At 09:26 PM 5/27/2003 -0600, Kestrel wrote:
>
>Ok... I've been following this case about the Muslim woman who wants her
>driver's license to show her wearing the veil because they're violating her
>freedom of religion if they make her remove the veil for the photo.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
>they're not forcing her to do anything. Having a driver's license is a
>*choice* not a demand forced upon you 

I believe this case is happening here in Florida, where the Driver's
Handbook reminds all Floridians, "Driving is a privilege, not a right!"
Therefore, I think she's full of baloney.  You're right; it is a choice one
makes, not forced upon you, and according to the Handbook, neither is it a
right.

>And if the purpose of a photo id is to prove who
>you are and that you're allowed to do what you're doing -- how on earth does
>having your face covered fill that requirement?

Bingo.

>(though, on the other paw, one could argue she looks more like herself if
>she's photgraphed with the veil than without it)

Which is like saying the bank robber looked more like "himself" when
pictured with his ski mask on . . .

>and too... haven't we all heard lately that the veil isn't required to be a
>Muslim woman? So it's not a violation of her religion to be photographed
>without it, it's a violation of a custom....

Another Bingo.

>though all that being said... they DID issue her one wearing the veil... not
>sure how that works. Hard to say you don't allow X when you've gone and done
>X.

True.  And it's especially difficult, it seems, when the X is a dumb move
in the first place.

Technology will probably catch up with her, as it will with all of us,
though, when we all have to have a thumbprint or index fingerprint on our
driver's licenses, and the cop has the scanner which acts like a bar-code
reader for fingerprints and gets results in just a few minutes.

Veloci--oh, puh-leeez--raptor



--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha