How Is This Even Possible?

Yesterday, I wrote about dumb things reporters say and editors approve. Well, there’s not a lock on stupidity to just editors and reporters. Here’s a case in point.

New Zealand police say they have charged the Samoan mother of a girl born during an international flight for abandoning her baby on the plane. [That’s terrible, really is.]

Detective inspector Mark Gutry says the unnamed Samoan woman faces up to seven years in prison for abandonment under charges laid Wednesday, and the same term for allegedly failing to inform air officials her pregnancy was so advanced. [Okay, this woman has some serious issues, obviously, and deserves either jail time or mental health treatment—one or the other, or both.]

Cleaners found the baby in a toilet garbage bin on a Pacific Blue flight from Samoa to Auckland. [Did no one hear her giving birth? Really? Have you ever sat within 5 rows of an airplane restroom? You hear everything that goes on in there! How did no one hear this!]

The infant was located lying amid bloodied paper towels after the woman had left the airplane. [This breaks my heart. How about yours?]

But, here’s the really, really, really, did I say really, stupid part. Again, word-for-word what is reported and happened: The child was later reunited with its mother, but welfare officials are still deciding whether the mother should get long-term custody.

Reunited with its mother! Are you kidding me? She gave birth on an airplane. In an airplane's restroom! She didn’t tell anyone. Left the child for dead in a garbage bin. Now, police have returned the child to her! And, they are having to decide whether or not she should have long-term custody of the child? What’s to decide? How long before she abandons the child again? Or, this time, worse!

When Does A Rule Go to Far?

A Muslim woman was forced to do her banking in the back room of the institution because the head scarf she was wearing violated the company’s “no hats, hoods or sunglasses” policy, The Washington Post reported.

The 54-year-old Maryland woman was standing in line a few weeks ago waiting to deposit a check when an employee asked her to go to the back room, citing the new policy. The incident happened again last weekend, but this time, Kenza Shelley refused.

“I want to be served like everyone else,” Shelley told the employees. “There was so many people there, and I was embarrassed.”

The new policy started in December and was implemented to prevent armed robberies and identity theft, Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal, told the Post.

“We want to be able to clearly identify who you are and make sure the transaction is safe,” Lyons said. “This is a policy that applies to everybody in the branch. She wasn’t singled out. ... We tried to accommodate her and help her with her transaction and move on.”

But, some say the policy is not acceptable and must be modified for religious reason.

“This may be the tip of the iceberg,” Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told the Post. “There’s got to be a way to work it out so that this security concern does not lead to violations of constitutional rights.”

What do you think? The bank my wife and I use has the same policy. On my days off, if I have to go to the bank, I’m probably going to have a baseball cap on—after all, I am bald and the hat protects my head from getting sunburned. Should I refuse to remove my cap? Should I defy the rules and leave my sunglasses on?

I don’t have religious reasons to wear my hat. I wear the cap to protect my head. But, let’s think about this for a minute. Would an Amish man have an objection to the rule? Would he want to remove his hat if he entered a bank? Would he protest and make a scene? Or would he simply obey the rule and move on?

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this one.