Greetings and Rastafari Blessings 180
days, 4 hours, 33 minutes and 3 seconds before the Ethiopian
Millennium
On February 27, 2007 the following
letter was drafted and presented to the March 6 meeting of the North
Carolina Advisory Committee on Religious Ministry in Prison:
Chaplain Betty Brown
Director of Chaplaincy Services
831 West Morgan St
4260 MSC
Raleigh NC 27699-4260
Dear Chaplain Brown:
On February 7, 2007, Kerri Thurman on behalf of the Rastafari National
Council for Inity USA Southern Region Prison Outreach Program (RNCI-USA-POP)
sent you a letter that stated,
"Christopher [Liontree] advised the conference that the issues
pertaining to the NC grooming policy are an agenda item for the
committee’s next meeting scheduled for March 6, 2007.
The RNCI-USA-POP requests that one of
our members, Samuel Courtland (baptismal name Amda Tsion Selassie)
accompany Christopher to this meeting and support his efforts in
providing clarity regarding Rastafari and the covenant of locks
("dreadlocks")."
This request was denied.
The RNCI-USA-POP has noted that,
according to the Minutes of the North Carolina Advisory Committee on
Religious Ministry in Prisons, December 5, 2006:
"Inmate Hair/Grooming Policy:
The policy proposes to cut the inmates’ hair to a certain length and
cut the breads and mustaches as well. Some security threat groups have
used the lack of a hair policy to align themselves with gangs with the
way the hair is braided.
The Virginia inmate grooming policy has proven to be very sound and
has held up in the Fourth Circuit Courts. The drafted North Carolina’s
policy is not as intrusive as other states, and the committee is
looking at going forward with an inmate grooming policy for North
Carolina inmates.
It’s not known when the policy will
take effect.
Questions were asked about the draft
policy and some committee members felt this is something that they
might need to look at further because of the religious nature hair is
some believers.
[Names omitted] inquired to see how
they could become involve and advocate on behalf of the inmates this
policy will have an effect on. It was suggested that the committee not
pursue this issue but allow it to be handled in the courts. After
discussing this further, several members agreed it’s the committee’s
responsibility to advise those who are implementing the policy this
will have a profound effect on the inmate’s religion.
Chaplain Brown asked those who had
concerns about the policy to list them and she will share them with
the grooming committee.
It was requested to add to the next
agenda an Inmate Grooming Policy."
The RNCI-USA-POP would like to make the North Carolina Advisory
Committee on Religious Ministry in Prisons know that the 4th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia did not recognize
Rastafari as a religion when it supported the Virginia Department of
Prisons hair grooming policy, even though Rastafari had been so
recognized in other U.S. Circuit Courts as well as by the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 1993 by President Clinton.
Moreover, since then Rastafari has become recognized by governments
and international institutions the world over and there can be no
objection to the Rastafari right to wear their hair and beards uncut
for religious reasons (see Draft Universal Hair Exemption
Letter Section I.).
The Virginia inmate grooming policy
has not proven to be very sound and that is why U.S. District Judge
Henry H. Kennedy issued a temporary restraining order blocking
Virginia officials from enforcing the policy against any D.C. inmates
who raised objections on religious grounds. The Federal Bureau of
Prisons' (BOP) action of housing federal prisoners who were
Rastafarians or Muslims in Virginia state facilities with a grooming
policy prohibiting long hair and beards did violate the prisoners'
rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Court
ordered the BOP to transfer such prisoners to other facilities.
Gartrell v. Ashcroft, 191 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Moreover, a Rastafarian prisoner's claim that the prison requirement
that he cut his hair violated his religious rights was ruled not
"frivolous" when there was no evidence in the record
concerning any security concerns which justified the requirement.
Cofer v. Schriro, #99-1852, 176 F.3d 1082 (8th Cir. 1999).
Prior to the Virgina Department of
Prisons December 15th, 1999 deadline for compliance, Ras Maurice
Clarke, Sister Akua Bell, and Ras Paulos, members of the I-niversal
Nyahbinghi Order of Washington D.C., were in communication with
Rastafari inmates as well as prison officials in an attempt to have
the religious rights of inmates who wear the covenant of locks
recognized (see attached letter from New Zealand Member of Parliament
Nandor Tanczos). Ras Moses Davis, of the Lawrenceville Correctional
Facility, explained that non-compliance with the grooming policy would
result in the prisoner being trimmed by force and losing any
"good time" accumulated toward early release. One young
inmate who was being victimized by this policy wrote to the PRISONACT
list serve on December 25, 1999,
"I am sending out S.O.S. letters to everyone and every place I
can think of to bring attention to the unfair and abusive treatment
that several prisoners are enduring because of their stand for
principles they believe in. A new grooming policy requiring all
inmates to shave their face bald and cut the hair on their heads down
to 1 inch was put into effect beginning on the 15 of Dec. 99. On the
21st the prison began rounding up all those not in compliance and put
them on segregation status. Under this classification, inmates are to
simply be segregated and locked down. However, these inmates were
first stripped naked down to their boxers and t-shirts and placed in
cold cells with no blankets or sheets. they are not being allowed
reading materials or writing utensils. They are being fed an "all
nutritious" loaf of bread twice a day. . . . I say that the
policy is unfair because all inmates here are not being given the same
treatment. Only Delaware and VA inmates are being forced to comply.
Michigan and D.C. inmates have been given exemptions, basically
because representatives from their states have spoken up for them.
This is a mean spirited, malicious policy. . . . This policy is being
enforced to the extreme, with some being held in seg with only the
slightest growth of hair on their faces, not even enough to be
considered a beard by most. The true intent of this policy is to
emasculate, to demoralize, and to spirit break."
In order to further understand the
inhumane and cruel psychic trauma inflicted on Rastafari inmates, one
must read the seminal research of Professor Raj Singh at Valparaiso
University (see attached Draft Universal Hair Exemption Letter, The
significance of male hair: Its presence and removal ).
In addition, it is also important to
understand the relationship between individual religious expression
and prison security. According A Review of the Bureau of Prisons'
Selection of Muslim Religious Services Providers, April 2004, by the
Office of the Inspector General,
"BOP staff repeatedly emphasized
to us that the provision of religious services in its institutions is
important to the maintenance of security in the facility. For example,
according to a lieutenant at the FCI in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which
has the largest inmate population of any BOP facility, the religious
services department "absolutely plays an important role in
maintaining security." A BOP chaplain also stated to us that
religious services "diffuse a lot of frustrations and anxieties
and angers; it provides inmates with internal controls that otherwise
they would not have."
If religious services are important to the maintenance of security by
providing inmates with internal controls that otherwise they would not
have, how much more the daily religious expression such as Rastafari's
covenant of locks? In other words, the psychic trauma, frustration,
anxiety and anger imposed by forcibly shaving the Rastafari covenant
of locks, creates more threats to prison security, not less.
Prison insecurity will be exacerbated
by the fact that there are approximately 1,100 Rastafari inmates in 78
state facilities in North Carolina. According to the BOP, it currently
is experiencing a "critical shortage" of Rastafari
chaplains. The Chief of the Chaplaincy Services Branch said a critical
shortage of chaplains exists when there is 1 chaplain of a certain
faith for every 700 inmates of that faith BOP-wide. Likewise, North
Carolina state facilities do not have enough Rastafari chaplains,
contractors, or volunteers. Should a restrictive grooming policy be
implemented, there will be an additional need for Rastafari chaplain
services in order to attend to the trauma that Rastafari inmates will
certainly suffer. Here, it should be noted that recruitment of such
qualified personnel is very difficult. Thus, implementing any hair
grooming policy that does not recognize the Rastafari religious
exemption without any remedy for the attendant psychic trauma is to
create conditions of prison insecurity and is definitely a violation
of the Rastafari inmate's human rights.
Therefore, the RNCI-USA-POP strongly
encourages the North Carolina Religious Advisory Board to proactively
advocate a universal religious hair exemption to the grooming
committee, and to sensitize the committee to the specific current and
future situation of Rastafari inmates, while the RNCI-USA-POP will, on
their part, work to sensitize the international community.
Very truly,
Ras Siphiwe Nathaniel Ka Baleka,
on behalf of,
The RNCI-USA Prison Outreach Program
On March 11, Christopher Liontree forwarded the following report:
"Haile Selassie The First
Greetings,
The following is info from my March 6, 2007 N.C Religious
Advisory Committee Meeting where a recommendation was being
made to create a hair grooming policy in Department of Correction in
North Carolina.
These are the notes I took during
the presentation and I will look forward to the official minutes
being distributed. No handouts were received. The information was
given by power point. Questions were allowed at the end of the
presentation. Words in () are my own thoughts and not notes. Also
see my recommendations on page 4 and 5.
The officials who presented the
recommendation of a grooming policy are Regional Directors of DOC in
N.C:
Mr. Bob Lewis
Mr. Steve Bailey
Mr. Bennet
1.Not something these individuals
presenting really wanted to take on as it is sensitive but increased
issues from prison managers coming to division managers asking for a
grooming policy has led them to the present recommendations.
2.Increasingly issues around hair
length and grooming have gotten worse and the bottom line in
relation to this recommendation is the issue of SECURITY. First
priority (over religious rights) is to protect inmates, staff and
volunteers.
3.Presenter said they are looking
for input and not firmly clear on what they will do with
recommendation. (Because they mentioned implementation of policy by
October it is clear they are firm on recommendation becoming a
reality quickly)
4.Presenter said most inmates will
be on board with compliance and some, no matter what the policy is,
will reject it. 80% of inmates already within realm of compliance
with short hair. Estimating 5% will not comply due to religious
exemption of some other reason.
5.Most effective tool for
manipulating the system while in prison is religion. Faking their
faith to get certain rights or to congregate within gang
associations.
6.September 2005 Steve Bailey asked
to put together a grooming policy. He says they have had a wide
system of input on it. (No volunteers, no prisoners and no religious
representatives on committee except Head Chaplain of NC DOC.)
7.Looking at implementing in
October 2007.
8.Issues: -Inmates have been hiding
contraband in their hair (no data provided)
-Staff Moral Issue-Inmates "flaunting" long hair and
saying staff can't do anything about it. (Who is to define flaunting
as opposed to religious expression?)
-Gang Issues-Dealing with a new type of inmate who are younger and
quicker to challenge staff and many associated with gangs.
-Security-Ease of concealment of cigarettes, money, drugs, weapons
in hair.(Again no proof provided on data related to this in N.C DOC)
-Ineffective searches because staff not great at looking through
hair. (The responsibility should be on the staff to do this
correctly)
9.Inmate Identification in case of
riot, escape, or barricade
A. Admission process
B. Change in appearance is easy if one has long hair when in prison
and then drastically changes image, cutting hair, as disguise. (No
data provided on how many escapes each year in NC)
C. Staff diligence at keeping photos current
10.Gang Association:
A. Hairstyle and clothes (Has nothing to do with religious
exemption)
B. Proliferation of gangs (Has nothing to do with religious
exemption)
11.Work Assignments: Types of hair
sometimes restrict work assignments
A. Food Service
B. Health Care- One dentist did not like long hair when working on
inmates
C. Protective Equipment- Hard Hats do not fit
12.Safety:
A. Unsafe work assignments due to hair length
B. Inmate Assaults like grabbing of hair (one instance mentioned)
C. Protective Gear does not always fit certain hair
D. Staff safety- Injury during searches, unsanitary hair styles (No
data shared on NC DOC staff being injured during a search)
13.Rehabilitation:
A. Community standard and workplace standard- meaning they feel
short hair will better prepare inmates for successful re-entry into
society. (Prejudiced reasoning and standardizing short hair as how
one should wear there hair even when outside of prison)
B. Transition Effects- Again saying short hair will help transition
into society
14.Staff Morale: (Is a paid
employees morale to be taken over human and religious rights?)
A. Staff Concerns
B. Staff Standards are currently stricter than inmates and staff are
complaining
C. Offensive Conditions- Staff do not want to search hair
D. Searching Issues/Limitations
E. Inmate Discipline- Making inmates adhere to new standards will
help in inmate discipline (This should not be at the cost of
violating religious expression)
F. Intimidation- Inmates wearing long hair are in effect saying we
can do this and you cannot stop us to the staff. (Religious
expression should be guaranteed even if one is intimated by long
hair)
15. N.C Incidents: Not listed (I
asked this to be transparent for our committee review)
16. The different grooming policies
existing in the country:
A. Strict Policy: Forcibly cutting inmates hair in Alabama, South
Carolina, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and Virginia (Presenter said
they would not do this)
B. Moderate where it is up to facility head in Arizona, Oregon, and
Oklahoma ( Need more clarity on this. Does this mean facility head
could choose to forcibly trim in NC?)
C. Minimal: North Carolina and Tennessee (What is the actual minimal
policy?)
17. All superintendents in N.C are
supportive of the go ahead of a new grooming policy. N.C not looking
at forced/strict policy and will use counseling and
"sensitivity" .
18. Estimation that 5% will not
comply and that 20% not currently in compliance of what would be
passed/deemed as acceptable.
19.Actual Recommendation:
A. Male inmates to have hair no thicker than 1.5 inch
B. No hair color
C. No ornaments
D. No designs shaved in hair
20. Beard can be up a quarter of an
inch long/thick
21. Female allowed longer hair with
no specifics shared
22. Recommendation of
implementation:
A. Ample warning to implement and gain compliance
B. Education on safe and more secure system provided to inmates
C. Adequate barbers and equipment maintained
D. Religious Service Involvement
E. Well defined and consistent process for non-compliance
F. Medical staff involved
G. Evaluation Impact
23. Only medical exemption being
looked at and no religious exemption because who can determine the
"true believer". Presenter said security issues outweigh
religious freedom and that a lot of inmates would falsely identify
with religion to grow hair.
24. Four faith groups identified as
being affected
A. Muslim/beard,
B. Orthodox Jew
C. Native American Indian/Hair,
D. Rastafarian/ beard and dread locks
This is the end of my note taking.
The following are the questions I asked after no Committee Member
questioned any aspect of morality in relation to this grooming
policy.
I asked questions and made
statements after others on the committee basically stated their
support of the policy. I believe 5 committee members were not
present and they all have voiced concerns (either in the last
meeting three months ago or over email) against a grooming policy
that would not take into account a religious exemption.
Christopher Liontree:
1. How and will there be continued
input into this policy making body? Nods of yes but no real answer
2. N.C incidents of contraband in
hair need to be made available because I see no evidence specific to
N.C that this policy has a security related need that would support
implementation of the hair grooming policy.
3. This is both a religious right
and human right we are talking about.
4. I recommend a religious
exemption.
5. Rehabilitation standard of
beauty is prejudicial.
6. Jewish Carpenter (Jesus Christ)
is known to have carried his hair and beard long. Would they, in
this room, sit with him and tell him he must trim? No answer.
7. If this policy passes then there
must at the very least be a provision for non compliant inmates, on
the basis of religious grounds, not be penalized doubly by having to
go into segregation for not trimming and then loosing "good
time" as a next penalty for not complying.
After the presentation we were then
introduced to Johnny D. Hawkins who is a Security Specialist and
showed us a video presentation on rising Gang activity in prison. I
spoke with him after his presentation and asked if any specific
security concerns related to Rastafarian inmates in NC and he said
none whatsoever outside of Latinos signing up as a Rastafarian in
order to get a vegan diet supplied.
Post Meeting Thoughts/Questions
from Christopher Liontree:
1. Trimming inmates hair may create
a security threat as this dehumanizing practice may be the last
straw that breaks the camels back for inmates…how much can they
take especially when these are people who are faithfully fulfilling
a religious expression by growing of hair.
2. I propose a religious exemption
based on the lack of evidence that inmates are bringing in
contraband through their hair. It is clear that gang symbols elevate
violent reactions in prison so creating a grooming policy maybe
appropriate but only with religious exemptions granted. None of the
other reasons given, outside of security, should stand over
religious expression as they are not about "security"
which was said to be the bottom line.
3. Clarity needs to come as to the
"moderate" grooming policy NC is proposing to adopt. Does
this "moderate" policy mean each prison then decides
whether they forcibly trim non compliant inmates?
4. Information needs to be given on
whether any States have put a religious exemption in their grooming
policy.
5. Depending on the answers to
these questions a coalition of concerned people could organize to
support religious and human rights which are being violated through
this recommended policy before it is implemented. I am working on a
list of resources to further this in case the answers to the
fore-mentioned questions do not prove a solid case for a hair
grooming policy without religious exemptions. . . . ." [message
truncated]
At this time, the RNCI-USA POP is
preparing a petition to stop the North Carolina Department of
Corrections from forcibly and illegally shaving the Rastafari covenant
of locks and thereby committing human rights violations. Please add
your name to the petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/RNCIPOP1/petition.html
Ras Siphiwe Nathaniel,
On behalf of the RNCI-USA POP
