Quote:
Originally posted by SecretMethod70
they offered her a way to get the picture taken that doesn't go against her religion at all.
|
Okay, I think I should set out my argument so that it isn't specific to her (a criminal?) and her religious beliefs (Islam).
My point: If you have a religious belief that your photo should not be taken (by anyone) and you have proven capable of driving safely, then you should be allowed to drive. If the state requires proof of your competency then they must establish a verification system that does not require the person to break their religious beliefs, so long as such a verification system is feasible. In the case of driving licences it is quite feasible to use non-photo methods (I drive in the UK without a photo ID, and I could do the same in 14 US states) and so the state cannot use this excuse.
Is this a genuine issue?
Yes, there have been cases (e.g.
Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc ) where Pentecostal Christians have said they refuse to use photo ID as it would go against their religious beliefs. In all these previous cases the religious belief has been respected. In the Freeman case the Judge ruled that in the new post-9.11 world, the religious belief could not trump national security.
My point on the national security issue:
Imagine a world where Freeman had been allowed to wear a veil in her photo ID (but she had to support it with another form of ID as well). Now a terrorist enters the country (presumably using a passport with a photo) and then starts a new life in the US as a cover for a terrorist attack. But they need to use a car to drive around. And they need a driving ID. Now I ask you, what terrorist is going to draw attention to themselves by invoking the right of Muslim women to wear a veil in ID photos? They wouldn't. If they were male they couldn't (they don't wear veils!) and if they were a woman they would simply try and fit in with everyone else as part of their cover.
The Judge invoked national security to overturn a good legal precedent. IMHO she should not have.