Should Florida allow woman to weir veil on driver's license?
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: archives: Should Florida allow woman to weir veil on driver's license?

Max

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 07:29 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
We've been having such a good, civilized, interesting, intellectual discussion in the Pledge of Allegiance thread, that when I saw this story tonight, I figured it would be another interesting topic for here.

What do you think? Where does the line lie between the right to religious freedom versus the public safety? Or is that even the issue here? Be sure to visit the URL so you can see how much the veil actually covers.

Muslim woman to challenge ban on veil in driver's license photo
Following is an excerpt from the full article:

"Judge Ted Coleman denied a state motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Sultaana Freeman, whose driver's license was revoked when she refused to replace her photograph with one showing her face unveiled.

"Freeman, 34, is suing to get her license back with a photo that hides most of her face, except her eyes, behind a veil known as a niqab.

"Freeman wears the veil for religious reasons.

.
.
.
"Jason Vail, an assistant state attorney, argued that having a face visible in a driver's license photo is a matter of public safety since criminals are often identified through such pictures."



Read the full CNN story

Babyruth

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 07:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Seems to me having a driver's license is a privilege, not a right.
If you want one, you must meet several standard requirements, one of which is carrying an identifying card with photo of yourself. I think it IS a matter of public safety.

Rissa

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:07 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Babyruth, I agree with you. It's not a right and the State holds no obligation to bend it's rules to allow her this priviledge.

As a secondary issue, from my experience.. those veils obscure the line of sight by restricting the peripheral vision. Guess it depends on the style of veil, but should wearing it while driving be legal to begin with?

Gail

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
When I was in the Air Force, most of the time you were in a different state then your home state. Quite a few military members keep the registrations on their cars in their home states and register via mail. There are times when they can not get to their home state and need to renew their driver's license too. In that case, the license would be mailed back with no photo. But, they always have a military id card with a photo as a form of photo id.

Without knowing the exact customs of the religion, it is hard to say. But, if the law says you have to have full view of the face to get a driver's license that makes it pretty clear.

Max

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 08:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
From the full article, it sounds (and I'm making an assumption here) like the Dept. of Motor Vehicles issued the license without a problem. Then, after September 11, the State decided to take a closer look at what had been issued.

This could be a case of not paying attention until something catastrophic happened.

I wonder if there are others whose licenses were revoked for having pictures that weren't up to par in terms of showing a full facial shot.

It definitely seems like a public safety issue. How would you ID someone for purchasing things like alcohol with a picture like that? It could be anyone.

Faerygdds

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 09:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
OK... SOMEONE has to play the other side... so here goes...

Let's look at this logically... IF Sultaana were pulled over by a police officer for speeding. She would have her veil on. If she did anything at all in public, she would have her veil on, Right? Well.... shouldn't her ID picture reflect what is seen everyday? Also... seeing as they DO use ID photos to sometimes identify criminals. Let's say she DID rob a liquor store or whatever.... last minute deal type thing... not well planned out or anything. She now has this picture on her ID of her full face right? So she puts on her veil, robs the store, and gets away scott free. Why? Because NOW the clerk is looking at the eyes of all the suspects FULL FACE photos... which could throw OFF their identification.

-------------------------------------
OK... it's lame, but frankly I agree... driving is a priviledge, not a right and as such she should wear her veil to the DMV, remove it for a minute to get her picture taken, and then put it right back on. I would think that in the eyes of any God, this would be a "permissable infraction".

but you know I had to try to argue the other side though... :)

Seamonkey

Thursday, June 27, 2002 - 09:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think she should get the full face picture like anyone else. Then she could tape on a little veil so that her image wouldn't be just "out there" on her license and it wouldn't have to be lifted unless she actually was stopped for speeding or whatever.

No easy answer.

And totally off topic but she has gorgeous eyes!!

Wcv63

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:13 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with everyone here. Except for Fairygdds and her attempt to play the other side of the fence of course. :)

Driving is not a guaranteed "right". It is a privilage that comes with a set of laws that must be followed. It's a matter of safety and following the law and not a matter of discrimination.

I don't know how women wearing a burka can do many things. Anything that requires a photo ID for identification purposes would be a challenge. This includes cashing checks, buying wine, flying, renting a car, etc.


Heh heh. I'm arguing separation of church and state here. :)

Seamonkey

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:20 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Well this woman isn't wearing a Burqua.. her eyes are not covered at all.. I do wonder about the peripheral vision but I suppose when nuns wore habits they were even more handicapped.

I would say that it would be nice to provide a female photographer and perhaps a screened off area (which most people wouldn't mind when having pictures taken).

Wcv63

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 12:36 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Seamonkey, they called her religious garb something else in the article but I was too lazy to go back and check. Her veil did cover her entire and face with the exception of the eyes.

Also providing a female photographer would work for the initial photo. But would the person developing the pictures be female as well? What about the clerk that calls you to the front to pick up the DL when it is complete? The cop that stops her because her veil obscured her vision and caused her to cut someone off in traffic? The pharmacist to whom she is trying to write a check? The bank teller? Airline bag check and security?

I must say that I certainly champion anyone's right to practice their religion in any way they see fit. And I admit I don't know much about the Muslim religion. IMO, this particular tradition seems to subjugate women and provide them with so many challenges and hurdles. Of course, it may also provide them with something deeply spiritual.

I admit my ignorance on the Muslim religion. I am however familiar with the law and the wearing of a veil in a photo ID does provide a safety and/or security problem.

Riviere

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 01:35 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Here we go again with the USA LAW and freedom of RELIGION... If you live in America obey the laws for all our safety, if your religion dictates an other way where you can't follow the rules, just leave. We can only accord so much religion into laws before that takes precedence and then chaos. Why is a Muslim woman any different than any other USA citizen in this case? In lots of places she wouldn't have permission to drive at all. Case closed...

Faerygdds

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 02:27 am EditMoveDeleteIP
OK... I'm going to be hardlined about this one...
(I know WCV... shocking... huh?) But I have to post what I really feel on this...

Religious freedom is a RIGHT

Driving is a PRIVILEDGE that is handed out far to easily in this country as it is (I know... accident victim in me talking trash again... blah blah).

Bottom Line. She has the RIGHT to not take off her veil as her religious law dictates.

BUT.... if one of the prerequisites for obtaining a drivers license in her state is a full face picture, then she has a deliemma. However the quandary is hers, not ours -- she has to make a decision for herself.

Either get the full face shot and ignore that particular doctrine for all of 60 seconds.... OR you don't drive. PERIOD! The choice is definitely hers... and she has the RIGHT to choose.

I know... I just shocked a few of you who thought I was the utimate liberal, but the reality is that I am all for fainess. However when it comes to driving and drivers... it's personal for me... like I said... maybe that's my back talking... and maybe I'm right... and maybe I'm dead wrong... I just don't know, but it's the way I feel. :(

Oregonfire

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 08:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I'd better not weigh in on this one because I have issues with subjugation justified in the name of religion. I know, I know...who gets to decide what's justified and what's not? I know the whole argument frontside and backside from my years discussing multiculturalism in grad school. It just went around and around. I'm very unpolitically correct on the issue, so I'll keep a lid on it.

I will say that many of the world's religions are really based on money, power, and control, and not every religion is equally evolved. Spirituality is something different and much closer to what we call religion, IMO.

Squaredsc

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:04 am EditMoveDeleteIP
i think she has the right to not have a full face photo due to her religious practices, if her religion dictates that she not go in public or have the public see her unveiled, then so be it. and like faery said, if she were committing a crime then it would be with her veil on anyway. since this country was supposedly based on religious freedom, than that has to be incorporated in all aspects of daily life. but of course that religous freedom was also twisted around and used to condone slavery, so i may have to rethink my view.

Max

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 09:16 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Some rights are mitigated by the need for greater public safety. For example, you have the right to free speech, but it's illegal to yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater (unless there is one, of course).

In this case, the greater public safety isn't so much around her ability to drive as it is for identification purposes.

Someone said something about if she committed a crime,she'd be wearing the veil, so why not have her ID photo be in a veil. Okay then, I'd have to counter that all burglars who commit crimes wearing masks should be allowed to wear a mask for their driver's license photo. After all, their lifestyle demands that they wear a mask on a regular basis, so why not?

If you travel to other countries, you are expected to obey their laws. Certainly if you choose to live in another country, you must abide by their laws. One of our laws is that drivers license photos should show your full face. She has a choice of driving legally with a full picture on her license, not driving, or driving without a license (something lots of folks do every day, unfortunately). You rolls the dice and takes your chances! :)

Bob2112

Friday, June 28, 2002 - 10:07 am EditMoveDeleteIP
I had no trouble getting my new license. I had some trouble parallel parking under water. Apparently, there is no parking in a red anemone zone! Go figure.
How do I look? Do you think I lost some weight?

bob

Squaredsc

Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 03:28 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
i just asked my husband for his opinion and he said that, church and state don't mix so the state doesn't have to follow her religious rules.

Knightpatti

Sunday, June 30, 2002 - 06:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
In some Muslim countries women can not drive because they are wearing the veil. (Example Saudi Arabia, but things have changed, too.) I use to live in Florida and saw many Muslim women with their whole bodies covered except their eyes = long sleeves in 100 degree weather. I did not think it was fair as their husbands where dressed cool. They could not talk or eat in public dressed that way. These women were all from Saudi. Other Muslim women wear the robes but only cover all their heads with no hair showing. You can see all of their face and they should be able to drive with no problem.

I have been to mosque with the Muslim women in Florida, too. This part of their religion has to do with honoring God and their husbands. They only reveal themselves to their husbands or families. THey say it is out of respect to their Husbands and God the covering of their bodies. It is to keep other men from looking at them.

So I do not see how this would conflict with their religion to uncover their face for the license's picture. The picture is not made public but is kept in her purse. Many times religion goes to the extremes. I bet there are many Muslim women who have had their pictures made uncovered at least without the veil. (Many of them do not wear the veil anymore anyway.)
s