Veiled or unveiled

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:21 pm

I am definitely respectful of her religion, but for public safety I hope this lady loses her case.

Veiled or Unveiled

ARS · Post by **ARS** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:43 pm

If this is the person that wants to wear her veil in her license, I say no. One reason, she switched to muslim/islamic (whatever) religion because of her two foster kids SHE abused. Why did she switch religions? I don't know, but for some reason she switched religions right before the police wanted to see the kids bruises. Since she was that religion, they could(police) not look at the kids bruises.

Just because of that situtation, I would tell the bitch to go **** her self and then go to hell. Sry for my attitude on this subject, I just don't justify beating/abusing your kids. Weather they need it or not. Weather they are foster kids or not. It's all bull****. Kill the bitch all I care, it's bull****. ERRR, sry once again. I am just irritated with all this.

ARS · Post by **ARS** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:44 pm

Sry if I offended ANYONE in the above reply.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Wed May 28, 2003 6:52 pm

thats stupid, she needs to take it off for identification reasons, end of story.

Chris · Post by **Chris** » Wed May 28, 2003 7:02 pm

She can leave it on, just take away her permission to drive, no biggy, she can walk all she wants with her veil on, and it would be unsafe to drive with that veil on anyway, her Peripheral vision is severly hampered.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Wed May 28, 2003 8:17 pm

She has the right to whatever religion she wants to belong to. Religious denomination is a right.

Driving is a priviledge and has specific rules for licensing.

Cut and dry as far as I see it.

No picture, no license.

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Wed May 28, 2003 8:22 pm

Originally posted by Norm
She has the right to whatever religion she wants to belong to. Religious denomination is a right.

Driving is a priviledge and has specific rules for licensing.

Cut and dry as far as I see it.

No picture, no license.

Yep- I agree. Even in Saudia Arabia they have to remove them for Passport photos. This entire case is a crock. Jeez... don't we have better things to do with our court system than this?

Indy · Post by **Indy** » Wed May 28, 2003 8:22 pm

Originally posted by Norm
She has the right to whatever religion she wants to belong to. Religious denomination is a right.

Driving is a priviledge and has specific rules for licensing.

Cut and dry as far as I see it.

No picture, no license.

Pretty much nails it on the head...

polishmafia4u · Post by **polishmafia4u** » Wed May 28, 2003 8:24 pm

actually i dont agree with the whole driving is a prilage and stuff junk. to me this country is really screwed up in some places (maybe its just me). i mean you need a permit for everything now a days. to add to the house you bought you need a permit. if it my darn land then i should be able to do what i want with it. breeding dogs requires a permit, if i want my dogs to get it on and sell the puppies its my buisness. another thing, is this whole sueing thing too. i mean, people sue for idiotic stuff and still get the money. i mean, they will break into a house and hurt themselveles then sue the owner of the house, i mean WTF man. a lot of stuff in this ocuntry is bull. anyways, i dont really give a crap about this lady, i think she should be able to wear her little veil and still get a license. my opinion, feel free to burn me now...

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Wed May 28, 2003 8:32 pm

A picture on a license is there for identification purposes.

How do you identify a person under a veil?

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Wed May 28, 2003 9:00 pm

actually i dont agree with the whole driving is a prilage and stuff junk

Driving on one's own private property requires no licensing of any type, thisi ncludes tractors, trucks, combines, cars, motorcycles and all other vehicles. This is a right.

Driving on city, county, state and federalally maintained roads requires a license and is a privledge not a right. Why? Becuase these roads are governed by certain regulations and laws, mostly for safety, partially for revenue. The purposes of a license are:
1. ID.
2. Validation (much like a doctor who must keep his medical certs renewed, a driver is required to meet certain standards.)

polishmafia4u · Post by **polishmafia4u** » Wed May 28, 2003 9:20 pm

Originally posted by Norm
A picture on a license is there for identification purposes.

How do you identify a person under a veil?

retina scans

CiscoKid · Post by **CiscoKid** » Wed May 28, 2003 9:30 pm

Originally posted by polishmafia4u
retina scans

But that's too invasive! just like she won't submit to a DNA test for ID purposes...

I was watching part of the trial on CourtTV, I thought it was BS myself

Mehmet · Post by **Mehmet** » Thu May 29, 2003 1:03 am

well, being a muslim..

from my interpretation, women dont have to cover their faces, just their hair..

anyway, besides that, i think its pretty screwed up, but, i mean, look at sikhs for example, they never take off their turbans (its a mandatory thing, which it is not in islam), and they can still get by and what not.. They also carry daggers all the time with them.. im not accusing sikhs, nor am i saying their bad, but, it seems sorta like a double standard.

but, for IDing, definetly need that face to show.

For my moms green card, they first wanted her to take off her scarf, of course she refused, and they gave it to her anyway. This country seems like its integrating the other religions inside of it, which is a good thing for sure, just took a while.

teaaememy · Post by **teaaememy** » Thu May 29, 2003 2:18 am

When reading this on the website I find that its no different than living any where else really. In California they get your finger print with your license.

Driver’s identification rules in Muslim nations:
Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

Someone needs to point out to her that Iding someone is not just for criminal purposes but also for abductions, murders. Being IDed has its benefits. Even then say she was on americas most wanted it would be best to have a picture of her face than a veiled woman cause you can imagine they post that picture how many veiled women would get reported.

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Thu May 29, 2003 6:07 am

I really would be stunned if she won this one. It presents security risks in such a blatant manner that its truly had to fathom it happening. Who knows though.

Norm · Post by **Norm** » Fri Jun 06, 2003 4:44 pm

She lost.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/flori ... index.html

Qwijib0 · Post by **Qwijib0** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 12:18 am

Originally posted by Norm
She lost.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/flori ... index.html

*Applause*

Roody · Post by **Roody** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 8:25 am

Originally posted by Qwijib0
*Applause*

*big applause*

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 11:56 am

Her husband, Abdul-Maalik Freeman, said his wife would fight the decision.

"She's not lifting the veil. This is a religious principle," he told CNN-affiliate WKMG. "We don't quit. We have a no-quit attitude.

So when all avenues of appeal run out, the next move will be to somewhere that will tolerate this?
Go now and save the appeal costs.

Not to Australia. Definately not Australia if you want to drive that is.

Croc.

A_old · Post by **A_old** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 1:29 pm

I'm Muslim. I think the picture for ID is a must...and I think she's over doing the hijaab, the veil is not required..just the bonnet for hair cover. I also think it is a matter of public safety, so I think she's in the wrong. FYI, my mother and sister don't even wear the bonnet, this is of their own free will..

Amro

Croc · Post by **Croc** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 4:44 pm

The way I read the article, it's her husband driving this. The way he was quoted in my other post was very much as if she is just doing what she's told to do, including not talking outside the court.
Just a thought.

Croc.

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:32 pm

what a Fing wacko

Ronny · Post by **Ronny** » Sat Jun 07, 2003 6:53 pm

i agree with norm and am also glad she lost the case.
if her religion is so controling she can't remove her veil what will her religion do next to gain more control over its followers.

just my 2 cents worth.