I'd say that if so many Islamic countries don't even treat a woman covering her face as such an inviolable right as to let it interfere with photo IDs, this woman doesn't have a modestly concealed and covered leg to stand on.
No kidding. People who support this woman are really grasping here. I seriously cannot believe this topic has spanned 3 pages.
To those of you who care so deeply about religious/personal rights:
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
Lets put this simply: tHe woman needs a photo id to vote.
AFAIK, this is incorrect. You could actually walk up and present your birth certificate or various other documents as legitimate forms of identification at any polling place. There are various reasons why photo IDs are not required, including the right to shield your face from others.
AFAIK, this is incorrect. You could actually walk up and present your birth certificate or various other documents as legitimate forms of identification at any polling place. There are various reasons why photo IDs are not required, including the right to shield your face from others.
It actually depends I think on the state, I have always had to show a photo id...
It actually depends I think on the state, I have always had to show a photo id...
You have the burden of proof. Go find it. I doubt you'll find anything. Photo IDs are of course preferred, but in addition to documents like birth certificates, many states offer weird bureaucratic nonsense waivers you can sign. And like I said...there are various reasons. How many absentee voters have been absolutely forced to photocopy their photo IDs? Yeah, I thought so.
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
if her case passes ...
i want ID pictures about me wearing a burqa ... or simply i will find someone's papers her wearing burqa, and then present those as mine. it has nothing to do with religion, i agree 200 % with that, and in case anyone would point out that i wear a burqa in my ID card pictures and am not a religious person, i would sew them for religious dicriminating. as a non-believer of anything (or believer of whatever) i am entitled to the same rights that some specific group nuts get themselves.
torifile, not to hound you or anything, but a while back, you posted regarding actions this woman might take, and how that related to ID etc.
i'm not sure i understood what you were getting at those. of the three items you mentioned, two for sure would require a picture ID.
care to explain? (this thread is degenerating into crap, but hey, you never know)
Sure, I'll elaborate, but I've given up on trying the change people's minds. I said if she wasn't permitted a photo id because she didn't want to take her veil off (something we all seem to agree is her right, the whole picture thing aside), she wouldn't be able to do any of those 3 things. That is a problem. She's practicing her right to not reveal her face. The state could decline her the right (or priviledge) to get a DL. But then, she's also denied any and all things that require a photo id. That was my point. This whole thing goes beyond her right to drive. That's not the best explanation, but that was my point...
in that case, what option is available that allows someone to properly identify a person who doesn't want their face shown.
for all the fear as to govt. control, a picture ID is a good compromise.
not as bad as a fingerprint, but not easy to duplicate either.
there has to be some way to verify that you are who you say you are. in her case, her choice to hide her face will hinder her choices in everyday life.
that's just how things work. there's no reason that we should pass any kind of law to accomedate her.
Sure, I'll elaborate, but I've given up on trying the change people's minds. I said if she wasn't permitted a photo id because she didn't want to take her veil off (something we all seem to agree is her right, the whole picture thing aside), she wouldn't be able to do any of those 3 things. That is a problem. She's practicing her right to not reveal her face. The state could decline her the right (or priviledge) to get a DL. But then, she's also denied any and all things that require a photo id. That was my point. This whole thing goes beyond her right to drive. That's not the best explanation, but that was my point...
*Sigh* Very few things related to government or law actually require a photo ID. If something so precious as the right to vote is not guarded by the need for photo identification, then WTF is? Sure, this woman might get tossed by a bouncer at a night club or refused the purchase of alcohol by a clueless 7-11 employee, but she's *legally* free to do all kinds of activities you have misidentified as requiring photo identification and/or being sponsored by the state or federal government.
But since I'm an accultured tool who cannot possibly understand your benevolent dissension...a little vicious and one-sided, aren't we? I did tell *all* of you to shut up, not just your particular archetype.
No, culture is completely irrelevant.
And yes, you actually can drive with driver's license which doesn't have a photo. Many of the provisional and special vehicle licenses here are text only documents. She didn't try/look hard enough so she decided to sue.
So once more: She has rights of course, but she also has no case. You can get a photoless driver's license, I guarantee it. The only thing she cannot get is any kind photo ID, which is completely pointless for her anyway. What was this thread about again?
I said if she wasn't permitted a photo id because she didn't want to take her veil off (something we all seem to agree is her right, the whole picture thing aside), she wouldn't be able to do any of those 3 things. That is a problem. She's practicing her right to not reveal her face.
In the countries where Islam is the main religion either she could not drive at all, or she would still have to take her veils off for the photo.
If she tried this same thing in iran, kuwait, pakistan, anywhere in northern africa, they would not give her the licence because their laws - note: muslemic countries all of them - require the woman who wants to drive a car, to have her identifiable photo taken for the DL, and that is without the burqa. period.
In the countries where Islam is the main religion either she could not drive at all, or she would still have to take her veils off for the photo.
If she tried this same thing in iran, kuwait, pakistan, anywhere in northern africa, they would not give her the licence because their laws - note: muslemic countries all of them - require the woman who wants to drive a car, to have her identifiable photo taken for the DL, and that is without the burqa. period.
I'm going to asume you're not just talking out your ass on this one. Let me just ask for some proof. I've been to Egypt, I know that women there can drive and be munakaba (women who wear veils) and I'm quite certain that they would not be required to take off the veil. I have no proof of this, but I'm going to say that you don't either. I can get some if you like. But you go first this time.
I'm going to asume you're not just talking out your ass on this one. Let me just ask for some proof. I've been to Egypt, I know that women there can drive and be munakaba (women who wear veils) and I'm quite certain that they would not be required to take off the veil. I have no proof of this, but I'm going to say that you don't either. I can get some if you like. But you go first this time.
Tha's not the issue . . . its about the liscense . . . . liscense is about identification and identification means identification before the Law and in this country we all must abide by the Law.
# Identification requirement vests far too much discretion in the hands of local election officials. Poll workers can select - pursuant to criteria they alone can choose - who will be asked to produce identification and who will not. Florida law requires photo identification but allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot . In fact, the Equal Voting Rights Project discovered signs posted in precincts across the state which say "NEED PHOTO ID," causing voters who did not know about the affidavit alternative to leave without attempting to vote.
I will leave it at that and note that this woman brought her case in 2002 in Florida.
Comments
Originally posted by shetline
I'd say that if so many Islamic countries don't even treat a woman covering her face as such an inviolable right as to let it interfere with photo IDs, this woman doesn't have a modestly concealed and covered leg to stand on.
No kidding. People who support this woman are really grasping here. I seriously cannot believe this topic has spanned 3 pages.
To those of you who care so deeply about religious/personal rights:
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
Everybody shut up now.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Lets put this simply: tHe woman needs a photo id to vote.
AFAIK, this is incorrect. You could actually walk up and present your birth certificate or various other documents as legitimate forms of identification at any polling place. There are various reasons why photo IDs are not required, including the right to shield your face from others.
Originally posted by Eugene
AFAIK, this is incorrect. You could actually walk up and present your birth certificate or various other documents as legitimate forms of identification at any polling place. There are various reasons why photo IDs are not required, including the right to shield your face from others.
It actually depends I think on the state, I have always had to show a photo id...
Originally posted by billybobsky
It actually depends I think on the state, I have always had to show a photo id...
You have the burden of proof. Go find it. I doubt you'll find anything. Photo IDs are of course preferred, but in addition to documents like birth certificates, many states offer weird bureaucratic nonsense waivers you can sign. And like I said...there are various reasons. How many absentee voters have been absolutely forced to photocopy their photo IDs? Yeah, I thought so.
Originally posted by billybobsky
you know sunglasses dont as far as i know constitute a religious garb... this just continues the realization that our id system sucks...
i wasn't implying this. that wasn't the point
Originally posted by Eugene
No kidding. People who support this woman are really grasping here. I seriously cannot believe this topic has spanned 3 pages.
To those of you who care so deeply about religious/personal rights:
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
Everybody shut up now.
i agree. some of these reply's are sooooo long
Interesting site though.
Originally posted by Eugene
No kidding. People who support this woman are really grasping here. I seriously cannot believe this topic has spanned 3 pages.
To those of you who care so deeply about religious/personal rights:
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
Everybody shut up now.
I agree completely
abnd 4 pages is surprising
that said, here's my 2cents:
she has the right to cover her face in public (even though its a remnant of cultural misogyny parading as piety)
she also has a right to NOT show her drivers license in public except in the case of lawful necessity . . .
Originally posted by Eugene
No kidding. People who support this woman are really grasping here. I seriously cannot believe this topic has spanned 3 pages.
To those of you who care so deeply about religious/personal rights:
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
Everybody shut up now.
Eugene, you are an ass. Sorry, it had to be said.
Originally posted by Eugene
1) She does have the right to cover her face. Nobody denies that.
2) States also have rights, believe it or not.
3) The issuance of a driver's license to an individual is not an inalienable right.
4) This really has next to NOTHING to do with religion. It's pointless to tackle the issue with such overtones no matter which side you fall on.
if her case passes ...
i want ID pictures about me wearing a burqa ... or simply i will find someone's papers her wearing burqa, and then present those as mine. it has nothing to do with religion, i agree 200 % with that, and in case anyone would point out that i wear a burqa in my ID card pictures and am not a religious person, i would sew them for religious dicriminating. as a non-believer of anything (or believer of whatever) i am entitled to the same rights that some specific group nuts get themselves.
Originally posted by torifile
Eugene, you are an ass. Sorry, it had to be said.
Considering you have no other grounds to defend this woman's "stick it to the man" legal publicity stunt, I didn't expect anymore from you.
Originally posted by Eugene
Considering you have no other grounds to defend this woman's "stick it to the man" legal publicity stunt, I didn't expect anymore from you.
The world is very cut and dry for you isn't it? It must be nice to be an acculturated tool.
I've had my say in this thread already, in case you missed it. I may not have convinced anyone, but that's not really the point.
i'm not sure i understood what you were getting at those. of the three items you mentioned, two for sure would require a picture ID.
care to explain? (this thread is degenerating into crap, but hey, you never know)
Originally posted by alcimedes
torifile, not to hound you or anything, but a while back, you posted regarding actions this woman might take, and how that related to ID etc.
i'm not sure i understood what you were getting at those. of the three items you mentioned, two for sure would require a picture ID.
care to explain? (this thread is degenerating into crap, but hey, you never know)
Sure, I'll elaborate, but I've given up on trying the change people's minds.
for all the fear as to govt. control, a picture ID is a good compromise.
not as bad as a fingerprint, but not easy to duplicate either.
there has to be some way to verify that you are who you say you are. in her case, her choice to hide her face will hinder her choices in everyday life.
that's just how things work. there's no reason that we should pass any kind of law to accomedate her.
Originally posted by torifile
Sure, I'll elaborate, but I've given up on trying the change people's minds.
*Sigh* Very few things related to government or law actually require a photo ID. If something so precious as the right to vote is not guarded by the need for photo identification, then WTF is? Sure, this woman might get tossed by a bouncer at a night club or refused the purchase of alcohol by a clueless 7-11 employee, but she's *legally* free to do all kinds of activities you have misidentified as requiring photo identification and/or being sponsored by the state or federal government.
But since I'm an accultured tool who cannot possibly understand your benevolent dissension...a little vicious and one-sided, aren't we? I did tell *all* of you to shut up, not just your particular archetype.
No, culture is completely irrelevant.
And yes, you actually can drive with driver's license which doesn't have a photo. Many of the provisional and special vehicle licenses here are text only documents. She didn't try/look hard enough so she decided to sue.
So once more: She has rights of course, but she also has no case. You can get a photoless driver's license, I guarantee it. The only thing she cannot get is any kind photo ID, which is completely pointless for her anyway. What was this thread about again?
Originally posted by torifile
I said if she wasn't permitted a photo id because she didn't want to take her veil off (something we all seem to agree is her right, the whole picture thing aside), she wouldn't be able to do any of those 3 things. That is a problem. She's practicing her right to not reveal her face.
In the countries where Islam is the main religion either she could not drive at all, or she would still have to take her veils off for the photo.
If she tried this same thing in iran, kuwait, pakistan, anywhere in northern africa, they would not give her the licence because their laws - note: muslemic countries all of them - require the woman who wants to drive a car, to have her identifiable photo taken for the DL, and that is without the burqa. period.
Originally posted by Giaguara
In the countries where Islam is the main religion either she could not drive at all, or she would still have to take her veils off for the photo.
If she tried this same thing in iran, kuwait, pakistan, anywhere in northern africa, they would not give her the licence because their laws - note: muslemic countries all of them - require the woman who wants to drive a car, to have her identifiable photo taken for the DL, and that is without the burqa. period.
I'm going to asume you're not just talking out your ass on this one. Let me just ask for some proof. I've been to Egypt, I know that women there can drive and be munakaba (women who wear veils) and I'm quite certain that they would not be required to take off the veil. I have no proof of this, but I'm going to say that you don't either. I can get some if you like. But you go first this time.
Originally posted by torifile
I'm going to asume you're not just talking out your ass on this one. Let me just ask for some proof. I've been to Egypt, I know that women there can drive and be munakaba (women who wear veils) and I'm quite certain that they would not be required to take off the veil. I have no proof of this, but I'm going to say that you don't either. I can get some if you like. But you go first this time.
Tha's not the issue . . . its about the liscense . . . . liscense is about identification and identification means identification before the Law and in this country we all must abide by the Law.
# Identification requirement vests far too much discretion in the hands of local election officials. Poll workers can select - pursuant to criteria they alone can choose - who will be asked to produce identification and who will not. Florida law requires photo identification but allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot . In fact, the Equal Voting Rights Project discovered signs posted in precincts across the state which say "NEED PHOTO ID," causing voters who did not know about the affidavit alternative to leave without attempting to vote.
I will leave it at that and note that this woman brought her case in 2002 in Florida.