Derec

You are wrong on that. Countries with national ID cards do have pictures on their driver's licences. Why? To be able to identify that the driver is the same person that "passed the qualification tests authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle" and not a different person that borrowed/stole someone else's licence.

<strong> No but that is beside the point.

<strong> NO. But if you really think a picture on a driver's licence is useless for purposes of driving, then why not abolish it for everyone? Why only give special rights to select few?

<strong> Can the woman in question gurantee that she will never have a traffic violation? Besides that is not the only way. Roadblocks and accidents are other instances where police will ask for a licence and which are not controllable by us.

<strong> And if her picture shows her covered how exactly is that going to help the police officer if she uncoveres her face during a stop?

Besides: if she can't show her face, how did she take a picture for a passport or a visa document (green card photo requirements demand that an ear is visible so even a head scarf, much less a full ninja headdress, is unacceptable)?

<strong> If she is refusing to show her face imagine the outcry if such a thing were ever to be attempted. Racial profiling, insensitivity, blah blah blah.


<strong> Yet religious freedom is taken way too far in this country. Take Jehowa's Witnesses and refusal to have trheor children treated or the drug consuption by American Indians.

<strong> </strong>

That has nothing to do with 9/11 and her being a Muslim, but with the premise that laws should apply regardles of someone's age.
If a picture in a driver's licence is not essential, then anyone should be able to opt out, for example if I think I am ugly I should not have to have my picture taken.
If on the other hand a picture is essential (as I argue it is) then everyone who wants a driver's licence should have to provide a recognisable picture.

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Refusing to give her a DL without a picture is therefore not infrnging upon any constitutional rights she may have.

<strong> Yet that is absolutely irrelevant to the topic on hand.

UMoC

Derec

Not even to a police officer that stopped her for speeding or for driving an exact same model/color as a suspect they are looking for?
If so, then she should not be driving.

<strong> My scenario implies that she would uncover her face both for the photo and upon request by a peace officer. She would, of course, be free to wear it at all other times, unless the ninja suit somwhow restricts her field of vision. In that case she should be refraining from wearing it while driving.

<strong> Of course not. But on the other hand if she is licenced to driver she could give her DL to her burka wearing friend (for example) who is not licenced.

<strong> You are wrong. Proof of identity, as pertains to driving, is an integral part of the driver's licence. I am not talking about night clubs or such but of traffic stops.

<strong> The reason is that if she crashes into me she should be identified for insurance/liability reasons. If she is under the veil all the time she could always defend herself by saying it wasn't her.

<strong> Yet you would be expected to conform to local standards. Also you agree to show your privates to doctors when being examined.
If she has a string feeling against that as well how the hell should she be examined?
<strong> Let's try and see if that flies when being pulled over ...

<strong> What about passport/visa pictures that she certainly must have as well?

<strong> That has nothing to do with religious discrimination.

<strong> You are comparing apples and impact wrenches here.

As Buffman pointed out, what about strip searches? Shouls muslim women be exempt just by the virtue of their religion?

Glory

I don't think you have any understanding of how Muslim women feel about exposing their faces to strangers, particularly male strangers. If a man were to bust into a muslim woman's bathroom while she were nude, she would reflexisively cover her face before any other part of her. If this woman took her beliefs so far as to refuse to unveil for her picture, than I can assume that she would fight even harder to avoid unveling for a peace officer, again, particularly a man.

Do we all assume that we might be mistaken for a criminal simply by getting behind the wheel? Extraordinary circumstances are just that and they call for extraordinary procedures. Under the course of normal operation of a car, there is no reason to assume any one is going to have to prove their resemblance to a photo.



Your use of the term "ninja suit" is disrespectful and implies your attitude here is coloured by biggotry. You have shown no respect for muslims and and no compassion for people who don't fit neatly into the box you picked out for them.



Anyone can break the law. In this country we don't start off assuming that someone will. For that matter, anyone can give their birth certificate to anyone else, of the same gender, and pass themselves off to the DMV as someone else. That is one of the problems with ID cards. You can't prove your identity to apply for the ID.



Are you sure? What about someone driving on a temporary license because they have not yet been issued a permanent one? In California it takes six weeks to get your actual license with photo in the mail. Until you receive it you have a temp. which does not have a photo. Also, there is a physical description of the license holder on the license. Why is that there if the photo is so vital?



Again we are to assume she is going to do something criminal? I thought you didn't have a problem with her driving under the veil. How could a photo of her face taken at another time prove to witnesses that the she was the one driving if she was doing so veiled?



Are you nuts? You can't tell the difference between doctors and cops? If I expose my body to a doctor I should do so for a cop? Have you ever been to a proctologist? If so, are you going to allow a cop to stick his hand where the sun don't shine for a traffic stop?



Perhaps the identity purposes of such documents was clearer to her then that of the driver's license. I don't know and that isn't at issue in this discussion. She probably disrobes for her doctor as well. How is it relevant?



Barring someone from driving because of religious beliefs is not religious discrimination?



As I replied, probable cause hearing. How anxious are you to submit to a strip search? Do you think that it might be worth protesting the violation of your person and your dignity for unstated reasons?

Context is everything. If the woman commits a crime she will be treated accordingly. If she is accused of a crime she will, I am sure, stick up for her rights. Barring that, you have yet to come up with any reason that she should unveil for that picture.

Glory

[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Megusic

k, off subject relating to out of the last sane's reply on danish and the christmas tree.

yeah, the tree goes way back relating to many forms of solstice celebrations. i personally think the holiday tree idea is cool, considering the wide variety of cultures that christmas has sampled from. but this isn't a xmas thread, so i'll stop

Buffman

UglyManOnCampus

You are wrong on that. Countries with national ID cards do have pictures on their driver's licences. Why? To be able to identify that the driver is the same person that "passed the qualification tests authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle" and not a different person that borrowed/stole someone else's licence.

My statement was not concerned with which foreign countries do or don't put pictures on their driver's licenses. It wasn't even concerned with which States put them on driver's licenses. I was attempting to call your attention to the fact that pictures weren't always placed on driver's licenses. I was not talking about any country's national ID Card. That was my whole point. If a driver's license is going to be designated as a National Identity Card, then approximately 30% of the American population won't have one. (I hate to think about what percent of the population in other countries wouldn't have one.) But some other countries do issue Nat. ID Cards.

<a href="http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~stemarie/history.html" target="_blank">http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~stemarie/history.html</a>

<a href="http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/focus/identity.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/hrofr/focus/identity.pdf</a>

<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/17/194307.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/17/194307.shtml</a>

No but that is beside the point.

In your opinion.

NO. But if you really think a picture on a driver's licence is useless for purposes of driving, then why not abolish it for everyone? Why only give special rights to select few?

Where did I say it was useless? My point was, "What is it used for?" It is not required to prove that you have successfully passed the tests/qualifications to drive a vehicle. It is used as just one way to identify the person holding the license. It is certainly not the only way. This woman will have a picture on her license...but with her face partially or almost completely covered. (Did you take the time to examine the URLs I provided? ) And what about individuals with beards and mustaches? Would you support a new law declaring that everyone must be clean shaven for their pictures?

Can the woman in question gurantee that she will never have a traffic violation? Besides that is not the only way. Roadblocks and accidents are other instances where police will ask for a licence and which are not controllable by us.

There are a great many things the police can do under varying circumstances and probable cause criteria. However, they may not violate our constitutional, 4th Amendment (illegal search and seizure) civil rights and rights to privacy without good probable cause. (But that was before this latest series of, IMHO, constitutionally illegal, laws enacted after 9/11.) --- Accidents : The legal requirements for establishing the accurate identifications of all who are involved are patently obvious.

[n]And if her picture shows her covered how exactly is that going to help the police officer if she uncoveres her face during a stop? [[/b]

Perhaps for a potential court appearance...or hospital/morgue notification of next of kin?

Besides: if she can't show her face, how did she take a picture for a passport or a visa document (green card photo requirements demand that an ear is visible so even a head scarf, much less a full ninja headdress, is unacceptable)?

That's a fair question for which I have no answer. I would only be guessing if I claimed that those pictures were taken privately and then provided to the appropriate document preparing agencies...which could also be done for a driver's license I suspect. However, I honestly don't know. I suspect it is a religious, public-private, issue.

If she is refusing to show her face imagine the outcry if such a thing were ever to be attempted. Racial profiling, insensitivity, blah blah blah.

I'm on your camp on that one. If there is a constitutionally sustainable legal cause for her to bare her face, she better bare it.

Yet religious freedom is taken way too far in this country. Take Jehowa's Witnesses and refusal to have trheor children treated or the drug consuption by American Indians.

Please! I am a non-theist. I have no use for any of the deferences paid to religious beliefs. However, I also realize that a freedom of the religious expression of individual conscience is the only thing that protects the non-religious from the potential tyranny of the majority religious faith belief. Thus I will not shot myself in the foot by attempting to limit minority religious beliefs that do not violate any of the laws of our land. Many religious types have been arrested and found guilty of neglect and child abuse because of their beliefs. We even see some of the fundamentalist Mormons being arrested and charged under the polygamy laws. However, polygamy is legal in other religions and cultures. Just look at how the Christian age of marriage consent changed over time.

<a href="http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/ancmag/6046.asp" target="_blank">http://www.ancestry.com/library/view/ancmag/6046.asp</a>

(Extract)
In early periods, consents were handwritten on scraps of paper and only occasionally will be found. Later, for some areas, a detailed, printed consent form was part of the marriage license. Usually the father of the underage person gave consent, especially in southern states. When a mother gave consent, the father was probably deceased. If a legal guardian signed the consent, it is likely both parents were deceased.

Although the traditional age of consent for men was fourteen, and twelve for girls, very young marriages were never the custom. Many states enacted laws to raise the ages to seventeen for men and fourteen for women in the eighteenth century. Ages were raised again in the nineteenth century.
(End extract)

[Comment #1: That probably was heavily dependent on whether the youngsters both lived with the male's parents and helped to run the farm.]

[Comment #2: I bet a biblical/sacred writing passage/interpretation can be found to justify just about any age group. So why the change? Surplus food production?]

That has nothing to do with 9/11 and her being a Muslim, but with the premise that laws should apply regardles of someone's age.

Au contraire! What has age got to do with it? This is a sectarian religious belief.)

If a picture in a driver's licence is not essential, then anyone should be able to opt out, for example if I think I am ugly I should not have to have my picture taken.

I am not against pictures as one means of identification. I am only saying that a picture has nothing to do with one's ability and qualifications to drive a vehicle. Do the Amish have driver's licenses with pictures on them. I honestly don't know. However, I'll be willing to bet that those horse drawn carriages have caused plenty of accidents. (Isn't that why the backs of the carriages now have reflectors mounted on them. When did that change come about?)

If on the other hand a picture is essential (as I argue it is) then everyone who wants a driver's licence should have to provide a recognisable picture.

If you are arguing for a National Identity System, I still think that a DNA comparison would be far better than a picture in order to identify a person. And we are getting closer to that. Check out BIOMETRIC identification strips on driver's licenses.

<a href="http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/02spring_achterberg.htm" target="_blank">http://www.csis.org/pubs/prospectus/02spring_achterberg.htm</a>

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Refusing to give her a DL without a picture is therefore not infrnging upon any constitutional rights she may have.

You just don't get it, or you refuse to get it. I think we have spent too long on this already. I apologize "neko." I know better that to disrupt someone else's topic. No excuse...other than boredom. However, I did learn some new things by researching into this particular side issue. Thanks for your patience and tolerance.

Voltaire Is My Hero

*This is the ONLY part of the Editorial I have a problem with.

I, for one, am especially sick and tired of immigrants who demand to be catered to in their native tongue. When my father's father arrived from Czechoslovakia, he had to learn English; no one catered to him in Czech. And that's just the way it should be.

And while there's always room for improvement in all aspects of life [personal, familial, national, whatever], honestly: If their nation of origin was/is so much better, in their view, than America...well, the path that led here also leads back.

--Cindy

Major Billy

Well, you could start by telling that you agree with some parts of it, then ask her a few questions:

Who exactly is the "politically correct" crowd? Is George W. Bush "politically correct" because he held a <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/19/rec.bush.ramadan/index.html" target="_blank">traditional Ramadan dinner at the White House</a>, or because he says that <a href="http://www.usembassy-morocco.org.ma/Bush's%20Ramadan%20Greeting.htm" target="_blank">Islam is a peace-loving faith that is practiced by more than one billion people, including millions of American Muslims</a>?

Can you show me any examples of Americans who are "complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others"?

Can you show me any examples of immigrants who offended by the Stars and Stripes?

And finally, maybe explain that you are happy with our culture too, particularly the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

never been there

I've seen that page before - it's good. But I don't get the point. Sikh friends tell me the uncut beard is preferable, but not required. Still, I don't have a problem there. If someone always wears a beard then take his ID photo with the beard, no?
Good article, and it makes the same point I made - covering the face may be traditional, but there is no religious requirement for it.
I'm more in favour of religious freedom, as opposed to religious liberty. If my neighbour's religion involves howling at the moon all night, that doesn't justify persecution, but I might suggest a rural lifestyle would be more appropriate for those of that faith.

I haven't changed my views or my readiness to accept individuals of whatever faith since Sep. 11, but I do tend to keep a sharper watch on attempts by the religious to cross the line from expecting tolerance to demanding accomodation. I could let the occasional driver's licence go with the niqab, but we've got jokers demanding that assaulting homosexuals just for being homosexual NOT be considered a hate crime because it would infringe on their religious freedom to be hateful.

Buffman

never been there

I've seen that page before - it's good. But I don't get the point. Sikh friends tell me the uncut beard is preferable, but not required. Still, I don't have a problem there. If someone always wears a beard then take his ID photo with the beard, no?

You might wish to ask your Sikh friends about this:

<a href="http://www.onlypunjab.com/religion/sikhs/turban.html" target="_blank">http://www.onlypunjab.com/religion/sikhs/turban.html</a>

Obviously my point was that if you have a picture taken wearing a beard and then have to show your driver's license for identification after having shaved off your beard, exactly how does the bearded license picture help in identifying the unbearded individual...or vice versa?

Good article, and it makes the same point I made - covering the face may be traditional, but there is no religious requirement for it.

Looks like a religious belief/observance to me.

<a href="http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/hsyed/articles/hijab.html" target="_blank">http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/hsyed/articles/hijab.html</a>

I'm more in favour of religious freedom, as opposed to religious liberty. If my neighbour's religion involves howling at the moon all night, that doesn't justify persecution, but I might suggest a rural lifestyle would be more appropriate for those of that faith.

Personally I'm a supporter of the "legal" exercise of individual conscience without the fear of intimidation or penalty. I am not sure of what distinctions you make between "freedom" and "liberty." From your example, I might guess that you support the neighbor's freedom to howl at the Moon all night, but not his liberty to do so ...if it infringes on the rights of others to quiet during those hours. I believe that you will find any number of "legal ordinances" which cover exactly that situation. (It's similar to the false yelling of "Fire" in the full theater and the freedom of speech clause. If your religious, or non-religious, belief practices infringe on the rights of others, then some manner of settlement must be obtained before physical harm is used to settle the differences and where only might is right.)

I haven't changed my views or my readiness to accept individuals of whatever faith since Sep. 11, but I do tend to keep a sharper watch on attempts by the religious to cross the line from expecting tolerance to demanding accomodation. I could let the occasional driver's licence go with the niqab, but we've got jokers demanding that assaulting homosexuals just for being homosexual NOT be considered a hate crime because it would infringe on their religious freedom to be hateful.

The laws already cover their faulty claim about a "religious freedom to be hateful." However, antidiscrimination and civil liberty laws that come into conflict are being tested and adjudicated every day. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Boy Scouts of America vs Dale is a perfect example of how the courts can be influenced by sectarian, rather than secular, jurisprudence. (I will admit that a private organization must have the right to determine its membership. However, a private organization should not, then, enjoy any federal government support/advantages.)

This is what makes 9/11 and the current U.S. Government administration so scary to so many critically thinking people. This current administration advocates replacing liberal judges with conservative ones. That is primarily radical right wing religious double speak for replacing secular judges with sectarian ones...of the "correct" Christian faith belief.

<a href="http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/77.1/Zahner%20final%20PF.pdf" target="_blank">http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/77.1/Zahner%20final%20PF.pdf</a>

<a href="http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/" target="_blank">http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/hate/</a>

If we allow fear to be used to curtail our freedoms/liberties, then the bad guys have already won the war. That is why I, a non-supernaturalist, fight for a religionist's right to express their personal conscience when the government is attempting to intimidate/blackmail them without due cause justification.---You should see the other e-mails I have received attempting to cast every immigrant in a terrorist/freeloader light. They make for great jingoistic chest thumping and helping to create an atmosphere/environment for continued assaults on our constitutional freedoms/liberties.

slept2long

What does her faith have to say about exposing her face to a woman? Would that be O.K.? Or is it just "strangers" in general?