SillyDog701

[Lorraine]

Hi: I have been watching the court case of the woman who doesn't want her driver's license to show her face. It is for religious reasons. She is following religious rules in the Koran, so she and her lawyer states.

This is not a jury trial, it will be decided whether she can or can't, in Florida by a Judge. The judge in the proceedings seems to be fair.

I don't really know if it makes a difference, the only thing is that where I live in Canada, automobiles are not allowed to have the front windows tinted in order for easier identification of the person who iis driving, and the safety of the police officer should their be a driving infraction.

She wants to drive with a solid black coloured veil. All you can see is her eyes.
I know that Freedom of Religion is in the Constitution of the United States. I don't think there were women practicing Islam in the U.S. when the Constitution was written.

In the fifties we had some armed bandits, they were quite successful robbing banks. They wore red hoods and only their eyes showed.
They were called the "Cajoles rouge" and were eventually caught, but only after several weeks.

I don't mean that persons practicing Islam and wearing Burkas or Veils would rob a bank or anything, it's evidently in their religion.
But, it seems to me, if allowed, anyone that wears a robe or a hood should be able to do the same, and I don't believe that should be allowed.
-Lorraine

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
I am going to start a POll just to see what you all think.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Lorraine]

O.k. Goofed again
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Fulvio]

O.k. Goofed again
I thought there would be a Yes or No?

Just tick off the one you agree with.

Somebody will tally the vote...

-Lorraine

Yes, No and No.

The photo picture is for ID, and until retinal scans are common, the religious angle is out.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win9x; en; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030311 Beonex/0.8.2-stable

[Lorraine]

Fulvio: Is there a way to edit my Poll.... this isn't working..
I guess I will start over.....
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Antony]

Fulvio: Is there a way to edit my Poll.... this isn't working..
I guess I will start over.....
-Lorraine

Lorraine,
For the security and preventing abusing, every user has 11 hours and 41 minutes to edit his/her post, including the Poll. To do so, just click the "Edit" button in the first thread.
If not, simply ask a moderator to fix it for you.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-SillyDog)

[Lorraine]

I certainly won't be trying anymore polls in here.
Guess people didn't understand
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Lorraine]

This was a true case.
THE RESULTS.
For anyone that is interested, this case was without a Jury and the Judge ruled that the defendant would have to uncover her face, when she had her photo taken, for her driver's license.

I really am on a seesaw with the results of this case.

I think the Judge ruled correctly, during these times, since 9/11 to prevent any terrorist activity, everything that is possible has to be carefully scrutinized.

I don't think this woman was a danger, however it would have set a precedent and there lies the problem.

Also, on the other hand, people get nose jobs, eyes fixed, coloured contact lens, facelifts, cheek and/or chin implants, botox, they can also dye their hair a different colour. Men can grow beards, mustaches or shave their head, if they aren't already bald, as well as their faces. (I thought I would throw that in )

You can change your appearance quite easily if you have the money to do so.

That is my dilemma in the ruling of this case.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Antony]

To answer your polls,

* It is a right to have a driver's license.

No, you are only allowed to have a driver's license if and only if you passes driving tests. And you driver's license should be suspended if you are not qualify to drive.

* The Constitution should be amended?

No, religion and driver's license (to be used for identifying purpose) are different issues.

* Freedom of religion is very important ?

Local law and being able to identify the license holder is more important.

* Anyone should be able to wear a mask or veil while driving.

They can, however, they should be able to produce and be verified by formal and acceptable identifying documents. In other word, mask and veil must be removed upon request from authorities.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-SillyDog)

[Lorraine]

That is the problem, she can't remove her mask and veil in front of any other man, according to the Islam religion she belongs to except to, her husband, brother or father. Not all Islam is affected by this religious law.
I know very little about this religion.

I think if her religion is so important she should just forget about driving and get a chauffeur

Anyway it was a strange case, I watched it on Court TV, it was LIVE and very interesting. I didn't see it when the judge finally ruled though, a week or so later, and I would have liked to hear what he said.

Perhaps a book or movie will be made in the near future.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Antony]

That is the problem, she can't remove her mask and veil in front of any other man, according to the Islam religion she belongs to except to, her husband, brother or father. Not all Islam is affected by this religious law.

Then she shouldn't drive at all. And should not go to any public places where requires ID checks in Western countries.

I presume she is from Islam country, and she showed no respect to western culture.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-SillyDog)

[Lorraine]

Then she shouldn't drive at all. And should not go to any public places where requires ID checks in Western countries.

I presume she is from Islam country, and she showed no respect to western culture.

I don't know where she is from, she spoke english very well.
No accent that I could detect, except American.
Her last name was Freeman, which I found unusual.
But then, you never can tell what religion or nationality a person is by a name.

I think there is always someone ready to test any law that is in the books.
If you look for awhile, you are sure to find something.
I remember reading one that said it was against the law to eat soda crackers in bed.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[Shark Daddy]

In Canada, she'd have a really good case, so I'm assuming this must be happening in the States. I would elaborate, but the only way I could do that would be to diss the American government and legal system, which I'm not about to do on public forums. Suffice it to say, our government is a lot more tolerant of freedoms of religion, association, and freedom to do what you want to yourself, and this is entrenched.

The big problems with this case are the precedents and laws that would arise from this lady winning, which I'm sure factored in heavily to the decision. Remember you wouldn't be amending a constitution or adding to a code, but rather this would have to be done on a per-province/state basis (as driver's licensing is done). In other words, bad news. If memory serves, in that sect of Islam, women can be unveiled if accompanied only by other women and not in public, so the issue of the photograph isn't necessarily a big one. The issue would be with the actual card, and what appears on it.

The bottom line is that it is her right to get a license, and the government must make accomodations for her religion. Her respect for Western culture is irrelevant and immaterial. This is a killer case, because ID is very important and is fundamental to getting a license, so basically what the judge is deciding on is a euphemism for the importance of Rule v. Religion; I can understand the ruling.

By the way, you mentioned tinting windows as a means of shielding from identification. The main reason this law exists is actually for visibility and safety. For example, as another driver or simply as a pedestrian, you need to make eye contact with other drivers often. A tinted windshield would not allow for that.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030516 Mozilla Firebird/0.6

[Antony]

Sharky has a good point.

I would like to point out, all rules/laws can be changed.

In this case, I feel it is more of culture issue. And clearly, covering whole face is not acceptable in western culture.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02 (CK-SillyDog)

[Lorraine]

Shark Daddy wrote:

The bottom line is that it is her right to get a license, and the government must make accomodations for her religion. Her respect for Western culture is irrelevant and immaterial. This is a killer case, because ID is very important and is fundamental to getting a license,

I really don't think it is anyone's right to get a license.
Would you like to have mentally deficient drivers on the road?
How about 12 year olds?
If they pass the required laws, in your opinion, then it is their right.
.
There are rules and regulations when applying for a license.
In fact there are many.

I'm not saying religion is one, however, if the Regie decides it is necessary to see the drivers face when driving, then nobody should be allowed to drive with their face covered.
It would be a rule or regulation just as any other driving regulation.

BTW, this case happened in the U.S.A.

I don't know what would have been decided in Canada. Yes, we have many entrenched rights, but I think this case would have been ruled as it was in the U.S.A.

As for the cultural and religious question, why should they make accomodations for her religion. People will be driving cars like the Lone Ranger rode horses! <g> What is good for one is good for another.

I could start a religion, it is my right if I want to, that you must drive naked. You wouldn't want to see that now would you Shark Daddy?? Or how about with a Machine gun or A.K47?

I agree with Antony on that part.. when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
-Lorraine

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030208 Netscape/7.02

[ruffs]

This is an extremely interesting topic. I will have to do some more researh and add my 2 cents worth.

UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)