State Senate OKs religious head coverings for police
The state Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would require police in Connecticut to adopt a policy allowing officers to wear religious head coverings while on duty except in units that require officers to use tight-fitting protective headgear.
The policy would help those who practice Sikhism in wearing a turban while on the job.
Swaranjit Singh Khalsa, a Norwich City Councilor, had submitted public testimony in favor of the bill.
“After 9/11 Sikhs have been victims of many hate crimes because of ignorance and lack of understanding about Sikhism and its articles of faith, most prominently Sikh turban ‘dastaar,’ but despite many stereotypes, Sikhs have upheld their commitment toward their faith and society,” Khalsa wrote. “This bill will not just help us break those barriers in society created by ignorance, but will help our police departments to hire people from various faith backgrounds that represent our state's diverse population.”
The bill, which applies to head coverings of all religions, passed 29-1, gained Republican support in part because of the GOP’s concern with recruiting/retaining police officers in Connecticut.
State Sen. Cathy Osten, D-Sprague, had led the passage of the bill, along with a bill establishing a Hate Crimes Investigative Unit in the state police.
That bill passed by a vote of 32-1. In introducing the bill, Democrats have argued that hate crimes have become a systemic issue, and hate crimes have occurred due to a lack of resources.
All Republicans except state Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Wolcott, voted in favor of the bill, but some expressed concern that it would place an additional state mandate on police.
In its public testimony on the bill, the ACLU of Connecticut expressed opposition because it doesn’t believe “that providing more resources into the system of policing that has failed to combat serious crimes against members of these communities is the answer,” per a summary of the public testimony.
A similar bill passed the Senate last year but was not called for a vote in the House.
Osten said in a news release that the state “currently doesn’t have in place a uniform system of investigating hate crimes, nor any real-time, consistent sharing of information of hate crime investigations among law enforcement in the state.”
Comment threads are monitored for 48 hours after publication and then closed.
