Leave it at what? Florida isn't good at running elections? This is news to somebody?
No, the ruling by the federal court applies if I read it correctly only to Lawrence Mass, and there has not been a national ruling. Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
however, allowing someone to use a photo ID that does nothing to verify their identity could lead to voter fraud. considering on average only 30-40% voter turnout, having 100% voter turnout among those wearing veils could make a huge difference.
No, the ruling by the federal court applies if I read it correctly only to Lawrence Mass, and there has not been a national ruling. Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
No, your quote does not say that. It explicitly mentions it "allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot."
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.
Jeez. The point is Freeman can in all likelihood get a photoless driver's license, as long as it is the right type. It's just because the most common type is a dual function photo ID and driver's license, one of which is completely useless to her. She can get a license without a picture, I bet you.
Should she be pulled over, she might get harassed by a cop who thinks he must see a photo ID and her face, but that's about it. In such a case she should file suit against an individual and not the state.
Jeez. The point is Freeman can in all likelihood get a photoless driver's license, as long as it is the right type. It's just because the most common type is a dual function photo ID and driver's license, one of which is completely useless to her. She can get a license without a picture, I bet you.
Should she be pulled over, she might get harassed by a cop who thinks he must see a photo ID and her face, but that's about it. In such a case she should file suit against an individual and not the state.
Eugene, thanks for continuing to respond to my posts in a constructive manner, despite my rather unneccessary comments yesterday. You just annoy me sometimes . Anyway, if it is true that she can get a photoless dl as you claim, there's no reason at all for this suit. Her legal rights do not appear to be infringed upon in this case.
However, if this should extend to denial of services because she refuses to take off her veil for other things (like I suggested above), there should be some noise on the civil rights front. I think this underscores the importance of getting a better system in place for identification. I'm all for that.
No, your quote does not say that. It explicitly mentions it "allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot."
But balloting stations are notorious for doing what they can to turn "undesirable" voters away, especially in the south. This is something that needs to be prevented. Not allowing her to get photo identification just gives them reason to do that (knowingly or unknowingly).
It's just a bad system. I'm all for retinal scans.
But balloting stations are notorious for doing what they can to turn "undesirable" voters away, especially in the south. This is something that needs to be prevented. Not allowing her to get photo identification just gives them reason to do that (knowingly or unknowingly).
Even if she does have a photo ID, she's probably going to get turned away from those polling stations, so it really doesn't make a difference.
Then the government should make some kind of special arrangements to ensure that you get an id, and don't have to forsake your god to do it.
I dont think it should even matter if they find it in the Koran. She believes it is against her god and her religion, and the government should not able to ignore a person's religious beliefs like that. A government should bend to its people.
My religion requires the blood sacrifice of Jews and blacks. We also have to shout racial slurs while performing the ceremony. If I am arrested for this then you have violated the separation of Church and state.
Comments
Originally posted by mrmister
Leave it at what? Florida isn't good at running elections? This is news to somebody?
No, the ruling by the federal court applies if I read it correctly only to Lawrence Mass, and there has not been a national ruling. Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
however, allowing someone to use a photo ID that does nothing to verify their identity could lead to voter fraud. considering on average only 30-40% voter turnout, having 100% voter turnout among those wearing veils could make a huge difference.
Originally posted by billybobsky
No, the ruling by the federal court applies if I read it correctly only to Lawrence Mass, and there has not been a national ruling. Basically, not allowing her to have a drivers license effectively prevents her from voting...
No, your quote does not say that. It explicitly mentions it "allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot."
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.
Jeez. The point is Freeman can in all likelihood get a photoless driver's license, as long as it is the right type. It's just because the most common type is a dual function photo ID and driver's license, one of which is completely useless to her. She can get a license without a picture, I bet you.
Should she be pulled over, she might get harassed by a cop who thinks he must see a photo ID and her face, but that's about it. In such a case she should file suit against an individual and not the state.
Originally posted by Eugene
Jeez. The point is Freeman can in all likelihood get a photoless driver's license, as long as it is the right type. It's just because the most common type is a dual function photo ID and driver's license, one of which is completely useless to her. She can get a license without a picture, I bet you.
Should she be pulled over, she might get harassed by a cop who thinks he must see a photo ID and her face, but that's about it. In such a case she should file suit against an individual and not the state.
Eugene, thanks for continuing to respond to my posts in a constructive manner, despite my rather unneccessary comments yesterday. You just annoy me sometimes
However, if this should extend to denial of services because she refuses to take off her veil for other things (like I suggested above), there should be some noise on the civil rights front. I think this underscores the importance of getting a better system in place for identification. I'm all for that.
Originally posted by Eugene
No, your quote does not say that. It explicitly mentions it "allows voters who do not have identification to cast an affidavit ballot."
But balloting stations are notorious for doing what they can to turn "undesirable" voters away, especially in the south. This is something that needs to be prevented. Not allowing her to get photo identification just gives them reason to do that (knowingly or unknowingly).
It's just a bad system. I'm all for retinal scans.
Originally posted by torifile
But balloting stations are notorious for doing what they can to turn "undesirable" voters away, especially in the south. This is something that needs to be prevented. Not allowing her to get photo identification just gives them reason to do that (knowingly or unknowingly).
Even if she does have a photo ID, she's probably going to get turned away from those polling stations, so it really doesn't make a difference.
There is an interesting side bar in that article about how muslim countries treat the issue. Seems they have to take off their veils too.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/fl...eil/index.html
Originally posted by thuh Freak
Then the government should make some kind of special arrangements to ensure that you get an id, and don't have to forsake your god to do it.
I dont think it should even matter if they find it in the Koran. She believes it is against her god and her religion, and the government should not able to ignore a person's religious beliefs like that. A government should bend to its people.
My religion requires the blood sacrifice of Jews and blacks. We also have to shout racial slurs while performing the ceremony. If I am arrested for this then you have violated the separation of Church and state.
DRIVER'S ID RULES IN MUSLIM NATIONS
Saudi Arabia:_ Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered_but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures