the usual paranoid conspiracy theories of Westerners out to destroy/hate/discriminate innocent Muslims so common in many corners of the internet.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:10 pm
ALL the reports of scarfs being entangled are related to ONLY go-cart rides. ALSO the policy whould be scarfs must be tucked in. Muslim women will have no problem with that. But rye park is denying MUSLIM women from many rides and roller coasters is noting but bigotry”
My thoughts exactly!
September 1st, 2011 at 9:30 pm
“I believe protocol for resisting arrest is to bring the person to the ground and make an arrest. Don’t know why you keep mentioning the suspect’s gender. Protocol treats females resisting arrest just the same as males.
”
I keep mentioning the suspects gender because of something called threat assesment on the part of the police. You and I know that the police react differently to different levels of threat. I would understand if it was a 6 foot 230 pound guy, but I kno and have been around woman like the ones shown in the video. They are not capable of causing injury to anyone who is awake and capable of simple defense. Your defence of such
blatant use of excessive force and violence is interesting. I’ve
always wondered wether people such as yourself would agree
or defend such use of excessive and brutal violence if it was
applied to yourself or a family member.
“Otherwise your post is drenched with the usual paranoid conspiracy theories of Westerners out to destroy/hate/discriminate innocent Muslims so common in many corners of the internet”
I don’t understand..what point are you attempting to prove. Unless this is your first time on this site, there is a movement, a very large movement, with strong financial backing that has found a home in a respected mainstream political party BBC has found a platform provided by a big player in the mainstream media. This site has been tracking this current trend of organizational islamiphobia, where whole organizations are created for the sole purpose of demonizing Muslims and lying about Islam. And it does not help the conversation by introducing a strawman into this. The notion that “westerners” (a label that can include Muslims as well) are out to destroy/ discriminate/ etc etc is only your own beleif. Loonwatch has never supported such an idea.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:30 pm
ALL the reports of scarfs being entangled are related to ONLY go-cart rides.
The issue doesn’t seem to be as much of entanglement as scarves/hats falling off during the ride and getting caught between the track and ride that could cause derailment.
But rye park is denying MUSLIM women from many rides and roller coasters is noting but bigotry”
It’s their business. Muslims are free to take their own business someplace else. I hardly think this is an issue of bigotry, especially since people wearing scarves are not denied on all the rides but the park not wanting to be sued if a scarf or hat manages to derail a ride.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:35 pm
“GoOverBoard” is simply little Bob trolling and abusing logical fallacies again under another moniker.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:36 pm
^CORRECTION
Wow BBC? Really iPhone? sorry I don’t know why the iPhone put it in there.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:44 pm
Your defence of such blatant use of excessive force and violence is interesting.
The bottom line is that someone was restrained to the ground so the cuffs could be put on after they resisted arrest. All I saw from the clip were officers restraining what appeared to be someone resisting arrest. Five or six officers putting someone to the ground seems to me like it would be less likely for any single officer to use excessive force than if one officer struggled to restrain someone so they could be arrested. Complaining about excessive force in this scenario is as bizarre as it would be to complain about excessive force because five or six people lifted you from the ground instead of one or two. Unless the officers dog piled on the suspect and the weight of several police officers were on the person being arrested, then there’s no valid argument against excessive force if we are to talk about excessive force being equal to brutality or injurious behavior.
I don’t understand..what point are you attempting to prove.
What does your tangent have to do with the other poster claiming the park and police were Islamophobically motivated?
September 1st, 2011 at 9:50 pm
“Yet you did see that many so it is clear to me there was a bit of resistance from that woman. Having more police officers make an arrest prevents excessive force imo.”
Key words, “to me” and “imo.” It’s quite bizarre to claim that what would normally be considered excessive force (several officers shoving down one women) is actually a prevention of excessive force. Your first sentence is certainly a non sequitur, hence why you added “to me.”
“Do you have any evidence that officers treat non-Muslims who resist arrest differently from Muslims?”
Again, what warped logic you have. There are plenty of examples of the executive branch treating Muslims unfairly. Read the book “Outcasts United,” where a soccer coach is verbally abused by a police officer simply for having the middle name “Hassan” (true story).
“Otherwise your post is drenched with the usual paranoid conspiracy theories of Westerners out to destroy/hate/discriminate innocent Muslims so common in many corners of the internet.”
Not a conspiracy theory, loon. There are plenty of Westerners who want to hate and discriminate against innocent Muslims, such as Hugh Fitzgerald and Pamela Geller (you’ve defended both countless times, including the former’s call to celebrate the deaths of civilian Muslims). You’re hardly one competent to have a sane opinion on such matters–you considered Fox News to have a “pro-Islam” bias.
September 1st, 2011 at 9:55 pm
BTW, Bob is of the bigoted opinion that absolutely no Islamophobia exists in the United States. Truly amazing how someone—who has called the proposed ethnic cleansing of Turkey a “noble effort” nonetheless—believes that no anti-Muslim sentiment exists at all in Western countries.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Your comparison of being lifted up by many people to being dragged to the ground having your arms twisted behind your back and one or two knees belonging to 250 pound officers pressed into your back is ridiculous. We aren’t going anywhere with this conversation. I’m out.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Not a conspiracy theory, loon.
Read the poster’s comment for yourself:
The response that follows proves that, indeed, an Islamophobic element was in play.
It sounds like the typical paranoid conspiracy talk to me.
But you can always perform a simple mental exercise: replace Muslim for Christian and park rangers/officers for Muslims and see if such a comment would be called ‘Islamophobic’, at least on this forum.
Again, what warped logic you have. There are plenty of examples of the executive branch treating Muslims unfairly.
What do names on the no-fly list have to do with police protocol and claims police officers would have escorted a non-Muslim resisting arrest to the side so they could arrested at a time more suitable for the individual?
As for excessive force, should I expect only one or two officers would jump if I were to resist arrest in a police station full of officers? Is there an officer to weight ratio? If I’m 120 lbs, does that mean only one officer may subdue me and all the other officers have to stand around and watch? Hmmm?
September 1st, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Your comparison of being lifted up by many people to being dragged to the ground having your arms twisted behind your back and one or two knees belonging to 250 pound officers pressed into your back is ridiculous. We aren’t going anywhere with this conversation. I’m out.
So you’re saying the knees of six officers may have been on the suspect’s back? Or are you just saying one knee from one of the six may have been? If it’s the latter, how is that *more* excessive than one officer subduing and ‘kneeing’ a someone resisting arrest?
My point is that with six officers, it should be *less* likely for any knees to be placed on the suspect’s back and officers would/should have less justification for doing so.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:25 pm
“It sounds like the typical paranoid conspiracy talk to me.”
“To me” indeed. I’ve already mentioned how you have a long history of profound anti-Muslim bigotry (as evidenced by your support for Hugh Fitzgerald) and delusions (as evidenced by your thoughts regarding Fox News supposed “pro-Islam bias”). You’re hardly one to be taken seriously.
The commentator said that anti-Muslim sentiment was at play. That’s certainly not farfetched, considering that Muslims have been subject to discrimination by United States law enforcement before. The Muslims that were subject to the altercation obviously have no doubts about this.
Your attempt to explain away the obvious excessive force speaks for itself. According to you, a women getting dragged by five or six officers across the ground and getting kneed isn’t excessive. The Muslim interviewed in the video in fact claimed that he didn’t resist arrest in any way but was still punched (and bruised, apparently).
September 1st, 2011 at 10:33 pm
Your attempt to explain away the obvious excessive force speaks for itself. According to you, a women getting dragged by five or six officers across the ground and getting kneed isn’t excessive.
I didn’t see anywhere in the video of anyone getting dragged on the ground and kneed. I think the same imagination that sees police officers going out of their way to brutalize Muslims is again playing tricks with you.
But you do seem to agree that any knees on someone resisting arrest when there are six officers involved in making the arrest *should* be less likely than if one officer were making an arrest with a violent suspect. Ergo, six officers subduing someone should mean there is actually less of ‘excessive force’ being used.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:45 pm
So whats the official reason for banning headgear? I still don’t get it. Yesterday I thought Rye was saying strangulation but the poster GoOverboard mentions falling objects.
So what is it?
September 1st, 2011 at 10:51 pm
“I didn’t see anywhere in the video of anyone getting dragged on the ground and kneed.”
Funny, because starting at about 10 seconds into the video one can clearly see several officers dragging someone across the ground.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoSMjfeK9ug
“I think the same imagination that sees police officers going out of their way to brutalize Muslims is again playing tricks with you.”
You also “think” that shoddy legislation being overturned in some state meant that centuries of Western civilization went “down the toilet.” We’ve seen countless times the level of the sophistication of your “thoughts.”
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:06 am
i don’t think it takes an engineer to see that while a go kart is not a roller coaster, they both consist of many moving parts and machinery that scarves could get tangled up in. it’s also not difficult to see that at the speeds they’re moving, combined with really powerful velocity, that even the most seemingly well tucked in and secured scarf could come loose. human necks are rather vulnerable when there’s something wrapped around them, especially when high speed and moving parts are involved. there’s also the possibility of any “headgear” coming off and disabling the ride. so i don’t think it’s a matter of “well which is it then”. there are a variety of safety issues that need to be considered.
i think the link re. a young child who suffered a horrid scalp injury on a ride also highlights why it could potentially be dangerous to wear a scarf over your head and around your neck on an amusement park ride. just as that child’s hair was caught in that ride’s machinery, so could a scarf. that girl survived her injuries, but was horribly maimed. her hair was pulled with so much force that her head smashed and broke a fiberglass seat. now think what that could do to the soft tissue of someone’s neck with a scarf wrapped tightly around it. not good. at all. the largest problem i see with this trashy little amusement park is that they seem to have poorly trained, un or mis-educated staff to enforce their safety protocols consistently. while it’s important to stamp out bigotry, they’ve got even bigger issues with keeping their customers safe and out of harm’s way. and that does include getting rid of POS park rangers providing so-called security that actually consists of assaulting customers in a manner that the situation did not even remotely call for. this park sounds like a dump. i wouldn’t want to visit there even if someone were paying me to be there. ick.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:14 am
Am I the only one who feels that this is a little bit of something out of nothing? As far as I can see:
- if the park chooses to ‘ban’ certain items it has every right to do so.
- people affected by said ‘ban’ have every right to complain if they feel the need to do so, in this case their points may well have been valid.
- additional to the first point; such a ban must be clearly stated, I believe that the tour group organizer failed to do this.
- I’m not going to start screaming islamaphobia on account of this
That’s it really but additionally we now have the far more important alleged violence on the side of the police as well as the fact that huge numbers of officers turned up to break up a minor scuffle. Now, I must say that the US police forces have… how do we say this… a ‘history’ of such events and a general love affair with heavy handedness. I remember the reaction by British police chiefs to the news that an American police chief was going to be bought over to ‘advise’ on the latest London riots! I believe such advise would be along the lines of the sort of massively overwhelming force that we see here, and as we can see it does put out the ‘fire’ momentarily but just makes more ‘fires’ of resentment for the police to deal with later on… which they will subsequently swamp with overwhelming force as well… you get the picture.
I think incidents like this are important in that sense, you need to start calling for the police to get back in line and remember that they are, as Robert Peel put it when he founded the world’s first police force; ‘The police are the public and the public are the police’ and also that ‘Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.’ I think the second one is the most important in this case.
Also, bob, be a man and answer points and stop hiding behind different user names. It’s quite telling really; hey at least you’re complaining of ‘IP bans’ any more!
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:54 am
On a bright note: at least the women made it clear to the world that wearing a hijab doesn’t mean you let yourself being pushed around by me.
Reminds me of the stereotype of the gesticulating and hollering Italian women (especially mothers). Badabing! Badaboom!
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:55 am
“by me” => “by men” (now, if that isn’t a Freudian slip…)
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:52 am
Well we can see exactly the kind of rubbish running through the minds of GoOverBoard:
“But you can always perform a simple mental exercise: replace Muslim for Christian and park rangers/officers for Muslims and see if such a comment would be called ‘Islamophobic’, at least on this forum.”
Uh huh. That’s right. Because, when substituting, Muslims can be substituted for authority figures. We know that CreepingSharia® is happening AS WE SPEAK and soon the Moozlims will be in authority any way.
Heck, it’s going to be like Saudi Arabia with the morality police running around! Except, in GoOverBoard’s mind, the Muslims will be repressing (with violence, of course), CHRISTIAN WOMEN who wish to cover their hair at an amusement park.
Well, it’s about time, Christian women. After all, I Corinthians 11:2-16 says ya’ll should cover your hair or have it shaved off. But you’ll never get the chance. We evil Moozlums will do everything in our power (once we take over with CreepingSharia®) to prevent you from following ANY interpretation of your religion, even if it means we have to resort to brute force in front of your families.
OK, let’s end this /conspiracytheory
GOB, you got ONE MESSED UP MIND.
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:56 am
Anyway, GOB is right. We most certainly wouldn’t call anti-Christian violence “Islamophobia”. Why? Because it’s anti-Christian, not Islamophobia. Heck, GOB, we wouldn’t call it anti-Semitism either.
If GOB is indeed Bobby Spencer, then I’m confused as to how he’s managed to garner such a large following. My CAT has more logic skills than that!
September 2nd, 2011 at 7:43 am
AJ and Talisman are perfect examples of how some Muslims take everything as war on Islam; a sign of an insecure and defeatist mentality.
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:51 am
@Umm Huraira; finally you speak plainly instead of practicing TAQIYYA and you reveal your TRUE PLANS, your Muslim Brotherhood puppet masters have set up for us when kickstarting CAIR, MSA, AMS and all their other Hamas-linked fronts!!11!!
We’ve got you now, in black and white, straight from the horse’s mouth!!!
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:56 pm
That’s right, Jack. You can see this vlog of mine below for the pPièce de résistance of my plan for complete takeover by CreepingSharia®
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Funny, because starting at about 10 seconds into the video one can clearly see several officers dragging someone across the ground.
I saw someone being slowly brought to the ground. So no, there was no footage of a person being *dragged* as they were on the ground.
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Yawn…is that the best you can do? All of a sudden dragging doesn’t mean dragging anymore. Yet several officers were clearly pulling someone several feet across the ground against their will; they were holding at the upper body while one could clearly discern the person’s legs being dragged across the dirt. Anyone can look at the video for him or herself and gauge your dishonesty.
This article also highlights some other facts that go against your assertions. A commentator under the article concurred that someone was indeed dragged across the ground.
“Fifteen people were arrested at Rye Playland amusement park in Westchester County yesterday afternoon, and two charged with felony assault after a melee broke out when a park employee asked a Muslim woman to remove her headscarf before boarding a ride. The woman who attempted to ride the Dragon Rollercoaster, Haifa Ali, tells Patch that after she was told she couldn’t ride unless she removed her hijab, she and a group of other Muslim women went to ask for a refund. Then “someone grabbed her hijab…a park ranger wrestled another one of the women to the ground,” when “law enforcement began to converge on the group, hitting them with batons.” Another eyewitness not with the group says she heard one female police officer yell, ‘I don’t give a f*ck about your culture.’”
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Please, Do you think GOoBer cares about facts?
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Yawn…is that the best you can do? All of a sudden dragging doesn’t mean dragging anymore.
No tackling, which is what we saw in the video, doesn’t mean dragging.
Yet several officers were clearly pulling someone several feet across the ground against their will
Yes, it’s called momentum. I also saw more pushing than pulling to bring the suspect completely to the ground to make a proper arrest. Suspects aren’t usually handcuffed whilst on their knees. Does this really need to be explained to you? I think what’s really revealing in the video is how much force the suspect was applying against the officers, clearly indicating why so many police were needed to subdue the suspect.
Another eyewitness not with the group says she heard one female police officer yell, ‘I don’t give a f*ck about your culture.’”
Yes, I’m sure her side of the story is a completely faithful retelling of the real events, without any spin, distortion or selective memory of one of the woman apparently arrested.
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Nassir H; Seems to me some security people and coppers lost track of their professionalism, and started acting on what they were taught by Fox News.
Wham! This is for 9/11!
Bam! And this is for Ford Hood!
Whack! And this is for trying to impose shariah!
Thunk! And this is for being an uppity raghead in the first place!
Oh, wait… I’m sure the police are well above such things.
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Uh huh. That’s right. Because, when substituting, Muslims can be substituted for authority figures. We know that CreepingSharia® is happening AS WE SPEAK and soon the Moozlims will be in authority any way.
Are you seriously this dumb? Are you not aware of Muslim majority countries in existence today? They have Muslim police officers and Christian/non-Muslim minority populations. Do you know what mental exercises and analogies are? And I have no idea where you thought I said or implied discrimination against Christians by Muslims were acts of ‘Islamophobia’.
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:21 pm
There are Muslim police officers right here in the US of A.
My point is, since you can’t seem to follow logic GOober, that the religious persuasion of the officers isn’t the issue. The issue is the biased action against the minority group.
Furthermore, what part of “Another eyewitness not with the group” do you not understand? She’s not WITH the group. Therefore, she’s a witness. She hasn’t been discredited so we of course need to consider her testimony.
September 3rd, 2011 at 12:04 am
It’s hard to tell whether “GoOverBoard” (who formerly called himself JihadBob, JustBob, JengaBob, and so on) is being delusional or dishonest. Several people have already commented on what was clearly to dragging but he’s still attempting to deny the obvious.
“Yes, it’s called momentum.”
Yes, it’s called a weak argument—something Islamophobic crazies such as yourself are quite fond of. Of course you later concede that their was pulling along with pushing, all while filling your comments with phrases like “I think” and “to me” (indicative of the fact that you know that no one is buying your weak excuses).
“Yes, I’m sure her side of the story is a completely faithful retelling of the real events, without any spin, distortion or selective memory of one of the woman apparently arrested.”
And your immense stupidity resounds again. Even the sentence you quoted in order to make a “response” to refutes you assertion: “Another eyewitness not with the group says she heard one female police officer yell, ‘I don’t give a f*ck about your culture.’”
September 3rd, 2011 at 6:32 am
Several people have already commented on what was clearly to dragging but he’s still attempting to deny the obvious.
There is no footage I saw in the video where someone is on the ground and then taken and dragged. I saw several people needed to tackle one person in the heat of a confrontation with police officers. I think it speaks volumes for how willing you are to deceive when you originally said the suspect in the video was dragged while they were on the ground. No such action is recorded in the video.
Another eyewitness not with the group says she heard one female police officer yell, ‘I don’t give a f*ck about your culture.’”
Let’s see the context of that quote. If Muslims were attacking police officers and workers at the amusement park over slights of honor and using this as an excuse for their behavior, I could completely see someone making an off the cuff remark that ‘they didn’t give a damn about their excuses’.
I know if someone attacked me and said they were attacking me because they were poor, I would probably have said the exact same thing as the female police officer is alleged to have said. Do I need sensitivity training is context here key?
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:46 am
I don’t think GOB is BOB.
GOB seems more logical and is not a “shifting goalposts type of a liar” that BOB was. Makes me wonder though where BOB went? Hey BOB, you doing ok?
BTW GOB here is a question for you?
Would you allow a Muslim woman to wear a hijab if its proven to you that the hijab worn is of a type (imagine a sport hijab) that will
a) not be a strangulation hazard and
b) not be a flying debris hazard
Would you consider this request for respecting a person’s faith but not out of compromising on anyone’s safety?
What will be your answer?
September 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 am
GOB is undoubtedly Bob. I don’t know of anyone else willing to utilize such childish arguments—apparently the words of three commentators who clearly observed dragging is ignored because to little Bob (using the phrases “to me” and “I think” to emphasize the unique nature of his delusions) doesn’t want to accept facts. His attempts to lengthen his comments with inanity to hide that fact that he’s simply repeating himself is also characteristic of little Bob.
Also note that, as usual, he’s willing to change his arguments very quickly. When I showed him that his statement was wrong (as evidenced by the sentence he himself quoted), he simply wrote another windy screed making more excuses.
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:06 am
Nassirh, perhaps you are right.
I just like GOB better than BOB. That guy was just a zombie liar; he would never show any emotion, too chilled and calculating.
September 3rd, 2011 at 11:16 am
BTW we always hear the argument that Muslims should check in their customs before entering the US of A.
Did the white Christians check in their customs before entering the US of A?
I mean did they start wearing native Indian clothing or start living in wigwams or did they give up their Christianity or stop building churches or start worshipping the Great Spirit when they came to the US of A?
September 3rd, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I think he’s bob, he won’t deny it so it must be true. Not that it matters, same crap different day as the saying goes.
September 3rd, 2011 at 1:09 pm
What bothers me most about this story is really all the coverage it’s gotten. It’s everywhere, and articles about it came in my alerts from places like the New York Post and Frontpage Magazine.
Whether you agree or not with the way the Parkland incident was handled (on either side), it’s not doing us any good. Why is this such a big story anyway? Is it really national news?
Enemies are using it to their advantage, portraying it as “Islamic Supremacists” once again asking for “special privileges.” It doesn’t matter whether that’s true, or what the nuances are, just as it doesn’t matter with the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”
These days, I feel sick whenever something happens, big or small, that will predictably be used by the haters. Nothing is too petty or insignificant for them to pick up and run with…enjoying a lot more success than they deserve.
September 4th, 2011 at 12:30 am
Thank you Talisman for providing every commenter here with some perspective. This incident makes Muslims look bad no matter how you look at it. If I’m CAIR I’d stay away from defending these people – it would be a PR nightmare.
Of course security had no right to act the way it did but I highly doubt that this mess was created because someone asked for a refund. It just seems illogical to me. Clearly some people had a hot head and decided to create a whole national story over a small dispute. There is no excuse for being confrontational or rude to cops. This is a lose-lose situation. Also some commenters seriously need to stop claiming that Playland is bigoted. It makes you look stupid to the rest of us.
I’ve been to similar events during Eid at Long Island, Coney Island and New Jersey when I was younger. My memories have all been positive. I remember being at Coney Island at the dead of winter during Eid when I was 14 years old. I never ran into trouble with the amusement park operators and I don’t know anybody who has. Obviously, Playland was nice enough to accomodate many Muslims during Eid. I see no reason to believe that the park was racist towards Muslims. As a matter a fact such a premise is bullshit and whomever believes otherwise is just being stubborn.
If Playland was indeed racist why would they only discriminate towards Muslim women wearing the hijab. If Playland hated Muslims, wouldn’t they have just banned them all together from setting up group events during Eid. From what I have read, the headscarf and hat rule has been in place for three years. Did the organizer not notice this? Something tells me some people were discontent over the whole situation and decided to shift the blame to Playland. People need to really think about this rationally. If Playland was ever brought to court over allegations of racism the judge would probably laugh and throw the lawsuit out the window. This is why the victims are making Muslims look like a joke by saying Playland is run by racists. If Muslim men and Muslim women (who didn’t wear the hijab) participated in events that day, how could you assert that the park is racist towards a select group of Muslim women. It makes no sense at all. The evidence just isn’t there.
Those of you writing 4 paragraph comments saying Playland specifically put something in their rules 3 years ago to discriminate towards Muslim women are insane. You really sound no different than Robert Spencer claiming all Egyptian protesters were from the Muslim Brotherhood.
Like I stated, CAIR should stay out of this just so this story could stay out of national headlines. Great organizations like the NAACP are always fed false claims of racism when someone does something wrong. It often makes the NAACP look naive in the national media – although I’m sure their intentions are good. CAIR can’t make the mistake of blindly defending these people until the total truth comes out. And no, a 5 second video of the aftermath of a confrontation isn’t enough proof to make a determination of what happened. Their needs to be undisputed proof that only one party was at fault in this incident. As far as I’m concerned, BOTH sides acted immaturely and BOTH deserve equal blame and NONE of them should defend their side. Its a lost cause. This occurrence doesn’t represent Muslims or law enforcement. Move along and concern yourselves with things more important than a dumb rollercoaster ride.