Florida ACLU Participates in Stupid Lawsuit

This is one for the record books:

[http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html"]Muslim woman fights to keep on veil for driver’s license photo](http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html)

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, a woman wants to obscure her entire face (except for her eyes) for a driver’s license photo.

Quoth the sleazeball who took the case:

What I find spectacularly amusing about this case, is that CNN provides a helpful sidebar about some states that do not practice religious liberty, and their driver’s license photo practices:

So in seven countries where state policy is based on Islamic law, women have to get their pictures taken with their (gasp) faces showing.

If it’s that fucking important to her, she can take a cab.

Wasn’t there a similar thing about a year ago? I swear I remember reading a pretty heated debate about it on the boards. Both sides actually had some reasonable arguments, IIRC.

For some Muslims, a woman showing her face is just as taboo as showing her tits. To them, it’s basically nudity. This isn’t as simple as it looks.

Yes it is. No one’s forcing her to remove her head cover, UNLESS she wants the privilege of a DL, which MUST be linkable to her in a typical traffic stop. That requires a photo.

In my view, the key issue here is that driving is not a right. If some personal belief or religion prevents one from fulfilling the prerequisites of driving, then I guess one doesn’t drive. It’s not like oxygen or food.

And yes, there are many places where driving is almost mandatory. I guess these people then need to live elsewhere, where there is usable public transportation.

If this woman does not want to follow state laws which require her to remove her shaw from her face, then she shouldn’t be able to drive.

Florida had no problem with her veiled picture on her license before 9/11.

'squeeze me, she’s obscuring her eyes whilst driving???
Did you know Florida has their own tag on fark?

Just because standards were not properly enforced prior to 9/11 is no reason why they should not be enforced afterwards.

Prior to 9/11, people were occasionally allowed to carry blades onto aircraft.

I suspect that if her ID was stolen/shared, it would be very easy to use her photo ID for just about anything, by just about anyone in her height/weight class.

Sharing is good, right?

British driving licence regulations require photographs to be “A recent and true likeness, showing the full face, with no hat, helmet or sunglasses”.

There are no exceptions, although I wonder how this applies to people who wear turbans for religious reasons, as well as to people wearing veils.

British passport regulations specifically allow a hat or turban if worn for religious reasons, but again specify “full face”.

US passport regulations (and here) say photos should be “full face” but allow “headpieces if worn daily for religious purposes”.

Maybe they could allow fingerprints if people don’t want their photo on their licence and passport. Except everyone hates their passport photo, so everyone would take the time-consuming fingerprint-checking option.

No, it is not nudity. It may be moderate immodesty to some extremists in the Wahhabite camp, but even the Muslim Brotherhood does not support this POV.

I do note that the list of countries above can not be characterized as one where Islamic law reigns, e.g. neither Egypt nor Jordan fits that description, for all that there are Sharia inputs.

Wait, the ACLU is taking up another otiose, frivolous case? :eek: :eek:

:dubious:

Yes, this case already has its own thread, started last year and resurrected this week.

Wheres the fucking debate? Take your mask off and drive, or leave it on and take a fucking bus.

End of story.

Funny how people managed to drive for decades without state-mandated photographs on their licences…

Isn’t this universal photo on license thing a relatively recent phenomenon?

No, it doesn’t. Florida has issued over 800,000 non-photo licenses in the past 5 years.

Now that makes this more interesting. Got a cite for what qualifications are necessary to get a non-photo license in Florida?

I’ve googled for it, and searched the FL DMV website, and couldn’t see anything to confirm they issue non-photo licenses.

Okay, Munch, here’s the relevant portion of Florida’s licensing law:

Bolding mine.

Well it’s a requirement in this decade, and that’s all that matters.