HIJAB COPS

MUSLIM women police officers will now be able to wear their hijabs while on duty, after a High Court judge ruled that Special Reserve Police constable Sharon Roop’s constitutional right to freedom of religion was infringed by the denial of her request to wear her headdress.

In what is being considered a ground-breaking ruling for the Muslim community, Justice Margaret Mohammed held there was no evidence that wearing the hijab would affect the efficiency of the police service. She also declared that the police service regulation was unconstitutional, invalid, null and void to the extent that it made no provision for the wearing of the hijab.

Roop is based at the Central Operations Centre at the Chaguanas Police Station as a wireless operator. Last year, her lawyers, Anand Ramlogan, SC, Gerald Ramdeen and Ganesh Saroop, filed a constitutional motion against the State.

‘STRIPPED OF
MY IDENTITY’

Outside the Hall of Justice in Port of Spain yesterday, Roop, an officer for nine years, said she was elated by the ruling.

“It is a great victory for Muslim policewomen and others in the protective service, who can now stand up and be counted.” Roop said every time she had to take off her hijab while on duty, she felt stripped of her identity.

“This is who I am,” she said. She said there were women police officers around the world who were allowed to wear their hijab while on duty. Mohammed is expected to rule on compensation for Roop for breach of her constitutional rights next February.

In her 63-page decision, the judge said the intent of the framers of the Constitution, in shaping the future society of TT, was for an environment where people would be free to observe their religious belief, rituals, practices and activities in every sphere of their lives.

“The intention of the framers of the Constitution was also for an evolving plural society in TT where religious symbols such as the cross, the rosary, raksha sutra, sindoor and hijab are to be permitted in public places, the workplace and in schools.”

In ruling that Roop’s right under section 4 (h) of the Constitution was breached, Mohammed said this was so because the aims of the police service in not permitting her to wear the hijab was “disproportionate to its aims of maintaining a neutral religious environment.”

She also held there was no merit in the State’s argument that Roop’s request would open the floodgates for others, pointing out that “religious symbols are already worn by police officers with their uniform.”

Former commissioner of police Stephen Williams, in an affidavit, said Roop’s request may affect the efficiency of the police service, since officers may request time off to observe the Sabbath. Mohammed said this argument was flawed.

The judge has ordered her ruling sent to the office of the Commissioner of Police, as well as the Police Service Commission. As a result of the ruling, the regulations will have to be amended to permit women police officers to wear their hijabs while on duty. The judge said she also did her own research on the hijab.

FORCED TO REMOVE IT

In her lawsuit, Roop said the police legal adviser told her Williams was unable to accede to her request to wear a hijab on duty “until there is a change in the legislation.”

She also said Roop said four years ago she began wearing the hijab (which covers a woman’s hair) and asked her superiors to be able to wear the head wear while on duty. She was advised to write to the CoP to seek permission to wear the hijab with her uniform and provide photographs of ways it could be worn with her uniform.

She also provided photographs of law-enforcement officers in several non-Islamic countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, who have been given permission to wear the hijab while on duty in uniform. Roop said she received no response to her requests.

She also wrote to the Minister of National Security and the Police Social and Welfare Association. Roop said when she is on duty she is prevented from truly practising her religion and following its teachings.

“I am forced to remove my headscarf before exiting my vehicle on the police station compound and throughout the day, I am left feeling naked, exposed and ashamed because I am forced to disobey the religious instructions which I have received,” she complained in her lawsuit.

Roop also said she was turned away from the Women’s Police Bureau and told she could be disciplined and prosecuted for not wearing her uniform as prescribed. She was also told she could not wear darker-coloured stockings to cover her legs while on duty, and to wear the night uniform during the day was a breach of the TTPS regulations.

“I was very disheartened and discouraged by this response as no one seemed to understand the emotional and psychological impact of being forced to disobey my religion,” she said.

“As it stands I am being forced to choose between practising my religion and being a member of the TTPS,” she said, adding that she cannot afford to resign because she is a single mother.

Roop said the situation caused her immense mental anguish, she has had to seek counselling with the police psychologist to cope with the stress and has been subjected to bias and discrimination by certain senior officers.

Roop further said a senior officer of the Central Division told her she could not be trusted in the wireless room “when things were getting hot” in Enterprise, Chaguanas, and an attempt was made to have her transferred.