Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[Barrister]

Joan, this is a relevant point in a world where muslims are tying to let women use faceveils on photos. He's not just being a dick.

Are women being allowed to use face veils on photos?  The only case I am aware of in the States denied this.  Perhaps Austria differs.  But if preventing that outcome really was his objective, he actually moved the ball backwards.

This is only one of many instances of religious followers calling for exemptions. A few local examples: calls for segregated public swimming pools, exemption for girls from sport classes, the niqab school issue, refusal to let male doctors see female patients, disruption on factory production due to prayer ...

The thin-skinned schmucks are not the ones pointing out how fucked up it is that you have two different standards depending on whether you still believe in Santa or not. They are the ones asking for them in the first place.

Calls for something aren't the same as something being granted.

I could care less if someone is asking for all swimming pools to be segregated.  I'm only interested in what we are actually doing to accomodate.

[Malthus]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

[The Minsky Moment]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues.  The other is freedom.  Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.

The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally.  But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start.  There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences.  The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences.  A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object.  Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.

[The Minsky Moment]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

[crazy canuck]

aren't you denying a belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?

It is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion.  Or do you really think they believe a pasta strainer is a sacred object of considerable religious signficance?

[Iormlund]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

I assume you feel the same way about conciencious objectors in wartime?

Yes.

[Barrister]

Equality is a noble goal, but there are thousands, if not millions, of examples where for very good and legitimate reasons people are treated differently by government.

The disabled are not required to get out of their wheelchair to walk through security screening.

Only the elderly are entitled to pensions.

Only children are required to go to school.

Various social programs are only given to the poor.

Only women are given maternity leave.

Only smart people can get into university.

I don't see anyone seriously arguing that we shouldn't design government policy to take age, income, gender, and ability/disabilities into account.

So let's be clear: what people like Iorm, and Viking, and others are saying is that government shouldn't take religion into account in designing policy.

[Iormlund]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues.  The other is freedom.  Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.

The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally.  But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start.  There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences.  The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences.  A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object.  Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.

If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.

That being said, there are some examples of reasonable exemptions for a group. A very good example was brought up in the Murdoch thread. Society benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade.

Now please point to the comparable benefits to society when religious followers or institutions are granted privileged status under the law.

[Berkut]

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

Ok, excellent start.  Now draft such a rule.  You said it would be easy.  Go for it.

You are not allowed to wear anything during a photo id which in any way obstructs the full view of the face and head.

or

You are not allowed to wear anything on the head during the photo which would make identification more difficult.

if you want something less restrictive.

All you have really done there is add subjectivity into an objective test.  You have simply changed the fight from one of accomodation alone to one of accomodation and a fight over whether a particular garment/hat falls within the law.

From a business development point of vew I wish more drafters were like you. Lots of room for litigation with those sorts of legal tests.

No, I don't think so. Nothing subjective at all there. The first one is perfectly clear - of course, it eliminates people wearing turbans and such. And the second is subjective, but pretty simply so, I don't think anyone is going to be able to legislate since it clearly places the onus of determination at the lowest possible level.

But you asked for a simple law, and you have one. I am pretty sure that a lawyer can make a case out of anything they like, including the current law. It is what your kind do. Certainly the current law is hardly objective.

[Berkut]

Or maybe we could simply be all equal under the law. I have shocking ideas, I know.

That is shocking because equality is only one of the modern political virtues.  The other is freedom.  Of which freedom to exercise one's relgious beliefs is a core value for most democracries.

The law that says all children must say the pledge of allegiance is formally objective and neutral; formally, it treats everyone equally.  But in real life, people are not all identical and equally situated to start.  There are those for whom saying the pledge violates their religious beliefs; others their consciences.  The law formally treats them equally to others who do not have any such qualms but its impact is not equal: those who approve can comply without concern; others are forced to choose between compliance and violating their consciences.  A society that values freedom as well as equality at a minimum requires that if such a law is to be permitted, it must exempt those who conscientiously object.  Even if that opens a whole can of worms about what is required to prove conscientiousness.

If a law infringes on essential freedoms then it should be ruled unconstitutional, not made to apply differently to different groups.

That being said, there are some examples of reasonable exemptions for a group. A very good example was brought up in the Murdoch thread. Society benefits greatly from having the press as a check on government, so it has deemed special protection on the exercise of that trade.

Now please point to the comparable benefits to society when religious followers or institutions are granted privileged status under the law.

It ensures that the power of the state cannot be used to restrict people from practicing their religion freely and without state interference.

This is beneficial to society because it helps to avoid religious strife, and the inevitable battles (both rehtorical and real) over deciding what religious flavor should be favored by the State.

[LaCroix]

It is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion.

then wouldn't atheism be their belief system and their mocking of religion and the accommodations made to it by law be their own particular way of demonstration? it may be for a different reason than most accepted religious gear, but who are we to judge provided it does not interfere with the purpose of the id picture?

[Iormlund]

So let's be clear: what people like Iorm, and Viking, and others are saying is that government shouldn't take religion into account in designing policy.

Not just religion. I wouldn't want the members of the Party to be above the law either.

[Berkut]

aren't you denying a belief system (stretching this a bit) in this case by attacking this "pastafarian" protest through the argument that accommodations should be made for one group but not another?

It is clear that this group was created to mock organized religion.  Or do you really think they believe a pasta strainer is a sacred object of considerable religious signficance?

What does the motivation (especially a motivation provided by someone other than the group itself, not matter how clear you think your motives for their actions might be) of the group have to do with anything?

Are private groups not allowed to mock religion in your country?

[The Brain]

I'll try to walk you through it.

If you limit your rules to ensuring what's actually important for the photo to serve its purpose as an aid to identification then any religious objection can be met with "sorry take it or leave it, we find it reasonable to demand ID photos on driver's licenses".

Ok, excellent start.  Now draft such a rule.  You said it would be easy.  Go for it.

I'm not sure why but here goes.

Earlier today I looked at the Swedish rules (inspired by CC, couldn't find them in English weirdly enough, much else on government sites is available in English):

http://www.korkortsportalen.se/jag-har-korkort/fornyelse/fotoanvisningar/

•

Fotot lämnas i ett exemplar och ska vara välliknande.
•Ansiktet ska vara avbildat rakt framifrån med hela ansiktet synligt.
•Båda ögonen ska vara helt synliga och pupillerna ska synas tydligt. Blicken ska vara riktad mot kameran.
•Fotografiet ska ha god skärpa. Skärpan ska ligga i pupillen. Reflexer får inte synas i glasögon.
•Du får inte ha mörka eller färgade glasögon.*
•Du får inte ha någon huvudbonad eller liknande.*
•Ansiktet ska vara jämnt belyst och bakgrunden ska vara ljus och utan skuggor.
•Hela huvudet ska vara synligt, inte bara ansiktet.
•Avståndet mellan pupill och hakspets ska vara 14-17 mm.
•Fotografiet ska vara renskuret 35 mm brett, 45 mm högt och ha runda eller skarpa hörn.
•Både svartvita foton och färgfoton är godkända. På det färdiga körkortet kommer dock fotografiet att återges i svartvitt även om färgfoto lämnats.

For those who don't understand Swedish, don't worry. The points of special interest are the ones marked with an "*" (they are in the original). One is a ban on dark or tinted glasses and the other is a ban on headgear or similar. The asterisks indicate that these points can be waived for special reasons (such as religions etc even though no reasons are mentioned explicitly). The other points are basic "the whole face, even light, in focus, look at the birdie blah blah" stuff. The * points are in fact unnecessary since wearing dark or tinted glasses would obscure the face and/or pupil (which would violate other points) and headgear that doesn't obscure any part of the head doesn't violate any other points and should as far as I can make out be OK for ID purposes (I am not in law enforcement or ID technology), and headgear that does obscure any part of the head is already covered by a separate point that you have to see the whole head. If you just remove the * points you're off to a good start.

You see that the rules as written do not allow headgear that obscures any part of the head (the whole head has to be visible according to point 4 from the bottom, no "*" indicating exceptions) but I am not 100% sure that this is the case in practice, my guess is that for instance turbans are OK in practice but I don't know this. It seems not unlikely to me that a small part of the head could be obscured and the photo could still be OK from a technical identification perspective, but I am not a specialist. It is possible that the point was written to avoid photos where the actual edge of the photo cuts off parts of the head, and not about parts of the head being obscured by physical objects like hats.

In short, writing rules that focus on what is necessary for ID purposes seems to me to be trivial compared to the main discussion, and not extremely interesting. Obviously for exact final details you need to involve experts.

[dps]

Only women are given maternity leave.

Only smart people can get into university.

Those 2 aren't true in the states.

Well, technically, only women are given maternity leave, but new fathers are legally allowed to take up to 12 weeks of paternity leave as well if they choose to do so.  But since, in most places of employment, both maternity and paternity leave is unpaid, few fathers take any paternity leave (and unless there is a good medical reason to take that much time, most mothers don't take the 12 weeks of maternity leave they are legally entitled to, either--most take about 6 weeks).