Little6pack
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
The Judge Rules!
- Thread starter Little6pack
- Start date
John Larkin
Sublime Master of Turbology
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
This is what makes me sick....
Hiding behind "religion". The ACLU should buy her a one-way ticket to Muslimland so she can be free.
Hiding behind "religion". The ACLU should buy her a one-way ticket to Muslimland so she can be free.
That's a very interesting development and to be quite frank, an angering one as well. The previous thread was referring to the public safety conflicting with concealment. Yes, she has the absolute right to religious freedom and practice, but this is starting to sound more like something else. I'm a middle school teacher and by law I must report anything that I deem as abuse or neglect of children. Now, I've had many students who where veils for religious reasons and I treat them equally, nor do I think they are covering something else. However, I've also had students come to school wearing longsleeves on hot summer days to hide bruises that the students choose to show me or councelors. By law I have to call protective services directly. I've dealt with protective services on numerous occasions and no how difficult their job is to protect children. So to hear that there is a possibility that they are using this as a means of hiding abuse makes me shudder with anger. Granted, bruises are not the ONLY indicator that I can use to declare abuse of neglect. Mental, verbal, sexual and drug/ substance abuse can come through signs of behavior, hygeine and other physical signs (limping, distorted speech, etc).
So, to bring a conclusion to my book... I agree with the verdict. I'm never glad when someones children are taken away because it's very devistating to the family and usually mean something horrible is under the surface. But if she was using the veil and religious excuses as a justification for abuse and means of avoiding prosecution then I say let her have it.
OK.. off my soapbox. This angered me so much I'm just jabbering now.
turbojimmy
Supporting Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
Originally posted by 6pack
He ruled right to. Don't wanna show your face for your driver's license then use public transportation
Or get the f*** out. That's why I'm not a judge. I wouldn't have listened to arguments for 3 days like she did (judge was a woman, I believe). I would have put her on the first plane to the middle east and moved on to the next case. Go live with the people you're emulating if you feel that strongly about it.
Jim
Kevin Turch
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2002
Exactly!!!
Dont like our rules, GET OUT!
Black Sabbath
Lurker Extraordinair
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
From the judge’s ruling,
“In addition, § 322.142, Florida Statutes, “Colored photographic or digital imaged licenses” (boldface in original), states in pertinent part:
(1) The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for an original driver’s license a color photographic or digital imaged driver’s license bearing a full face photograph or digital image of the licensee . . . .”
Now this seems pretty cut and dry right here. In the other thread on this case, the question of whether driving was a right or a privilege came up. Driving is a privilege. Nowhere in US law does it say that you have any implicit right to drive. So if it is a privilege you must be willing to play by the rules to take advantage of driving. As we can see from Florida’s law you need a full face photo on you license, don’t like it, don’t drive.
Florida is willing to have a woman take the photo so the plaintiff’s, “sincere religious belief that she should wear the niqab in front of all strangers and unrelated Muslim men,” Is not impeded on. This entire case was a crock of Shiite (pun fully intended) and I am glad to see what the outcome was.
Black Sabbath
“In addition, § 322.142, Florida Statutes, “Colored photographic or digital imaged licenses” (boldface in original), states in pertinent part:
(1) The department shall, upon receipt of the required fee, issue to each qualified applicant for an original driver’s license a color photographic or digital imaged driver’s license bearing a full face photograph or digital image of the licensee . . . .”
Now this seems pretty cut and dry right here. In the other thread on this case, the question of whether driving was a right or a privilege came up. Driving is a privilege. Nowhere in US law does it say that you have any implicit right to drive. So if it is a privilege you must be willing to play by the rules to take advantage of driving. As we can see from Florida’s law you need a full face photo on you license, don’t like it, don’t drive.
Florida is willing to have a woman take the photo so the plaintiff’s, “sincere religious belief that she should wear the niqab in front of all strangers and unrelated Muslim men,” Is not impeded on. This entire case was a crock of Shiite (pun fully intended) and I am glad to see what the outcome was.
Black Sabbath
Re: Re: Is she actually from another country??
OK.. that's what I wanted to know because everyone is saying go back to her own country. This IS her country. You are right about her knowing better... this being her native country. As for all muslims trying to get convert Americans... I'm not going to disagree, but that goes with many religions. Look at Christian mercenaries in the Phillipines and other largely muslim countries.
Put simply though.. this is a crock... and I hope they plaster her picture from her driver's license ALL over the newspaper.
OK.. that's what I wanted to know because everyone is saying go back to her own country. This IS her country. You are right about her knowing better... this being her native country. As for all muslims trying to get convert Americans... I'm not going to disagree, but that goes with many religions. Look at Christian mercenaries in the Phillipines and other largely muslim countries.
Put simply though.. this is a crock... and I hope they plaster her picture from her driver's license ALL over the newspaper.
There is one thing I fail to fully understand in this story - She is taking an ultra conservative Muslim stand with regard to her type of veil and the complete sheilding of her face (except eyes) and she has that right in this country. However, in ultra conservative Muslim philosophy, women are not allowed to drive (amongst other things), hence no need for a license. That's her religion, not a decision by any US court. Because of this double standard I suspect scam or her desire for 15 minutes fame. It is because of this mistrust and unusual behavior that I in fact start to see her as a possible threat. I can only hope that in the true American way, she paid her lawyer a lot of money only to find no satisfaction. Unfortuantly, I suspect she will quickly make the talk show circuit, collecting all the fees she can before this issue fades into oblivian.
fireberd350
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
i thought this post was about a GTO
turbojimmy
Supporting Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
Re: Re: Re: Is she actually from another country??
I'm not saying go back to "her" country - I know this is "her" country. I'm saying if she doesn't like it, and she feels so strongly about being a Muslim, then she should be sent to where their way of live embraces that culture. As we learned from 9/11, we've gotten too PC in this country. People walking around with masks over their faces ain't gonna fly anymore. Like it or not, some thousands-year old custom is not going to fly in modern U.S. society. Adapt or go where that's acceptable. Of course, in most places where that's acceptable women can't even drive cars, or go to school, or hold jobs, or waste the court's time with some BS complaint.
The judge had it easy in this case. She was a convert, converted probably to conceal the fact that she was abusing her kids. She had a spotty criminal record and a history of removing the veil for other photographs. Had this woman been a true Muslim, it would have been a tougher call.
Plus, at a more basic level. Is she gonna drive around with that thing on? How can she see?
Jim
Originally posted by gn85
OK.. that's what I wanted to know because everyone is saying go back to her own country. This IS her country. You are right about her knowing better... this being her native country. As for all muslims trying to get convert Americans... I'm not going to disagree, but that goes with many religions. Look at Christian mercenaries in the Phillipines and other largely muslim countries.
Put simply though.. this is a crock... and I hope they plaster her picture from her driver's license ALL over the newspaper.
I'm not saying go back to "her" country - I know this is "her" country. I'm saying if she doesn't like it, and she feels so strongly about being a Muslim, then she should be sent to where their way of live embraces that culture. As we learned from 9/11, we've gotten too PC in this country. People walking around with masks over their faces ain't gonna fly anymore. Like it or not, some thousands-year old custom is not going to fly in modern U.S. society. Adapt or go where that's acceptable. Of course, in most places where that's acceptable women can't even drive cars, or go to school, or hold jobs, or waste the court's time with some BS complaint.
The judge had it easy in this case. She was a convert, converted probably to conceal the fact that she was abusing her kids. She had a spotty criminal record and a history of removing the veil for other photographs. Had this woman been a true Muslim, it would have been a tougher call.
Plus, at a more basic level. Is she gonna drive around with that thing on? How can she see?
Jim
Her complaint was about a public display of her face, eh?, was she wearing her license taped to her forehead?.
Hiding behind religion to defy the law, isn't being religious.
Better yet, let her and the ACLU pay court costs for wasting 3 days of the court's time. Toss in punitive damages to the ACLU for not having the brains to figure it out ahead of time.
Hiding behind religion to defy the law, isn't being religious.
Better yet, let her and the ACLU pay court costs for wasting 3 days of the court's time. Toss in punitive damages to the ACLU for not having the brains to figure it out ahead of time.
turbojimmy
Supporting Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2001
That's okay. I wasn't sure if my original post was clear or not.
Jim
