h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The case: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&ncid=519&e=9&u=/ap/20030528/ap_on_re_us/license_veil_10

A Florida woman is suing the state to allow her to pose with her veil on for a driver's license photograph. The state has threatened to revoke her license if she does not comply. Experts in Islamic law and the Quran have been entered into evidence.

As I see it, religious law has nothing to do with the case, and is a waste of time. Driving in the US is not a right, it is a privilege. If her religion precludes her from meeting the state requirements for driving, that is acceptable. However, she should accept that without meeting those requirements, the state is not bound to grant her driving privileges. An open and shut case.

Even if she does comply with the law, would someone checking her ID dare to ask her to remove her veil? In most circumstances, I doubt it. And even if they did ask her, would she comply? Either way, it pretty much makes the photo ID useless or continually offensive.

Maybe she could have another form of ID on the licence, fingerprints for example. She may have to keep an ink pad and some wet wipes in the car with her but at least she'll be able to drive legally. Or am I just being silly?

"Driving in the US is not a right, it is a privilege. If her religion precludes her from meeting the state requirements for driving, that is acceptable."

Wearing the veil doesn't actually stop her driving, though, does it? It only stops her from meeting the requirements the state has placed on her photo in the license. Taking that into account, isn't the case that the state's laws regarding driving-license photos are flawed as they prevent people who are perfectly capable of driving from having that right due to an aspect of their religious beliefs.

I saw a bit of this on Court TV while I was flipping through the channels this morning.

Since a driver's license is used to confirm the identity of a driver, the picture on it is very important. It's a crucial part of the identification.

Identifying the driver of a vehicle is sometimes a legitimate need of the state. I think the state has a compelling interest that outweighs her privacy interest or exercise of religion. She has an out, she doesn't have to drive. No one has to have a license.

As to whether or not a person would ask her to take off the veil so that she could be identified, yes it could be demanded. If I were to stop her, and she refused to comply, I would arrest her for Obstruction of Officer.

Careful with the language there, Zagreb: "they prevent people who are perfectly capable of driving from having that right" - As I said, driving is not a right, it is a privilege. There is a legal distinction between the two. A right is protected by force of law. A privilege is not protected by law, and can be revoked. She has the right to her religious beliefs, but she has legal obligations to meet in order to keep her driving privileges... as do we all.

I don't understand why an American converts to the most extreme version of Islam. But she is the only case, and I don't understand why the state should go to extreme expense to accomodate a new identification system for one person.

Perhaps she'd like to pay for it personally?

A photo ID is necessary to protect her... otherwise, any wiseacre could steal her wallet, dress up like her, and charge her credit cards, empty her bank accounts, enter into contracts, and commit crimes in her name.

A photo ID is necessary to protect everyone else... otherwise, she could give her ID to costumed aliens trying to cross our borders, and they could use it to gain illegal entry and smuggle in weapons and/or drugs.

We make do without a photo id in Britain. Unless they've changed the rules on me, I know they are kicking around the idea of intro'ing it on drivers licences. Of course, there's always the passport.

I think there was a similar recent case in one of the former or not so former USSr countries. At issue there was the required photo on the compulsory internal passport (which we still have here). I forget how it turned out. I'd go and look it up for you but my computer is not playing ball, so you may have to wait.

And I'm against any kind of photo/ fingerprint/ dna id being introduced in the UK, btw.

But we do have photos on our licences, Sol. Why are you against it?

Do we? Drat, I turn my back for two minutes, and look at the mess you get yourselves into. Must be a recent thing then.

Short answer... I can't do the short answer. Pointless and an impingement on my privacy is the short answer. Which goes some way to countering Blatherskite's arguement that the woman doesn't have to drive - she can do without a licence. If it is so necessary for id purposes...?

Here in the US, we have ways around the photo ID for identifying ourselves for business contracts and such... birth certificate and Social Security card, for example. However, most businesses prefer the photo ID. That is their choice, and they're free to do business in whatever manner they see fit.

If I were a businessman, and I required a photo ID before entering into a contract, and a masked woman gave me a photo ID with a masked woman in the picture, I wouldn't accept the ID as enough proof of ID anyway, so it would make no difference to me whether she won her case or not.

My instinct is, of course, that she should stop being so silly and stop hiding her face . Unfortunately, people will subscribe to fundamentalist ideas like this. As Blatherskite said, driving is a priviledge, and the photo-ID is important. But is it essential?

Someone earlier mentioned that there must surely be ID alternatives to a photo-ID. Although most people are perfectly happy with a photo you are going to get people who want an alternative and I don't see why it should be such an issue for the state to accomodate them.

I'm just throwing ideas around here. I have no idea how easy it would be to implement a "twin" ID system to photo IDs and if it were difficult then I would probably have to throw my cards in the air and agree with Blatherskite.

Zag

I think there's a distinction that's worth making here, it has already been mostly recognised but I want to make it explicit. There is a difference between a right which says "You're allowed to do X but we're not going to go out of our way to accomodate you" and "You're allowed to do X and since we believe it is fundamentally important that you be able to do X, we're going to bend over backwards to make it possible for you to do X". Achieving the first sort of right is a minimal first step, but a very important one. Achieving the second sort of right is what we should be aiming at today in liberal democracies since we've largely (but not completely) achieved the first sort.

As an example, consider the difference between saying that disabled people are allowed into a building and legislating that public buildings have to provide decent access for disabled people. If you have the former but not the latter then, since disabled people are a minority, and not usually as well off as their able bodied counterparts, the chances are you will get a de facto violation of the first right in that many or even most buildings will be inaccessible by disabled people.

If there were a political will to accomodate people whatever their beliefs, ways would be found to deal with this issue - biometrics (fingerprints, retinal scans and the like) are one such way.

Throwing in two points from a UK perspective.

1) Sikhs are exempt from the law saying that all motorcycle riders must wear a crash helmet. The helmets not fitting over their turbans you see.

2) Whilst it is not compulsory for a UK business/school/place of entertainment etc to adapt their facilities to make them accessible to people with disabilities. The law does not allow them to discriminate against the disabled. In practical terms if a business does not take at least some steps to address the issue then they leave themselves open to prosecution. And a prosecution that they will lose.

Does anyone know how this issue is handled in countries like Saudi Arabia? I find it hard to believe that any form of ID would be issued without a recognisable photo - passports, for instance. And, of course, the same religion that the Florida woman claims is preventing her from posing for a driving license also insists that she should make the Haj asap.

As far as I am aware, the Saudi authorities are not keen to let people in without knowing who they are, any more than US customs like to let masked women out of the country. Heck, even the Taleban made an exception for ID photos when they banned portrait photography!

Gif

One important distinction between the disabled and this case... the disabled did not choose their condition.

Hi Guys

I hope you dont mind me joining in at this point.

My thoughts were that maybe the core of this argument comes down to, "Can you be devoutly religious and also a full law abiding citizen?"

An obvious thought that comes to mind is War. Nearly all religions condemn murderer of any form and yet most countries with armies full of soldiers of nominal religions take part in it except possibly Switzerland?? These soldiers are going to break one law one way or the other, either a religious law by killing or a state law by not obeying orders and killing?

You can't have it both ways........

The US plays war quite often. It's military is all-volunteer, meaning the people there know what they're signing up for and don't find it against their beliefs. Back in the days of the draft, it was possible to get an exemption if war was incompatible with your beliefs. The term was "conscientious objector."

Members of the all-volunteer force can claim this status if their beliefs change. In fact, there were several cases of soldiers doing just that prior to the '91 Gulf War and the recent Iraq war.

I can see what you mean....

but in days of crisis, for example, in the last World War, I believe that all male citizens who were fit were legally bound to sign up, at least in the UK. Conscientious objectors were imprisoned as criminals. One couldn't follow their religious belief and be a full citizen...

Most religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam for sure - allow war, at least in principle. Thus, the religious attitude to this is itself contradictory, so it is hardly surprising that some religious people oppose war and others do not (or oppose only some wars).

Gif

Hi Gif

maybe this how religious people can live with the contradiction of being devoutly religious and completely law abiding. They just use whichever interpretation of religious laws or state laws that will suit their needs at the time.

Its all in the interpretation......

Byrnesnight

By the way, the case this thread is about was thrown out of court.