Skip to main content

Cover up





So there's this woman in Florida who insists that Florida DMV is violating her right to religious freedom because they insist she remove her veil for her driver's license picture. How this is so, I do not know, especially given that driving is not a right. If you can't comply with the applicable laws for obtaining a driver's license, and Florida requires a full-face photo, then you don't get a DL. Seems simple.



But no, assorted and sundry lobby and "civil rights" groups feel otherwise. What makes this all the more interesting is the sidebar attached to this CNN article. See, the woman is asserting that revealing her face would violate Islamic religious law, a higher authority as it were. But, the sidebar has this to say about photo ID's in established, Muslim countries:



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
Now, don't mean to hold up any of these Arab states are paragons of human rights, but these are countries where Islamic law is often The Law. And they require the veil to come off for photo ID. So who is the higher authority, the "experts" her attorneys will trundle into court, or the existing laws and standards of Islamic states?



Oh, and besides, turns out she's a recent convert, so who is telling her that it is an absolute, no exception, that her face remain covered for "modesty."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more