Scarf Melee at Playland Amusement Park

[Mr.Canada]

No they can't. They're not allowed to discriminate.

I didn't know that having a rule saying that long pieces of cloth hanging off of your clothes is not allowed on some rides is discrimination.

That sounds to me like it is a rule which must be followed by everyone. Sounds like a safety issue most likely brought on by their insurance co.

Plus if someone died or was injured because they had a long piece of cloth the park would be sued and they'd be slammed in the media. I don't see anything wrong with a park taking the publics safety into consideration. It's nice to see that they aren't only concerned with profits but actually care about the community.

[cybercoma]

It is a safety issue. It's not just Muslim head scarves that are banned - it's any head gear. It's to prevent the chance of it blowing off and onto the rails. According to the articles I've read, the group of Muslims was informed in advance of the park rules. The "it's because we're Muslims!" claim is ludicrous. Why should anyone else's life be endangered to protect someone else's religious beliefs? Lives trump religious beliefs.

What article were you reading? The one that accompanied the post said this:

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.

"It's a safety issue on rides. If it's a scarf, you could choke," Tartaglia said.

Tartaglia's statement is nonsense. No one had ever choked in the past and the accidents that caused death were completely unrelated to people's clothing.

I trust I don't need to repeat my point again, but the article supports what I've been saying.

[Guest American Woman]

What article were you reading? The one that accompanied the post said this:

Tartaglia's statement is nonsense. No one had ever choked in the past and the accidents that caused death were completely unrelated to people's clothing.

Forgot to post the link: The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said.

What sounds like nonsense to me is your dismissal of the possibility. Are you an expert in amusement park safety? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it couldn't happen. The idea that no safety rules go into effect until someone dies first is ridiculously - and likely criminally - irresponsible.

Safety rules are meant to prevent tragedies, they are not strictly a reaction to tragedies. I sure hope the safety policies regarding amusement park rides isn't simply 'if no one has been hurt or died yet, it's not something we need to address.' I would hope safety teams would have the knowledge/insight to predetermine what could cause an accident and apply rules accordingly - rather than take the 'we'll just see what kills people and apply rules accordingly' approach.

Edited September 1, 2011 by American Woman

[g_bambino]

And I'll let you take it up with the Canadian and American governments why women's only gyms exist.

The existence of those gyms proves one can indeed say "No Men Allowed", which brings into question your claim that a proprieter is not at liberty to discriminate who may or may not use their business.

[sp]

Edited September 1, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

Forgot to post the link: link I've also read the same thing in other articles.

What sounds like nonsense to me is your dismissal of the possibility. Are you an expert in amusement park safety? Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it couldn't happen. The idea that no safety rules go into effect until someone dies first is ridiculously - and likely criminally - irresponsible.

Safety rules are meant to prevent tragedies, they are not strictly a reaction to tragedies. I sure hope the safety policies regarding amusement park rides isn't simply 'if no one has been hurt or died yet, it's not something we need to address.' I would hope safety teams would have the knowledge/insight to predetermine what could cause an accident and apply rules accordingly - rather than take the 'we'll just see what kills people and apply rules accordingly' approach.

I've already addressed all of this. If a head-scarf is dangerous, then so is long hair. The argument isn't that the scarf could land on the tracks and cause an accident. Their argument is that it could choke someone, obviously by getting caught in something. It is such a remote possibility that it has never happened. It has never happened because there is no conceivable way for it to happen. Even if the scarf did get caught on something in the ride, chances are it would be torn away from the person before choking them.

And obviously I'm not an expert in amusement park ride safety and neither are you. If you're going to dismiss me because I'm not an expert in the field, then I can just as easily dismiss your statements because neither are you. To tell you the truth, it doesn't even matter if those experts say head scarves are dangerous because they have not demonstrated how they could be dangerous. It's like all the signs at gas stations about cellphones. It's impossible for you to cause a fire with a cellphone at a gas station. Yet, experts decided that those signs were necessary at the pumps. If head scarves were so dangerous, they should be able to demonstrate it or there would have been close-calls in the past or serious injuries from head scarves that they could point to.

They're not dangerous, have never been dangerous and banning them obviously unfairly targets a single group of people because of their religious observances. It does not affect everyone equally and in that sense is discrimination, even if unintentional.

[cybercoma]

The existence of those gyms proves one can indeed say "No Men Allowed", which brings into question your claim that a proprieter is not at liberty to discriminate who may or may not use their business.

[sp]

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/equal-rights/right-refuse-service

The only time a business can discriminate against customers is for a legitimate business purpose. Saying, "No Blacks Allowed!" or banning turbans, yamulkas or head scarfs, has no legitimate business purpose. You could argue here that is for the safety of the patrons on the rides; however, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate example of head-scarves being a danger to riders. For years, they had been allowed to wear them on rides without any problem and frankly, I don't see how it's possible. If something would get close enough to the rider to snag a head-scarf, then it's probably close enough to decapitate taller riders. I don't feel they have shown that it is a danger. If they have or they can show that it is a danger on those particular rides, so be it. The discrimination may be legitimate. Given the limited information that I have on the topic, I don't think it is and I think companies need to be more careful about creating rules that unfairly impact people of certain religions, whether it's intentional or not.

[jbg]

A scarf is not dangerous to the public at large either.

Tangled up in an amusement park ride it is.

[jbg]

A private park can make any rules they want. If it bothers anyone, they don't have to go to that amusement park then. They should vote with their feet and frequent someplace else that allows them to do as they please.

In fairness Playland is a Westchester County facility. It has never been private.

[Guest American Woman]

I've already addressed all of this. If a head-scarf is dangerous, then so is long hair. The argument isn't that the scarf could land on the tracks and cause an accident. Their argument is that it could choke someone, obviously by getting caught in something.

The ban, which is not Muslim specific, was imposed about 3 years ago mostly to prevent hats from falling onto the tracks of roller coasters and other rides, park officials said. link

As for the possibility of choking, hair isn't wrapped around one's neck in any way.

It is such a remote possibility that it has never happened.

A lot of things have never happened, and intelligent people who recognize that it could happen don't wait until someone dies to address it. As I said, the 'wait and see if someone dies' mindset is totally and completely ignorant - at best.

It has never happened because there is no conceivable way for it to happen. Even if the scarf did get caught on something in the ride, chances are it would be torn away from the person before choking them.

"Chances are?" So even you recognize that the possibility exists. But yeah, it could also be torn away - and land on the tracks. You just verified the validity of the rule.

And obviously I'm not an expert in amusement park ride safety and neither are you.

Which is why I rely on people who are experts to make the rules - and I'm not ignorant enough to question them or claim they are groundless - especially simply because "no one has ever died." Yet.

If you're going to dismiss me because I'm not an expert in the field, then I can just as easily dismiss your statements because neither are you.

My statements aren't based on my opinion - but on the safety rules of the park. You are the one dismissing them as unnecessary. In order for that to have any bearing on the situation, you would have to be an expert in that field. I don't have to be an expert to accept and support them.

To tell you the truth, it doesn't even matter if those experts say head scarves are dangerous because they have not demonstrated how they could be dangerous.

They have clearly stated how they could be dangerous - and you supported the possibility with your "chances are it would be torn away" observation.

It's like all the signs at gas stations about cellphones. It's impossible for you to cause a fire with a cellphone at a gas station.

You're an expert on that?

Yet, experts decided that those signs were necessary at the pumps.

And I think I'll respect the decision of said "experts" over the opinion of a non-expert.

If head scarves were so dangerous, they should be able to demonstrate it or there would have been close-calls in the past or serious injuries from head scarves that they could point to.

They have stated how, and you yourself have demonstrated it.

They're not dangerous, have never been dangerous and banning them obviously unfairly targets a single group of people because of their religious observances. It does not affect everyone equally and in that sense is discrimination, even if unintentional.

How can something unintentional be "discrimination?" But of course Muslims are the only ones who wear scarves, or hats, right?

These rules are on Playland’s website and state that all items and clothing must be appropriately secured while on a ride. Jackets/sweaters must be worn properly and not around the waist while on the ride. The rides forbid backpacks, purses or head gear of any kind. link

The rules discriminate against women, too, since men don't carry purses.

[Guest American Woman]

Here you go, Cybercoma:

(July 3, 2011) - At the Salem Fair in Salem, Virginia, six roller coaster passengers were injured after a rider's hat blew off and got stuck underneath his car. The car came to a quick stop, which led to a 5-12mph collision with the trailing car.

Fair officials said that the man whose hat jammed the ride was told to remove the hat as he boarded the ride. He removed the hat before his car was dispatched, from the loading station, but a ride camera captured a picture of the man wearing the hat once the ride started. My link

[cybercoma]

You do know that a hat is not the same thing as a scarf, right?

[Guest American Woman]

You do know that a hat is not the same thing as a scarf, right?

This is one of those 'shake my head, he can't have just said that' moments. You seriously think hats should have been banned but not scarves - because this incident involved a hat??

This is a prime example of the 'support anything Muslims do/ask for' mindset - even at the expense of the safety of everyone else.

[Guest American Woman]

Here you go again, cybercoma.

This accident on a ride involved an actual scarf - and an actual Muslim:

A young Muslim mother wearing a hjiab was strangled in a freak accident while go-karting with her family in Australia yesterday.

The 26-year-old died when her headscarf became entangled in the wheel of the go-kart and tightened around her neck during a family day out at Port Stephens, 137 miles (220km) north of Sydney in New South Wales.

link

Here's another:

In February a British schoolgirl, Amy Rose Coxall, was strangled to death when her scarf became tangled in the wheel of a go-kart while she was on holiday in Hong Kong.

and another:

In December Suzanne Cornwell, 18, was killed in a similar accident when her scarf got caught in the engine of a go-kart while she was racing at the Cambridgeshire Raceway in the UK.

Yes, yes, I know. The ban should only pertain to go-karts since that's what the article is about. I should find examples of every type of ride imaginable and if no one has died or been injured on each and every ride, we should wait until someone does in order to apply the safety rule to that ride. All in 'fairness' to Muslims.

over and over again

Edited September 1, 2011 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

First of all, a hat is not fastened to the person wearing it like a Muslim head scarf is.

As for your other examples, a rollercoaster is not a go-kart. That's like saying people can sustain head injuries from motorcycle collisions, so people riding in cars ought to wear helmets.

SPeaking of helmets, why weren't they wearing helmets while driving go-karts anyway? If they were, their scarves probably wouldn't have been caught in the machinery.

Edited September 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

First of all, a hat is not fastened to the person wearing it like a Muslim head scarf is.

As for your other examples, a rollercoaster is not a go-kart. That's like saying people can sustain head injuries from motorcycle collisions, so people riding in cars ought to wear helmets.

Who said the rules just apply to roller coasters?? There are all kinds of rides in an amusement park. But your response is just as I expected/predicted. There's no reasoning with your mindset because it involves the refusal to see anything beyond 'Muslims rights' - no matter who else may be at risk. Muslims rights should be all encompassing. Such a mindset is why other people have to diligently protect their rights.

Edited September 1, 2011 by American Woman

[jbg]

Who said the rules just apply to roller coasters??

The rule applies to about 12 rides in the park.

[Shakeyhands]

Its the Muslim men who force their women to wear these oppressive styles of dress under threat of death. ...it's really sad that girls are killed because they want to be a normal teenager.

This is just incorrect. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong though? Do you know any actual Muslims? Have you ever actually talked to one? You may want to give it a go.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Shakeyhands

[cybercoma]

Who said the rules just apply to roller coasters?? There are all kinds of rides in an amusement park. But your response is just as I expected/predicted. There's no reasoning with your mindset because it involves the refusal to see anything beyond 'Muslims rights' - no matter who else may be at risk. Muslims rights should be all encompassing. Such a mindset is why other people have to diligently protect their rights.

This has nothing to do with 'Muslim rights'. That you fail to see that shows just how narrow-minded you are. In fact, it shows that you think Muslims specifically shouldn't have rights. My point is and always has been about liberty and freedom for anyone to practice their faith without having to worry about companies or the government making up spurious rules to limit innocuous practices of their faith.

[cybercoma]

The rule applies to about 12 rides in the park.

At most, 1 of them is go-karts.

[cybercoma]

I find it interesting how many people on this forum will attack anyone for defending Muslims, regardless of what is being defended. You know, I could see this kind of vocal opposition if I said something along the lines of, "they were well within their rights to start a violent brawl." They weren't and I find it absolutely disgusting that these particular individuals resorted to such ridiculousness to show their objection to park policy. However, that's not what I'm defending and I'm facing opposition here as though it were. It's an interesting set of values some people have.

[jbg]

My point is and always has been about liberty and freedom for anyone to practice their faith without having to worry about companies or the government making up spurious rules to limit innocuous practices of their faith.

I recall extensive discussion about shutting down the park after three deaths over the 2004-7 summer seasons as well as fiscal difficulties. The compromise was to significantly toughen safety rules. Islam had nothing to do with it.

[cybercoma]

I recall extensive discussion about shutting down the park after three deaths over the 2004-7 summer seasons as well as fiscal difficulties. The compromise was to significantly toughen safety rules. Islam had nothing to do with it.

You're familiar with laws in the US. I'm arguing from the ethical standpoint of disparate impact in employment law. Islam doesn't have to have anything to do with it. The park was unintentionally discriminatory against Muslims with their safety rule that I don't believe is legitimate for the reasons I stated. Of course, it's arguable. Others, obviously, seem to think they had a legitimate reason for banning people from wearing head-scarves on rides. I don't. Edited September 2, 2011 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Others, obviously, seem to think they had a legitimate reason for banning people from wearing head-scarves on rides. I don't.

It is irrelevant whether you think they can had a legitimate reason because you have no knowledge of the terms of the liability insurance that they parks are required to carry. The bottom line is they had a rule and if a guest disagrees with the rule they should take their business elsewhere. Perhaps they could take it up with the park management later and find out the reason for the rule. Perhaps they can try arguing with the park lawyers who may have decided that they need the rule. They have no right to expect every establishment to cater to their cultural idiosyncrasies. Edited September 2, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Im just glad this terrorist plot to sabatage these rides with scarves was averted!

[cybercoma]

It is irrelevant whether you think they can had a legitimate reason because you have no knowledge of the terms of the liability insurance that they parks are required to carry. The bottom line is they had a rule and if a guest disagrees with the rule they should take their business elsewhere. Perhaps they could take it up with the park management later and find out the reason for the rule. Perhaps they can try arguing with the park lawyers who may have decided that they need the rule. They have no right to expect every establishment to cater to their cultural idiosyncrasies.

They absolutely have that right when the country protects a person's freedom of religion. It doesn't matter what the terms of the liability insurance are. That is only relevant insofar as those terms are a reasonable limitation on a person's freedom of religion. Whether the head-scarf limitation is reasonable or not is debatable. I don't believe it is because there has never been an accident involving headscarves on any of these rides and it seems to me that it's not even remotely possible. There's such a thing in employment law in the United States as disparate impact. That's when an employer makes a condition of employment that affects a protected group more than it affects others and they cannot show a demonstrable need for that condition in the day-to-day operations of their business. The discrimination does not have to be intentional. It could be a completely unintended consequence of their condition, but it's still discrimination if it unfairly impacts a particular protected group. Religious rights are protected in the United States. While rules at an amusement park are not employment laws, banning headscarves nevertheless has a disparate impact on observant Muslim women when there is no demonstrable need to restrict their access to these rides. Muslim women used the rides before 2007 and other amusement parks around the country allow Muslim women on their rides with headscarves. I have never once seen it reported that someone was injured by wearing one. Moreover, I can't even see how it would get caught in anything on the vast majority of amusement park rides. So, failing to see a demonstrable need that outweighs the protected human right for freedom of religion, I believe the park is unintentionally discriminating against the Muslim community. Nevertheless, I think the way it was handled, namely through mob violence, is ridiculous and ought not to be tolerated. Anyone involved in the brawl ought to be arrested and charged.