pariah

I saw this on msnbc...

Apparently she and her boyfriend have a criminal record of child abuse, but wouldnt let the police look for bruises on the children b/c taking of the gurpah would violate their freedom of religion...

I dunno

...

While I'll freely admit that I'm no expert on Islamic law, it's my understanding that removing her veil would NOT violate her religion. Islamic law dictates that a woman dress modestly - and, back in Muhammed's day, that meant keeping the hair covered.

Bottom line, this woman has no case.

Sabine Grant

I think also the root of the " modest" appearance has to do with the woman not revealing her beauty in public. In some fundamentalist countries, a woman cannot make any public appearance without the escort of a male relative.
Moreso I think her claim is based on the fact that any time she would be stopped by a law enforcement officer she would have to unveil herself so that he or she could identify her as the legal owner of the presented driver's license. On that point she may unfortunatly make her case.
However... she would also have to prove that in any given situation she would be forbidden to unveil herself in public or to another male ( not a relative). One has to assume then that dental visits are a nono and a rather limited medical care.
I also wonder if her past criminal record can be presented as evidence of her misuse of her religious rights to actualy cover up potential criminal activities. In some court cases, the prosecution cannot mention past criminal activities.

Toto

Usually the ACLU does a better job at finding a sympthetic plaintiff.

Jewel

Ya, Toto, no kidding. I was actually surprised the ACLU took this case.

shome42

IMO, discussing the specifics of wearing a veil with respect to Islamic law is futile. There will be a dozen different opinions about whether or not it is permissable to take it off, and more importantly, official Islamic law is irrelevant-- it's her interpretation that she has a right to.

That being said, I think that this boils down to the privileage of driving. Driving is a priviealge in the U.S., not a right. As you'll recall, refusal to submit to a D.U.I results in the suspension of your license, proof or drunkenness be damned.

If this woman does not want to follow the protocal set forth to exercise her privileage to drive, then so be it. It's her choice. She simply will not drive. Like it or not, in America it is necessary to take a photo of your face in order to drive.

However, one could say this really isn't about driving, as the same argument about veiling could be made about an I.D. card. Well, in that case, she would still need to take the pic without the veil.

If she were to take a veiled pic, she'd render her I.D. useless, making the police incapable of doing their job, therefore endangering the public.

Jewel

Well said, shome42!

I think people often confuse privileages with rights. Getting and keeping a drivers license is not a right. It is a privileage and a responsibility. The state also has the responsibility of making sure drivers can be reasonably identified.

capsaicin67

My spider-sense immediately said "Personality Disorder". I bet she's been a non-constructive, pain in the arse for years. We've all met the type. Could be wrong, but don't think I am.

This case is a frivolous no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. It's a safety issue. Being able to identify the operator of a MV should not be optional IMO.

DMB

I wonder whether it would be feasible for her to move to Saudi Arabia. There she would be expected to go round covered up (but only with a related male escort) and as a woman would be prohibited from driving. End of problem?

Majestyk

Although I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post, her case involving a Driver’s License is without merit, I have to take exception to this statement.

Identification documents have not always incorporated a photograph. It may be a convenience to law enforcement but the lack of a photograph does not render them incapable of executing their mandate.

Furthermore, although our current national opinion seems to disagree, the state has previously borne the burden of proof when, making the claim of public endangerment as a justification for impinging upon the rights of an individual.

However since, picture I.D.'s are not madatory for all citizens, the argument is academic. I just wanted to object to the principle.