Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 02-04-2002, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jerry Smith:
Ok, so she says to hell with the drivers license, and merely wants to get an official state ID, as is virtually required by our bureaucratic society.

She believes she has a right to do this with veil in place: now, what is the legal objection, and does the first amendment protect her or not?? best thoughts, everyone?

There is no official state ID with picture required except for Drivers' Licenses or the similar ID's for people who don't drive. In any case, a picture of a veiled woman is pretty useless for identification purposes.

When we all have our retinas scanned in to the central computer for identification purposes, we won't need her picture. But until then, if she needs an ID, she needs to distinguish herself from any other veiled woman, or man pretending to be a woman.

The First Amendment protects the "free exercise" of religion, but this has never been held to allow a religious person to disobey generally applicable laws. You cannot sacrifice your children, marry more than one wife at a time, or get away with refusing to pay taxes that support immoral wars.

In any case, the niqab is not required by her religion, only that she dress modestly and cover her hair. The niqab is a cultural habit from third world countries where women are kept in the home and away from public life.

Amulet · 02-04-2002, 05:24 PM

I think it's ridiculous that this woman thinks she should be able to obtain a driver's license but basically show only her eyes in the photo. The idea is that if the police or law enforcement agencies need to identify you, they will have something to compare your face to. Granted, if she's the ONLY one wearing a face covering, she'd be easy to identify, but all she'd have to do is uncover her face and she might get away with a crime. I'm not saying she's planning on committing any crimes, but the point is, she shouldn't get a special right that would protect her any more than the rest of us from being investigated. The same applies for a photo I.D. card.

PopeInTheWoods · 02-04-2002, 07:07 PM

Toto and Amulet, thank you! IMHO, the purpose of a government-issued identification document is, well, identification. Kind of a tough goal to reach if you're allowed to wear a disguise in your ID photo.

Does anyone know how women from Islamic countries get valid passports if they don't allow their faces to be photographed?

Andy

Oresta · 02-05-2002, 07:13 AM

It's an interesting issue. Of late, I have been in retail businesses where a credit card isn't accepted without aditional ID with a photo if there is none on the credit card. Crossing the Windsor/Detroit border now requires photo ID as well as document proof of citizenship. It would seem that recent security concerns will play into this case.

Toto · 08-10-2002, 11:40 PM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/11/weekinreview/11PRIS.html" target="_blank">Behind the Legal and Private Worlds of the Veil</a>

Quote:

Ideally, said Douglas W. Kmiec, the dean of the Catholic University Law School in Washington, both interests should be protected � the woman's right to be true to a core religious belief and the state's need to maintain public safety. Few people, after all, are likely to seek a similar exemption since it is inconvenient to be without a photo ID "Prior to 9/11," Mr. Kmiec said, "one could have rationally concluded that a handful of religious exemptions are not much of a threat. But now we know there is a relationship between some forms of religious belief and mischief of the worst kind."

In a 1983 case similar to Freeman, a Nebraska woman won a legal battle over whether she could refuse to be photographed for a driver's license. The woman, Frances Quaring, had claimed that her Pentecostal faith prohibited graven images. Ruling in what now appear to be more innocent times, the federal appeals court majority never even mentioned that a picture license might be a useful crime-fighting tool.

Is anyone else a little bothered by Kmiec's words? How does he get from a bizarre clothing choice to religiously-based mischief?

<a href="http://www.law.edu/faculty/kmiec/kmiecd.htm" target="_blank">Kmiec</a> served in the Reagan and Bush I administrations

Splat · 08-11-2002, 08:53 AM

Anybody who's ever borrowed somebody's ID and gotten into a bar with it (or worked as a bouncer) knows that photos often aren't a very good means of identification, especially when they're 4 years old.

I've heard that some countries have used thumbprints. Maybe not as easy to read as a photo, but more accurate.

(BTW--Islam doesn't say women can't drive cars. Some states--e.g. Saudi Arabia--interpret the Koran that way, but most don't.)

RufusAtticus · 08-12-2002, 06:08 PM

I believe that this woman had a licence in Indiana with her veil on, but when she moved to Florida the DMV said, "no."

I don't see how making her take the picture without her veil is going to help identification, since she is going to be wearing a veil the rest of the time.

Shouldn't this argument be concentrating on wheather the policy fits with the Lemon Test?

Peregrine · 08-13-2002, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:

Shouldn't this argument be concentrating on wheather the policy fits with the Lemon Test?

It is not the Lemon test that governs decisions in this case it is the Smith Doctrine which is basically a law that has primarily secular purposes, but has an unintentional peripheral impact on religious practices is constitutional. Prior to Smith, the state needed a compelling reason, after Smith all they need to do is make a reasonable effort to accommodate. Without Smith zoning laws, drug laws, mandatory education, child abuse laws would be ineffective.

Stephen Maturin · 08-13-2002, 06:28 AM

Florida really screwed the pooch here, as did the other states that jumped on the "religious freedom restoration" bandwagon after Smith. As I read the article linked in the OP, the woman is bringing her challenge under <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& URL=Ch0761/SEC03.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch0761->Section%2003" target="_blank">Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>. That leaves the state's lawyers a rough road aho. They can argue that requiring this woman to remove her veil for a driver's license photo meets the statutory "least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling state interest" test (a loser, IMHO), or they can argue that their own statute violates the federal Establishment Clause. LOL

Just goes to show ya -- if you try to grant special privileges to your own favorite band of fundies, you might end up bringing other fundies along for the ride.

PopeInTheWoods · 08-13-2002, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
I believe that this woman had a licence in Indiana with her veil on, but when she moved to Florida the DMV said, "no."

I don't see how making her take the picture without her veil is going to help identification, since she is going to be wearing a veil the rest of the time.

Not if she's stopped by the police or boarding an aircraft! Wouldn't she have to prove she is who she says?

Andy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2002, 05:24 PM	#12
Amulet Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Southern NJ Posts: 34	I think it's ridiculous that this woman thinks she should be able to obtain a driver's license but basically show only her eyes in the photo. The idea is that if the police or law enforcement agencies need to identify you, they will have something to compare your face to. Granted, if she's the ONLY one wearing a face covering, she'd be easy to identify, but all she'd have to do is uncover her face and she might get away with a crime. I'm not saying she's planning on committing any crimes, but the point is, she shouldn't get a special right that would protect her any more than the rest of us from being investigated. The same applies for a photo I.D. card.

02-04-2002, 07:07 PM	#13
PopeInTheWoods Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Rochester NY USA Posts: 4,318	Toto and Amulet, thank you! IMHO, the purpose of a government-issued identification document is, well, identification. Kind of a tough goal to reach if you're allowed to wear a disguise in your ID photo. Does anyone know how women from Islamic countries get valid passports if they don't allow their faces to be photographed? Andy

02-05-2002, 07:13 AM	#14
Oresta Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Detroit, MI Posts: 1,107	It's an interesting issue. Of late, I have been in retail businesses where a credit card isn't accepted without aditional ID with a photo if there is none on the credit card. Crossing the Windsor/Detroit border now requires photo ID as well as document proof of citizenship. It would seem that recent security concerns will play into this case.

08-11-2002, 08:53 AM	#16
Splat Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hell, PA Posts: 599	Anybody who's ever borrowed somebody's ID and gotten into a bar with it (or worked as a bouncer) knows that photos often aren't a very good means of identification, especially when they're 4 years old. I've heard that some countries have used thumbprints. Maybe not as easy to read as a photo, but more accurate. (BTW--Islam doesn't say women can't drive cars. Some states--e.g. Saudi Arabia--interpret the Koran that way, but most don't.)

08-12-2002, 06:08 PM	#17
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I believe that this woman had a licence in Indiana with her veil on, but when she moved to Florida the DMV said, "no." I don't see how making her take the picture without her veil is going to help identification, since she is going to be wearing a veil the rest of the time. Shouldn't this argument be concentrating on wheather the policy fits with the Lemon Test?

08-13-2002, 06:28 AM	#19
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Florida really screwed the pooch here, as did the other states that jumped on the "religious freedom restoration" bandwagon after Smith. As I read the article linked in the OP, the woman is bringing her challenge under <a href="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& URL=Ch0761/SEC03.HTM&Title=->2002->Ch0761->Section%2003" target="_blank">Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act</a>. That leaves the state's lawyers a rough road aho. They can argue that requiring this woman to remove her veil for a driver's license photo meets the statutory "least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling state interest" test (a loser, IMHO), or they can argue that their own statute violates the federal Establishment Clause. LOL Just goes to show ya -- if you try to grant special privileges to your own favorite band of fundies, you might end up bringing other fundies along for the ride.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.