Wearing veils in court

[Octavia]

Hi all. I thought you might be interested in taking a look at this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10006916).

It's been in the news on and off for a few months here in NZ, and the decision has just come through. Two witnesses in a court trial wanted to wear the burqa while testifying (one actually said she'd rather die than remove it); the prosecution wanted their faces to be seen. Anyway, it went to court, which has just ruled that the women must remove the burqa for a limited amount of people (eg judge, female court staff), but they will not be exposed to the general public.

Seems like a fairly decent compromise to me - but a sticky subject nonetheless. Perhaps now the real trial can start? :p Anyway, what do you all think? What does the law say on situations like this in your own countries?

[Matt the Medic]

There was a case similar to this in Florida a year or so ago. Basically, the court decided that she (and hence everyone) must remove her burqa (sp?) for her driver's license photo (for obvious safety reasons).

[Occams_Razor]

I have access to lexis and did some searches but did not find anything directly on point anywhere in the United States. However, these stories are related:

http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/backgrounder_ctv.html
It could be the dim lighting, the poor camera work or the drab backgrounds at most motor vehicle departments, but driver's license photos are seldom considered flattering. To a veil-wearing Florida woman, they're unconstitutional.

Sultaana Freeman, an American-born Muslim woman, lost her license after she refused to remove her veil, or hijab, for a photo. Now she is suing the Florida State Department of Highway Safety for violating a Florida statute that says the government "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion."

Freeman's civil suit, which is expected to go to court May 27, draws on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

And this:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/30/us.school.headscarves/
The Justice Department announced Tuesday the government's civil rights lawyers have jumped into a legal case to support a Muslim girl's right to wear a head scarf in a public school.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Alex Acosta said government lawyers would support 11-year-old Nashala Hearn, a sixth-grade student who has sued the Muskogee, Oklahoma, Public School District for ordering her to remove her head scarf, or hijab, because it violated the dress code of the Benjamin Franklin Science Academy, which she attended.

Similarly in the UK:

http://www.islamonline.com/cgi-bin/news_service/world_full_story.asp?service_id=1294
A legal row over the right of a schoolgirl to wear traditional "head-to-toe" dress in the classroom has been brought back to the court today.

The Court of Appeal in London is hearing a challenge by Shabina Begum, 15, who has accused the head teachers at Denbigh High School, Luton, of banning her from entering the school and unlawfully denying her the "right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs".

[Crucifiction]

How idiotic. Seriously.... I can't even think up words to describe how stupid it is to expect to keep your burqa on while posing for your driver's license photo.

[Buffman]

There was a case similar to this in Florida a year or so ago. Basically, the court decided that she (and hence everyone) must remove her burqa (sp?) for her driver's license photo (for obvious safety reasons).

What do you believe are some of those "obvious safety" reasons?

[Buffman]

How idiotic. Seriously.... I can't even think up words to describe how stupid it is to expect to keep your burqa on while posing for your driver's license photo.

How do you feel about men with facial hair? Should they all be clean shaven prior to their picture taking session?

[MediocrityInAction]

What do you believe are some of those "obvious safety" reasons?
A driving license is a form of identification, and concealing the face invalidates that. It makes getting false driving licenses quite easy. Essentially, there is the theoretical possibility of woman A paying woman B to get a drivig license in her name, which brings up the possibility of unqualified drivers on the road.

[Buffman]

A driving license is a form of identification, and concealing the face invalidates that. It makes getting false driving licenses quite easy. Essentially, there is the theoretical possibility of woman A paying woman B to get a drivig license in her name, which brings up the possibility of unqualified drivers on the road.

How does a picture qualify a person as a "safe" driver? There are a good many folks driving with invalid/suspended licenses...with pictures on them. As you point out, the driver's license has become the foundation of a national identification system that has very little, if anything, to do with safe vehicle handling. It is more of a law enforcement identification desire than one of safety. (And the banks love it.):)

[Derec]

How does a picture qualify a person as a "safe" driver?

It makes sure that the person doing the driving text and teh person getting the licence are one and the same. No way to do that if the person is wearing a ninja outfit.

Besides, those burkas with their small eye slit would certainly restrict a person's peripheral vision, at least somewhat.


There are a good many folks driving with invalid/suspended licenses...with pictures on them.

Because a system is not 100%, lets allow religious nuts to opt oit of the system?

Laws should apply to everyone equally.

About the hijab in school example:
Specifically not allowing a muslim girl to wear a hijab could be seen as the 1st amendment infringement. But a generic dress code should apply to everyone. It certainly should not be that religious lifestyles are held above secular ones. Or another example is muslim studnets getting Friday afternoons off to go to the mosque. Why should not-muslim students also be allowed to miss school to attend non-religioous activities?

Derec

[Dark Knight Bob]

Bare in mind of course that if you don't look like the picture in your ID people are under no obligation to accept it as proof. If you have a radical change done to your appearance, it's YOUR responsibility to have the ID updated.

And a beard is slightly different from covering everythign up except the eyes.

If you're not identifiable from your ID then it's not proof is it.

[whichphilosophy]

I have access to lexis and did some searches but did not find anything directly on point anywhere in the United States. However, these stories are related:



And this:



Similarly in the UK:

Since the Koran does not state that women should wear veils, then this is nothing to do with the Muslim religion, hence it should only be taken to court on an individual basis.

[Buffman]

It makes sure that the person doing the driving text and teh person getting the licence are one and the same. No way to do that if the person is wearing a ninja outfit.

Let me attempt this again. I was taking umbrage with the phrase in post #2 about "for obvious safety reasons." I was not making any claim about "for identification purposes"...until later. Your statement is still concerned with identification...not "safety."

Besides, those burkas with their small eye slit would certainly restrict a person's peripheral vision, at least somewhat.

This is an allegation of a potential safety factor albeit without validated evidence.

http://www.aboutmeco.org/crossroads/apr01/burqa.html
(Where's your Christian love?) Muhahahahaha!

Because a system is not 100%, lets allow religious nuts to opt oit of the system?

Have you ever considered that the "nut behind the wheel" that you can see is better than the one that you can not? I rather suspect that there are far more of the latter than the former...whether religious or not.

Laws should apply to everyone equally.

Isn't that exactly the argument that was being presented? That is why I questioned the "safety" aspect of the burqa . IMHO, that is a false accusation. The "identification" of the maimed/dead/unauthorized driver should be the prime foundation of the C-SS argument.

[Octavia]

Since the Koran does not state that women should wear veils, then this is nothing to do with the Muslim religion, hence it should only be taken to court on an individual basis.

That was the argument behind the case in NZ too. However apparently the Koran does say women should dress modestly, or some such, and that was what they were arguing over.

[Derec]

Let me attempt this again. I was taking umbrage with the phrase in post #2 about "for obvious safety reasons." I was not making any claim about "for identification purposes"...until later. Your statement is still concerned with identification...not "safety."

I tried to explain that. If you don't know whether the person taking the test is teh same one getting the licence that is obviously a safety issue.


(Where's your Christian love?) Muhahahahaha!


Same place where the rest of my "Christian" attributes is: dev/null.


Have you ever considered that the "nut behind the wheel" that you can see is better than the one that you can not? I rather suspect that there are far more of the latter than the former...whether religious or not.

That is my point. If seeing the drivers did not matter than abolish the picture on the driver's licence. But even countries with separate ID cards (such as Germany) have pictures on their driver's licence. Wonder why?


Isn't that exactly the argument that was being presented?


No. The "Last Ninja" wannabe wanted a special exeption from the requirement under law because of her interpretation of her religion. She did not argue to allow any citizen - say a Darth Vader impersonator - the right to wear face masks on a driver's licence picture.
Would you say that a person should have the right to wear a Darth Vader mask because it is not a "safety" issue in your opinion?


That is why I questioned the "safety" aspect of the burqa . IMHO, that is a false accusation. The "identification" of the maimed/dead/unauthorized driver should be the prime foundation of the C-SS argument.

And unauthorized drivers are ipso facto a safety issue. I rest my case.

Derec

[Buffman]

I tried to explain that. If you don't know whether the person taking the test is teh same one getting the licence that is obviously a safety issue.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Same place where the rest of my "Christian" attributes is: dev/null.

I never would have guessed. (I was referring to the last statements in the URL I posted. I guess I should have added this... :rolleyes: )

That is my point. If seeing the drivers did not matter than abolish the picture on the driver's licence.
People drove vehicles for many years without pictures on their licenses. How was safety improved by including them? Care to offer any before and after accurate statistics?

But even countries with separate ID cards (such as Germany) have pictures on their driver's licence. Wonder why?

I don't know. Perhaps so they can "safely" IDENTIFY the individual presenting the picture. :D

No. The "Last Ninja" wannabe wanted a special exeption from the requirement under law because of her interpretation of her religion. She did not argue to allow any citizen - say a Darth Vader impersonator - the right to wear face masks on a driver's licence picture. Would you say that a person should have the right to wear a Darth Vader mask because it is not a "safety" issue in your opinion?
Do you think that we should allow folks with only one eye to drive? No depth perception...let alone limited "peripheral vision." Aren't those potential "safety" considerations? (Remember, we are supposed to be discussing why wearing a burqa is a "safety" consideration, not whether it is an egalitarian, religious, one.)

And unauthorized drivers are ipso facto a safety issue. I rest my case. Derec

But not because they are wearing burqa's. They were committing a "crime" according to the state...that may, or may not, have been endangering the safety of themselves or others. Florida has a point system that helps to determine who should, or should not, have free access to a motor vehicle. Florida also rescinded the law that forced motorcyclists to wear helmets. It makes me wonder if "safety" was a consideration.

[whichphilosophy]

That was the argument behind the case in NZ too. However apparently the Koran does say women should dress modestly, or some such, and that was what they were arguing over.

The arguement would not be on the grounds of religion but on the grounds (with no grounds) of a person wanting to cover themselves up.

The Koran does say modestly but this was a distortion really by fanatics who started adding or perverting the basic texts.

[Matt the Medic]

How does a picture qualify a person as a "safe" driver?

I never made the statement that having an identifable picture on a license was for driving safety did I?

I argue that the inability for a law enforcement officer (or any other institution that relies on it) to ID someone using a government-issued ID could lead to possible public safety issues. There would be no way to confirm a person is who they claim to be, which has far reaching implications from alcohol/tobacco purchasing to boarding an airplane. Setting a precident to minimize any potential ID stealing or fake ID's is a matter of public safety.

[Buffman]

I never made the statement that having an identifable picture on a license was for driving safety did I?

Read post #2 and you tell me what you, or the State, means concerning "safety."

I argue that the inability for a law enforcement officer (or any other institution that relies on it) to ID someone using a government-issued ID could lead to possible public safety issues. There would be no way to confirm a person is who they claim to be, which has far reaching implications from alcohol/tobacco purchasing to boarding an airplane. Setting a precident to minimize any potential ID stealing or fake ID's is a matter of public safety.

I wonder how identification was accomplished prior to "government-issued" picture ID's? (I was legally driving and cashing checks long before there were pictures on driver's licenses.) Just look at how New York State determines one's identity before they will even issue a photo ID card. (Note that an out-of-state photo driver's license is worth only two points toward the six required to obtain one.)

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm

Have you considered any of these "personal safety" issues?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/

Is a picture the very best way to confirm identity?

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/1204statebegin.html?fsrc=rss-id

[deja voodoo]

Why can't we have fingerprints on our driver's licenses instead of faces?

[whichphilosophy]

Why can't we have fingerprints on our driver's licenses instead of faces?

Well really the point of the photo is instant recognition unless we develop finger scan machines that hook into a computer. They they would produce a photo of the person on the website so they can identify the person.

So I guess a photo is better.

[Shake]

While not exactly related to this, I was watching ABC World News last night and there was a piece about the upcoming elections in Iraq. They talked to one candidate, a woman (!), about the elections, etc. Now, she was not veiled, but the only exposed skin one could see were her hands and her face (ears not included). I just thought it odd that even though she obviously thought nothing of running for president, that she would still choose to be covered. I realize that she just can't switch over to a more Western style of dress even if she wanted to (which, maybe she doesn't). It just seemed a little odd, that's all.

[Matt the Medic]

Read post #2 and you tell me what you, or the State, means concerning "safety."



I wonder how identification was accomplished prior to "government-issued" picture ID's? (I was legally driving and cashing checks long before there were pictures on driver's licenses.) Just look at how New York State determines one's identity before they will even issue a photo ID card. (Note that an out-of-state photo driver's license is worth only two points toward the six required to obtain one.)

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm

Have you considered any of these "personal safety" issues?

http://www.epic.org/privacy/drivers/

Is a picture the very best way to confirm identity?

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/1204statebegin.html?fsrc=rss-id

Your post is nothing but a red herring. Florida uses government issued picture ID. Whether or not its the best method for ID is another discussion. The picture is in fact the current system and to not have a picture that provides such ID breaks the system. I don't care 'how it was' or 'how it could be'. Those arguments are all well and good if you want to start talking about the ethics or technology behind identification. The fact is they use picture ID's and this woman wanted an ID picture with for all we care a mascot costume on it.

[Buffman]

Your post is nothing but a red herring. Florida uses government issued picture ID. Whether or not its the best method for ID is another discussion. The picture is in fact the current system and to not have a picture that provides such ID breaks the system. I don't care 'how it was' or 'how it could be'. Those arguments are all well and good if you want to start talking about the ethics or technology behind identification. The fact is they use picture ID's and this woman wanted an ID picture with for all we care a mascot costume on it.

Please attempt to stay on issue.

Read post #2 and you tell me what you, or the State, means concerning "safety."

[Matt the Medic]

Please attempt to stay on issue.

Read post #2 and you tell me what you, or the State, means concerning "safety."

#17 :rolleyes:

[Buffman]

#17 :rolleyes:

There was a case similar to this in Florida a year or so ago. Basically, the court decided that she (and hence everyone) must remove her burqa (sp?) for her driver's license photo (for obvious safety reasons).

What "obvious safety reasons?"

[Dark Knight Bob]

Dammit man are you blind!?

There would be no way to confirm a person is who they claim to be, which has far reaching implications from alcohol/tobacco purchasing to boarding an airplane

:banghead:

[Buffman]

Dammit man are you blind!?

:banghead:

Please don't hurt yourself with too much head banging.

I appreciate that intrepidation posted...

I argue that the inability for a law enforcement officer (or any other institution that relies on it) to ID someone using a government-issued ID could lead to possible public safety issues. There would be no way to confirm a person is who they claim to be, which has far reaching implications from alcohol/tobacco purchasing to boarding an airplane. Setting a precident to minimize any potential ID stealing or fake ID's is a matter of public safety.

...as a potential example of how he views the picture on a driver's license as a "safety" issue. All I'm saying is that a picture on a driver's license is there to assist in the "identification" of the individual. It is not there as a matter of public safety...though some would love to make that case.

I provided a list of the methods/documents that the State of New York uses to confirm the "identity" (the person is who they say they are) of an individual applying for a driver's license. Many of those documents do not have pictures of the individual applicant. My point here is that there is no standardized, nationwide, criteria for obtaining a driver's license that makes the driver's license the single most valid form of identification.

ID stealing/fake ID's is a "criminal activity" that may or may not involve some sort of safety issue. DUI, speeding, running red lights are criminal AND safety issues...whether one does or doesn't have a picture on a driver's license. (IMO, the picture on a driver's license is for identity/security purposes...not safety. Obviously some folks disagree. That is why I seek specifics rather than allegations. The issue of a national, personal, identity card is an important issue and deserves intensive scrutiny prior to making it a law that everyone must have one.)

[Dark Knight Bob]

If you are legally allowed to have an ID with a picture that is easily faked by anyone wearing a full face burka then you effectively nullify the point of having the ID card.

Why do you think buying alcohol underage is illegal? Because it leads to safety issues. i.e underage kids drinking.

Also what about driving license in itself. If you're allowed to use it as valid ID then how do you prove you are the legally authorised driver?

You seem to be going off on some general public safety issue when he wasn't asserting that case at all. You ask for specifics and he gave them to you. You seem to have fobbed them off with the 'oh they're not specific enough' and seem to be going off on some tangent about generally identifiying people. Well obviously that doesn't lead directly to safety issues. But like I said he listed several specific direct examples that come about from an indirect cause.

My point here is that there is no standardized, nationwide, criteria for obtaining a driver's license that makes the driver's license the single most valid form of identification.

Pointless because you are still going to need photo ID to prove you are who you say you are. Even if it isn't on the driver's license itself.

IMO, the picture on a driver's license is for identity/security purposes...not safety

What is the purpose of identifying people if not for some safety reason. How is security not related to safety? And it doesn't have to apply to ALL situations involving ID for it still to be a safety issue. This is sounding more and more like a strawman arguement than anything else.

[Buffman]

If you are legally allowed to have an ID with a picture that is easily faked by anyone wearing a full face burka then you effectively nullify the point of having the ID card.

ID card! Not Safety card. The safety factor is supposed to be a direct result of passing the written and road tests. The fact that merchants of alcohol look at the driver's licence to confirm identity is because it supposedly confirms the Age of the person presenting it. Are you now saying that every Muslim woman who purchases a controlled substance must remove her coverings or be refused service? (I hope you appreciate how difficult it is for me to be discussing this issue from this position. Personally I think religious paraphernalia and rituals are are merely conditioning control techniques.)

Why do you think buying alcohol underage is illegal? Because it leads to safety issues. i.e underage kids drinking.
Am inclined to believe that irresponsible drinking at any age can lead to safety issues. So what you are saying would seem to be that there is an established age at which one automatically becomes responsible. (I am loathe to use the word "mature.") However, if someone is too young to consume alcohol responsibly, aren't they too young to be driving?

Also what about driving license in itself. If you're allowed to use it as valid ID then how do you prove you are the legally authorised driver?

:huh: My DL authorizes me to operate any "Class E" vehicle. It contains info on my residence address, DOB, Sex, Hgt, my signature and several other general info items including an expiration date. The flip side has lists of rules/regs/restrictions.---My best guess would be my signature and additional residence confirmation documents.

(Snip)... Well obviously that doesn't lead directly to safety issues. But like I said he listed several specific direct examples that come about from an indirect cause.

Too many folks make allegations without providing verifiable evidenciary support. That's what I "go off on." He, and you, seem to believe that indirect suppositions are enough to validate direct contentions. I don't.

Pointless because you are still going to need photo ID to prove you are who you say you are. Even if it isn't on the driver's license itself.

Evidently you did not make a thorough enough review of this URL:

http://www.nydmv.state.ny.us/idlicense.htm

If you had, you would see that you can obtain a NY DL without ever having to show a photo of yourself. (That accounts for my remark about how did an individual prove who they were before photo ID's?)

What is the purpose of identifying people if not for some safety reason. How is security not related to safety? And it doesn't have to apply to ALL situations involving ID for it still to be a safety issue. This is sounding more and more like a strawman arguement than anything else.

You seem to have lost sight of what this is all about...C-SS. Does the government of the USA have a constitutional right to force individual faith believers to violate their religious beliefs in the name of self-identity? My first thought would be that it does not. However, had I said, "Does the government of the USA have a constitutional right to force individual faith believers to violate their religious beliefs in the name of Safety," my answer would be, "Of course it does." The fact that DL's have evolved into a quick self-identity reference of choice by law enforcement and commercial institutions is because they have an integrated tracking system and so many people have a DL. About the nearest thing to a fool-proof system would be a cost effective DNA scanning system with the pattern recorded at birth or at entry into the USA.

The strawmen that give me the most gas are those that use statements like, "In the National Interests, For Security Reasons, To Protect High Level Sources, To Protect the Children, Because It's in the Bible...To Enhance Safety...etc. Therefore I challenge those who claim that a photo on a DL is there for obvious safety reasons. If they are so obvious, then list them so I can verify their accuracy.

At this point, I will have to say the same thing I did to Derec..."I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that one."

[Craigart14]

The last time I renewed my license, I had to pass an eye test which included a test of peripheral vision. I doubt that I could pass it while wearing a burqua.

In Malaysia once I watched a burqua-wearing woman play ping pong against her perhaps twelve-year-old son. She took an awful beating. Afterwards, he jumped back into the pool to cool off. She didn't.

If she can pass the eye test, let her drive. However, if I have to take off my sunglasses for the photo, then she should have to take off her burqua. Actually, I think she should be disqualified from driving due to obvious mental illness.

Craig in California

[Octavia]

Interestingly enough, according to this (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=466&ObjectID=10007080), the woman who wanted to wear a burqa for her driver's license photo in Florida was able to wear it when arguing (and testifying) in court.

[MilitantModerate]

However, these stories are related:
...
http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/backgrounder_ctv.html
...

The Sultaana Freeman aka Sandra Keller case is hilarious.
In the first place she is one of those radical 'Islamic Converts',
or Pseudo Muslim Poseurs as I like to call them. You
know the types: 'Western' Muslim converts like Cat Stevens
or the many African Americans for whom Christianity just
isn't oppressive enough anymore; and why not go with a
classic rather than some new fangled cult. Second, it soon
came to light that she already had an unveiled government
portrait on file:

The Smoking Gun (http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html)

Hahahhah!! ROTFLMAO! :rolling: Ack! Sniff. :D

[epepke]

The Sultaana Freeman aka Sandra Keller case is hilarious.
In the first place she is one of those radical 'Islamic Converts',
or Pseudo Muslim Poseurs as I like to call them. You
know the types: 'Western' Muslim converts like Cat Stevens
or the many African Americans for whom Christianity just
isn't oppressive enough anymore; and why not go with a
classic rather than some new fangled cult. Second, it soon
came to light that she already had an unveiled government
portrait on file:

Heh. It's nice to be reminded of that, and I like your sarcasm.

[whichphilosophy]

The Sultaana Freeman aka Sandra Keller case is hilarious.
In the first place she is one of those radical 'Islamic Converts',
or Pseudo Muslim Poseurs as I like to call them. You
know the types: 'Western' Muslim converts like Cat Stevens
or the many African Americans for whom Christianity just
isn't oppressive enough anymore; and why not go with a
classic rather than some new fangled cult. Second, it soon
came to light that she already had an unveiled government
portrait on file:

The Smoking Gun (http://thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html)

Hahahhah!! ROTFLMAO! :rolling: Ack! Sniff. :D

You must be telepathic if you can read the minds of why people become Muslims or anything else.

However, as for veils, it's not even prescribed in the Koran. Therefore banning veils is not banning Islam It departs from it. But yes she seems to be a bit of an idiot.

[Buffman]

It appears that she wanted her 15 minutes of fame...and got it. However, after the revelations about how many of the 9/11 murders had lived in this area, the Muslim community was not treated with greatest of Christian tolerance. I suspect that may have motivated her to push the issue of religious liberty.

(ADDED)

http://www.arabwomenconnect.org/hdocs/mainform.asp?p=news/readNews&id=688

[travc]

So what is the policy for passports? Those are definately ID documents and I don't even thing Saudi Arabia would let wemon get by without a real photo (though I could be wrong).

[Occams_Razor]

(snip) However, as for veils, it's not even prescribed in the Koran. Therefore banning veils is not banning Islam It departs from it. But yes she seems to be a bit of an idiot.

No argument that it's idiotic. But half the things that are proscribed by religious doctrines are not prescribed by the actual text upon which those religions are supposedly based. Example: the kosher practice of not eating any dairy products with any meat products derives from interpretation of one line in the old testament that states: "You must not cook a young goat in its mother's milk" (Exodus 23:19).

The courts are not in the business of determining what a religion's holy book says or interpreting the text to see whether the complainant's concerns are actually refelcted in religious doctrine. The courts have to go with what silly believers believe the religion says no matter how silly, and then uphold religious freedom based on those beliefs. The concern of the courts on a constitutional challenge to religious freedom is to adjudicate whether the law in question advances a significant state interest and is content-neutral. A law requiring a picture ID to contain an actual photo of a person's face is manifestly content-neutral and arguably advances a significant state interest.

[Buffman]

Hi Occams_Razor

I truly appreciate the reasoning process you put into the following statement:

"A law requiring a picture ID to contain an actual photo of a person's face is manifestly content-neutral and arguably advances a significant state interest."

Here is a thought for your consideration.

Over the decades, I have found myself increasingly skeptical about arguments based solely on phrases like "content-neutral" and "significant state interest." Why? Well because I have spent many years studying propaganda techniques. One of the primary techniques is using language(words) as weapons of conditioning and persuasion.

http://www.dushkin.com/usingts/guide/prop.mhtml

(Extract)
Presuppositions

Controversies may rest not on deliberate misinformation but on the incorrect assumption that the fundamental sources of knowledge that we depend on are functioning well. It is this presupposition of their trustworthiness that supports our arguments. For instance, consider the following presupposition shared by disputants on either side of the controversy "Should Marijuana Be Legalized as a Medication" from Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues on Drugs and Society, Second edition (Guilford, CT: Dushkin, 1996, pp. 135-143). Professor Lester Grinspoon argues that marijuana has proven beneficial to patients suffering from various medical problems. He feels that the federal government is unjustifiably prohibiting its use. Eric Voth, a medical professional, counters that marijuana has no real medical benefits and its use should be prohibited. Underlying both of their arguments is the presupposition that adults cannot be permitted to treat their own bodies as they choose. A libertarian who worries about governmental restrictions on personal liberty would immediately recognize this deep assumption and challenge it. The point here is that controversies rest on presuppositions that may in themselves be challenged.
(End extract)

We presuppose that the State (Government) is functioning well and is sincerely concerned with our individual welfare and safety. It is upon these presuppositions that the average citizen, all too often, accepts government contentions that something is "content-neutral" or is of "significant state interest." Basically, the Government is claiming that it knows what is best for each individual via a collective worship of its undefined omniscience. Well, I don't believe in secular Gods any more than I do supernatural ones. What are the facts and to how many decimal places? What are the verifiable, original sources and facts, of the contentions being made? Present the evidence for testing/verification.

I believe that this type of analysis process is vital in order to accurately understand and appreciate the value of the "wall of separation" that exists within the C-SS interpretation of the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

(Your first paragraph would seem to support my view of the necessity to challenge generalizations in order to personally establish their degree of merit.)

[epepke]

The courts are not in the business of determining what a religion's holy book says or interpreting the text to see whether the complainant's concerns are actually refelcted in religious doctrine. The courts have to go with what silly believers believe the religion says no matter how silly, and then uphold religious freedom based on those beliefs.

True enough for the first part. Arguments that this isn't inherently a part of Islam are beside the point.

As far as the second part, I'm not so sure. Given that I don't live in New Zealand, I don't see any problem with letting a Muslim woman wear the Yaqib, or whatever the ski mask is called, in court. But that's a detail.

In general, do the courts have an obligation to go with whatever silliness a religious believer may believe in, no matter how silly it is?

I don't think so, or at least I don't think that "go with" means the same thing as "respect."

[Octavia]

As far as the second part, I'm not so sure. Given that I don't live in New Zealand, I don't see any problem with letting a Muslim woman wear the Yaqib, or whatever the ski mask is called, in court. But that's a detail.


IIRC, it was actually raised by the defence lawyer for the accused, who argued along the lines that their evidence wouldn't be as clear as someone who wasn't veiled.

Sounds a bit silly at first, but then I thought - it's a lot easier to tell if someone's lying if you can see their face. Unlike societies where the burqa is normal, most western societies place a lot of emphasis on visual cues - facial expresssions, body language etc. When you don't have that, it can be argued that you're at a disadvantage - and for the defendant to have a fair trial, you've got to do the best to eliminate the disadvantages.

[Octavia]

The courts are not in the business of determining what a religion's holy book says or interpreting the text to see whether the complainant's concerns are actually refelcted in religious doctrine. The courts have to go with what silly believers believe the religion says no matter how silly, and then uphold religious freedom based on those beliefs.

That doesn't appear to be what happened here. The argument for them to remove their veils rested on the fact that they weren't required by the Koran, IIRC. The fact that the women in question felt that they were required was taken into consideration - they don't have to show their faces in open court, but only for judge, lawyers, female court staff etc - but the judge found in favour of the Koran. Literally. ;)

So what they believed didn't actually hold water in the courts in the end. Their beliefs were afforded courtesy, but no more.

[epepke]

IIRC, it was actually raised by the defence lawyer for the accused, who argued along the lines that their evidence wouldn't be as clear as someone who wasn't veiled.

The OP seemed to suggest that it was a problem of the prosecution. However, if you are correct, then this is a matter between the defense attorney and his and/or her client, which is extra-legal.

Sounds a bit silly at first, but then I thought - it's a lot easier to tell if someone's lying if you can see their face. Unlike societies where the burqa is normal, most western societies place a lot of emphasis on visual cues - facial expresssions, body language etc. When you don't have that, it can be argued that you're at a disadvantage - and for the defendant to have a fair trial, you've got to do the best to eliminate the disadvantages.

I can't think of the words or mathematics to describe how little importance there is if a witness makes a choice to disadvantage his- and/or herself. That infinitessimal number would also apply to how much I think one should care about it.

If it's a witness for the prosecution, then I can see it as a possiblility, but I think it can more easily be dealt with by giving the defense carte blanche to say things like, "You won't even show your face. How do you expect us to believe that you are telling the truth?"

[Darren D]

I personally think that allowing witnesses in trials to veil themselves is dangerous for democracy and justice. Court procedings are generally public and open to public scrutiny - as they should be. Criminal prosecutions are state institued procedings that can result in the loss of freedom or even life for the defendant. As such these procedings need to be totally transparent, open to scrutiny and fair. That is why rules of evidence and court formalities evolved in the first place.

Not only does the judge need to be able to see the demeanor of witnesses, but so do the defence and prosecution attorneys, the jury and the spectators in court. In my mind anything else is unacceptable.

Where exceptions are allowed they should be very narrowly defined. An example that I can think of in the UK is evidence from children in child abuse cases - where child witnesses can give evidence via one-way video link. Even in this instance the whole court can see the demeanor of the witness.

Freedom of religion is cutailed in many other ways with little controversy; Polygymy is illegal (Mormonism) marijuana is illegal (Rastafarianism) underage sex and human sacrifice is illegal (any of the nutjob cults) etc.

Driving licesnses are a different matter - my view is that having a driving license is not a fundamental human right and that the issuing authority can make reasonable demands before issuing them. Having a full face photo is a reasonable demand for safety reasons as it helps ensure that the police can check that whoever is driving a vehicle is entitled to drive, has passed any driving test, is the owner of the vehicle and has insurance etc.

[Buffman]

I personally think that allowing witnesses in trials to veil themselves is dangerous for democracy and justice.

Isn't Justice supposed to be blind? What is the evidence? Is it factual or isn't it?

Court procedings are generally public and open to public scrutiny - as they should be. Criminal prosecutions are state institued procedings that can result in the loss of freedom or even life for the defendant. As such these procedings need to be totally transparent, open to scrutiny and fair. That is why rules of evidence and court formalities evolved in the first place.

So is a Trial in Absentia a miscarriage of Justice and a stake through the heart of Democracy?

http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewReport&reportID=546&tribunalID=5

Not only does the judge need to be able to see the demeanor of witnesses, but so do the defence and prosecution attorneys, the jury and the spectators in court. In my mind anything else is unacceptable.

Should all the witnesses be naked? Speak the same language? Should the judge/jury/attorneys be influenced by the appearance of a witness...or by the verified facts in the case?

Where exceptions are allowed they should be very narrowly defined. An example that I can think of in the UK is evidence from children in child abuse cases - where child witnesses can give evidence via one-way video link. Even in this instance the whole court can see the demeanor of the witness.

Demeanor? Are you alleging that you are making life and death decisions based on demeanor? What are your qualifications to make judgments based on demeanor? I'll bet you sincerely believe that we can know when someone is lying based on their demeanor...or how they dress. Are lie detector tests fool-proof? How many professional criminals/liars have you known? Even if the entire court thinks that the person is guilty based on that person's demeanor, only the evidence must determine guilt or innocence.

Freedom of religion is cutailed in many other ways with little controversy; Polygymy is illegal (Mormonism) marijuana is illegal (Rastafarianism) underage sex and human sacrifice is illegal (any of the nutjob cults) etc.

Are Polygymy and Marijuana illegal in every country, in every courtroom...or only in Christian countries and courtrooms? Define underage sex and human sacrifice. Are not wars a form of human sacrifice? Do Buddhists not sacrifice themselves as a form of protest? Did Christians not burn, drown and hang other humans accused of witchcraft or heresy...all with the blessings of the judge, jury and court? Do Muslims not prosecute based on their so-called holy writings? What is your definition of a "nutjob cult?" (One with which the majority "cult" disagrees?)

IMO, what you are identifying is the reality that societies and their moral values change...evolve over time. Yet there are those that would like to return to the laws and justice of ancient times because of their beliefs in the supernatural. Whether you realize it or not, you are presenting justification for a belief in the supernatural. You can tell by looking at someone whether they are a witch (evil/a liar) or not. All you are really doing is assessing your own strengths and weaknesses and projecting them onto others and assuming that they are identical. They aren't. That is why justice must rely on and assess the verified and corroborated accurate facts before passing judgment.

Driving licesnses are a different matter - my view is that having a driving license is not a fundamental human right and that the issuing authority can make reasonable demands before issuing them. Having a full face photo is a reasonable demand for safety reasons as it helps ensure that the police can check that whoever is driving a vehicle is entitled to drive, has passed any driving test, is the owner of the vehicle and has insurance etc.

First, allow me to be completely clear on the issue of full face photos on driver licenses. I think they are an excellent addition based on modern technology and how they are currently being used. However, I also believe that it is helpful to know the history behind vehicle licensing in order to better understand why the State(Government) has established such a powerful, vested interest, legal role in their issuance.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/history.htm

(Extract)
The move reflected recognition of the division's revenue producing status.
(End extract)

Second, as I have attempted to explain earlier, the picture is for identity purposes. Saying that the picture allows the police, for safety reasons, to determine if the person driving the vehicle is legally authorized to do so makes me wonder why it is necessary to show them one's vehicle registration document...which does not have a photo on it. What was the reason that the driver was stopped by the police in the first place? Surely not because they suspected that the picture on the driver's license or cross-referenced registration document wouldn't match the face of the driver. (That would be profiling.)

Lastly, of course I can appreciate the "indirect" safety consequences that can, and do, accrue from from an unauthorized individual behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. However, a picture merely establishes that to be the case "after the fact" (the initial cause for police intervention). It does not prevent the cause for intervention. However, when the driver's license is used primarily as a commercial form of identification, it can act as an instrument to help prevent the commission of a crime. Thus a full facial picture becomes a necessity in crime prevention rather than increased physical safety.

[Octavia]

Demeanor? Are you alleging that you are making life and death decisions based on demeanor? What are your qualifications to make judgments based on demeanor? I'll bet you sincerely believe that we can know when someone is lying based on their demeanor...or how they dress. Are lie detector tests fool-proof? How many professional criminals/liars have you known? Even if the entire court thinks that the person is guilty based on that person's demeanor, only the evidence must determine guilt or innocence.


Are you arguing for making life and death decisions without the advantage of demeanor? In that case, why have witnesses - or even the accused - present in court at all? The accused could be safely in a jail cell, the witnesses could give written answers to questions in advance...

That's taking the extreme position however. I can see where you're coming from - demeanour shouldn't be the the deciding factor - but it is a factor nevertheless. The priority of the court is not to make the witnesses feel as if they're in their own living room; but to the give the defendant the best chance possible to defend the case brought against him by the crown.

[Buffman]

Are you arguing for making life and death decisions without the advantage of demeanor? In that case, why have witnesses - or even the accused - present in court at all? The accused could be safely in a jail cell, the witnesses could give written answers to questions in advance...

That's taking the extreme position however. I can see where you're coming from - demeanour shouldn't be the the deciding factor - but it is a factor nevertheless. The priority of the court is not to make the witnesses feel as if they're in their own living room; but to the give the defendant the best chance possible to defend the case brought against him by the crown.

Not only does the judge need to be able to see the demeanor of witnesses, but so do the defence and prosecution attorneys, the jury and the spectators in court. In my mind anything else is unacceptable.

That is the statement with which I took umbrage. Yes, demeanor is a factor, but should it be? If we are forced to rely on an individual's bearing in order to arrive at just conclusions/decisions, are we not placing something into evidence that has not, and can not, be verified...personal opinions?

I have served on juries. One was a particularly heinous multiple murder case in which we were incarcerated in a motel, at $5.00 a day, for a week. There were no living witnesses to the alleged murders...just so-called expert testimony. The demeanor of these expert witnesses was irrelevent. Their expertise was not. However, one jurer stated that the defendent didn't look like a murderer. I asked her, "What do murders look like?" Another jurer stated that they had difficulty believing the testimony of the pathologist because he looked very nervous under cross-examination. I asked this jurer, "Well, if there was any question about the accuracy of the pathologist's testimony, why didn't the defense attorney do an intensive cross-examination and introduce his own expert witness to counter the state's witness?"

What are your qualifications to accurately interpret the demeanor of a witness? Witnesses testify because the attorney's believe that such testimony will contribute evidence for or against the accused. That does not mean that attorney's don't attempt to use witnesses that will have greater appeal/credibility to the jury. Almost all of them do...which supports your contention concerning demeanor as a factor...regardless of whether it should or not.

I realize that I am getting pretty well pummeled on these issues; but I believe that it is important to encourage folks to look beyond the every day superficialities that too often appear to be derived from emotions or conditioned belief structures rather than the verified evidence. (Thanks for your thoughtful comments.)

(Numerous typo corrections) :(

[epepke]

Second, as I have attempted to explain earlier, the picture is for identity purposes. Saying that the picture allows the police, for safety reasons, to determine if the person driving the vehicle is legally authorized to do so makes me wonder why it is necessary to show them one's vehicle registration document...which does not have a photo on it. What was the reason that the driver was stopped by the police in the first place? Surely not because they suspected that the picture on the driver's license or cross-referenced registration document wouldn't match the face of the driver. (That would be profiling.)

I think you're reaching here.

The reason for being able to identify the person on the driver's license is to ascertain whether that person is licensed as a driver. It is also secondarily so that the cop can see if that person has any outstanding warrants. One could certainly argue whether the secondary reason should be allowed, but the first reason is solid.

As for asking for registration, in the general case, they don't. If I drive a Florida car in Georgia and am stopped, they will not ask for my registration but rather for proof of insurance. This, I think, is also reasonable. In-state they ask for registration because a) they can look up the insurance status from the registration, and b) driving without registration is against the law, and you can get cited for that.

However, I've noticed that the last time I was stopped in Florida (for having some mud on my license plate-sheesh!), they didn't ask for registration at all. Presumably they can look that up from the license plate number these days.

[Buffman]

I think you're reaching here.

Yup! :)

The reason for being able to identify the person on the driver's license is to ascertain whether that person is licensed as a driver.

The operative phrase is "to be able to identify." That is all that I have maintained from the beginning. The picture on the license is there for identity purposes rather than for safety. Why did the police stop the vehicle? Probably for either a code or "safety" violation. I agree that the license helps to determine if the driver is authorized to operate a motor vehicle of the type in which they were stopped.

[Matt the Medic]

And I sustain that having improper, inadequate, or false identification can be a safety issue. If you want to cut to the bare bones of what an I.D. serves, you're right: It's just for Identification. In the same light, having a key is merely for the purpose of enacting proper force on spring-loaded bars in order to reach a predetermined alignment allowing for disengagement of lock. It is what the lock is protecting that gives context to the importance of the key. Would having an unauthorized copy of a key (say to someone's security deposit box) be a mere 'keying issue' and nothing more? If you want to argue that there is no tangible safety benefit to having a proper ID in the context of our current society, then feel free to go right ahead. Safety is an abstract concept so any argument on either of our sides is purely subjective in nature. I don't doubt that you would agree.

The 'red herring' as I pointed out is your (deserved) criticism of the current system and your questioning if such a system is ideal. I take no issue with you on this and I agree that such an identification can and has been used for breaching 'safety' and personal security.

As for whether improper photo identification in the context of a system based largely on photo identification is a safety issue, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Buffman]

A thoughtful and insightful statement vice "for obvious safety reasons." Thank you.

[Oresta]

So what they believed didn't actually hold water in the courts in the end. Their beliefs were afforded courtesy, but no more.

I would say for far more than courtesy's sake. It's true that veiling is not mandated for women by the Koran, and hence not a First Amendment issue. However, it is a matter of sensitivity to the culture of the woman and the attitudes about her public presence that she has learned. Islamic women in some parts of the world cover only their heards, in other cultures no head covering is worn; but I would expect it is a matter of choice for a woman only to the extent of what her cultural norms are. If she has been acculturated to feel humiliated and vulnerably exposed - naked in a sense - without a veil in public, I think that her wishes should be reasonably accommodated, as in the court case.

On the other hand, it is unreasonable to expect to be issued a driver's license without a photo of the bearer's face on it. If she can't accommodate to that requirement, she should forget about driving. The right to drive isn't an inalienable one; it's granted by the state within reasonable and necessary limits.

[Octavia]

I would say for far more than courtesy's sake. It's true that veiling is not mandated for women by the Koran, and hence not a First Amendment issue. However, it is a matter of sensitivity to the culture of the woman and the attitudes about her public presence that she has learned. Islamic women in some parts of the world cover only their heards, in other cultures no head covering is worn; but I would expect it is a matter of choice for a woman only to the extent of what her cultural norms are. If she has been acculturated to feel humiliated and vulnerably exposed - naked in a sense - without a veil in public, I think that her wishes should be reasonably accommodated, as in the court case.



That's what I mean when I say that the limits on the ruling were for the sake of courtesy - sensitivity, if you will. Her right to wear a veil does not exist while giving evidence, according to the judge - but that doesn't mean she should have to show her face to all and sundry. The ruling is thus limited out of courtesy for her feelings - and not for her religion, which takes second place to the civil rights of the (original) trial defendant.

[Oresta]

I didn't intend to "correct" you. I agree with your point. I meant only to expand the issue beyond the court case to one of what modesty could mean to some women: one of intense humiliation and shame. Even absent of religious beliefs, it can be one of intense personal feeling.

[Octavia]

I didn't intend to "correct" you. I agree with your point. I meant only to expand the issue beyond the court case to one of what modesty could mean to some women: one of intense humiliation and shame. Even absent of religious beliefs, it can be one of intense personal feeling.

No worries mate. :) I didn't think you were trying to correct me - I was just thinking maybe I hadn't explained myself well enough in the first place. But yes, I agree with you about the humiliation and the shame. Unfortunate that such still exists in this way. OTOH, maybe their daughters and granddaughters will avoid the same fate because of their mother's decision to come here.

[epepke]

The operative phrase is "to be able to identify." That is all that I have maintained from the beginning. The picture on the license is there for identity purposes rather than for safety. Why did the police stop the vehicle? Probably for either a code or "safety" violation. I agree that the license helps to determine if the driver is authorized to operate a motor vehicle of the type in which they were stopped.

Well, maybe I can reach even more than you did. I dated an ex-cop. As far as I can tell, all they need to stop someone is "probable cause," which is extremely vaguely defined.

[Buffman]

Well, maybe I can reach even more than you did. I dated an ex-cop. As far as I can tell, all they need to stop someone is "probable cause," which is extremely vaguely defined.

Probably for either a code or "safety" violation.

What constitutes probable cause? Perhaps a code or safety violation? Did your former ex-cop friend mention that he had to have (or create) some specific probable cause reason? It is only vague when the individual being stopped doesn't know the specific laws...which most of us don't...until after the incident. But what has any of this got to do with the picture on the driver's license and safety?

http://www.colorado-dui.com/parts/police.html

http://subscript.bna.com/SAMPLES/cwb.nsf/0/e3db7ba46ee0667e85256e4b008360e2?OpenDocument

Concerning my stretch, in this state, we must have a current vehicle registration document with us or in the vehicle. Why, if not because it is used by an arresting authority as proof of insured ownership...even without a picture?

http://www.hsmv.state.fl.us/dmv/ansmotor.html

(Extract)
Section 320.0605, Florida Statutes, requires the registration certificate or an official copy to be in the possession of the operator of the motor vehicle or carried in the vehicle at all times. Therefore, either way is permissible as long as a copy can be produced for law enforcement upon demand.
(End extract)

DAMN! I just learned something new. Until I read the following, I was a heinous criminal providing a police-person with a "probable cause" vehicle stop excuse...if they had a set of great binoculars in their vehicle. :D

(Extract)
Due to a problem with stolen decals from time to time, the instructions on the plastic bag in which the decal is packaged requires that old decals be removed and that the new decal be sliced with a sharp instrument after it is affixed to the license plate.
(End extract)