What is the purpose of a mug shot? I am not sure, but the practice of taking mug shots is universal, so there must be a reason for it. Whatever the purpose is, it no doubt requires that the person under arrest be visible in the photograph.
Which brings us to the case of Farishta Jami, born in Afghanistan but now resident in the U.K., who was convicted of terrorism offenses on Thursday. The evidence showed that she was about to fly to Afghanistan to join the Islamic State, where she “planned for her [four] children to become martyrs for the terror group.” She was described in court as an “observant” Muslim.
Which I guess is why she objected to her mug shot:
A police force reissued a mugshot of a convicted Islamic State (IS) terrorist after she complained she was not wearing a niqab in it.
***
Matthew Brook KC, Jami’s barrister, told Leicester Crown Court on Friday that she had experienced “considerable distress” because of the photograph showing her full face.
So the local constabulary agreed to take and publish a new mug shot:
I am confident that that really is a photo of Farishta Jami, although there isn’t really any way to tell. I would like to think that the police acted in a spirit of fun when they published the second mug shot–news agencies can decide which one they want to use–but I don’t suppose that is true. More likely, it is one more sign of the U.K.’s continued surrender to Islam.
And, finally, it isn’t obvious that, however observant she may be, Jami’s demand to be pictured in a niqab was sincere. Throughout the trial, she wore a hijab, which revealed her face.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.