Tunisia Attack

[woodbine]

Well, am not Muslim but don't think religion is stated on a passport anyway?

Doesn't need to be. A picture paints a thousand words.................

 

[noseall]

Horrendous garment.

 

[woodbine]

Worrying thing is, it's actually on a driving licence.

 

[blightymam]

Worrying thing is, it's actually on a driving licence.

Is it? Photo's like that have been proven false before.

Oh well, at least she's allowed to drive unlike in Saudi.

 

[noseall]

Is it? Photo's like that have been proven false before.

Are you saying one of the RWR's finest is posting fake stuff - again? Shock! Horror!

 

[EFLImpudence]

More fake news?

Interestingly, this article complains about this being allowed in "this State" - Illinois - while using the same picture from New Jersey.
http://toprightnews.com/alert-this-...s-wear-full-burqas-for-driver-license-photos/


...and - "she's" 6'03" ?

 

[woodbine]

Is it? Photo's like that have been proven false before.

You may well be right. Probably her brother under there. They all look the same.

 

[blightymam]

Make more sense if she's 6'3?!

 

[Judy in the sky]

Easy way to tell if it really is a Muslim woman in a burkha. Watch if (she) walks 5 yards behind (her) husband, or sits in the back of the car. If (she does) then it's safe to assume it's the real deal. If however , (she) walks beside (her) husband, or sits in the front of the car, then it's probably his mate in disguise.

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Some US states do allow full face coverings on drivers licences.

A plurality of the states either offer accommodation or are silent on face coverings in driver’s licensing procedures. Twenty-one states do not allow pictures with face covers.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf

I am not sure where this licence was supposedly issued. Two states have been mentioned by EFLI:

Illinois Policy: “A full-faced photograph must be taken without any obstruction of the applicant’s facial features or any items covering any portion of the face. Prescription glasses and religious head dressings not covering any areas of the open face may be allowed.” Source: Illinois Vehicle Code, Section 1030-90.

New Jersey Policy: “In the event a customer requests to be excused from the Law requiring an initial photo driver license because of religious convictions, you should provide him with a blank affidavit form…. When and if these executed forms are returned to your agency, be sure to review them for completion before accepting them. The affidavit form must be notarized and the attestation form [must be completed by a religious leader or minister]. If you are in doubt as to the authenticity of the attestation form, or if you wish one of our staff to review the completed forms, please contact your Regional Manager or the Agency Helpline…. In the event a customer requests his photo driver license be taken with a head covering because of religious reasons, you should provide him with a blank affidavit form…. In lieu of the notary requirement, this form may be signed by the Agent/Supervisor or his/her designated employee as witness.” The latest modifications of these instructions required clerks to contact superiors if they are presented with a request of no photo license. They also relaxed the requirement on head covering. “Customers may now be photographed with any type of head covering, provided that they first state their desire to do so. Ask the customer to remove their headgear, and if they object, due to medical or religious reasons, you may take the photo with the headgear in place.” In 2003, a memorandum reminded employees that “applicants who obtain photo driver licenses or ID cards are not required to remove religious or ethnic head and/or facial coverings. Also, the Division no longer requires that the applicants certify to the necessity of the coverings. Three weeks later another memorandum was issued disallowing the issuance of driver licenses to applicants wearing facial coverings of any kind. Source: New Jersey Department of Transportation Division of Motor Vehicle. Agency Procedures Manual, 1994 and 1997; Robert R. Grill. Memorandum, April 9, 2003 and May 28, 2003.

Evidently, New Jersey did, then did not allow photographs with full face covering, but provides for "no photo" licences, as do many others:

Several states allow for a no-photo driver’s license Thirteen states allow a no-photo driver’s license option, in deference to customers who have religious objections to being photographed.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf

Islam is not the only religion accommodated :

Most concerned citizens While coping with America’ growing diversity is a public interest, regulations specifying photo requirements for driver’s license applicants affect the following five categories of individuals most directly:
1. Christians who maintain a religious objection to being photographed;
2. Jewish and Muslim men who wear caps for religious reasons;
3. Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh women who wear head covering for religious reasons;
4. Sikh men who wear turbans for religious purposes; and
5. Muslim women who wear face veils for religious reasons.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Your claims have been robustly disproved, and, in the process, you have been shown to be an idiot,

You see how easy it is to disprove someone's claims. In the process I have completely destroyed ihatemyjob's credibility, and demonstrated their stupidity.
I provided one proof against his claim, which he questioned, so I provided a further half-dozen or so, all from the first page of a search engine. It was that easy!

Now if I make a claim, you would think someone would jump at the opportunity to disprove my claim and destroy my credibility. I would have little option but to slink away in embarrassment.
I posted a paper, which I claimed to be my own work, woody accused me of plagiarism. I asked him to provide some evidence. One would expect someone making such an accusation to jump at the opportunity to disprove my claim, thus destroying my credibility.
What happened? Woody resorted to insults instead, no attempt at providing evidence!
In contrast, woody has made two such 'fake news' claims and they been easily robustly disproved.

 

[transam]

Easy way to tell if it really is a Muslim woman in a burkha. Watch if (she) walks 5 yards behind (her) husband, or sits in the back of the car. If (she does) then it's safe to assume it's the real deal. If however , (she) walks beside (her) husband, or sits in the front of the car, then it's probably his mate in disguise.

pretty much sums it up

plus is she (?) having to carry all the shopping ??

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Easy way to tell if it really is a Muslim woman in a burkha. Watch if (she) walks 5 yards behind (her) husband,

pretty much sums it up

Oh dear, the ignorant are teaching the stupid! It is, or was, a requirement of some Judaist and Christian sects, and Japanese also

Covering Orthodox Judaism Since 2004
Women Must Walk Behind Their Husbands But Never Along Side Them, Vizhnitzer Rebbe Says
Shmarya Rosenberg

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fa...long-side-them-vizhnitzer-rebbe-says-456.html

and, with her brood, is expected to walk "ten steps behind" the man, under his religiously imperious domination.

http://www.understandingyourbible.com/submis.htm

The real meaning of “The Woman should walk 3 steps behind her husband"
There is also a saying, 女は三歩下がって (Onna was sanpo sagatte) means the woman should walk three steps behind her husband.

http://www.iromegane.com/japan/cult...woman-should-walk-3-steps-behind-her-husband/


However, maybe it is not so daft:

Barbara Walters of Television’s 20/20 did a story on gender roles in
Kabul, Afganistan, several years before the Afgan conflict. She noted
that women customarily walked 5 paces behind their husbands. She
recently returned to Kabul and observed that women still walk behind
their husbands. From Ms Walter’s vantage point, despite the overthrow
of the oppressive Taliban regime, the women now seem to walk even
further back behind their husbands and are happy to maintain the old custom.
Mr Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked, “Why do you
now seem happy with the old custom that you once tried so desperately to
change?
The woman looked Ms. Walters straight in the eyes, and without
hesitation, said, “Land mines.”

I for one will not be walking behind my husband unless window shopping (a woman’s right).

https://muslim4amonth.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/does-a-muslim-woman-have-to-walk-behind-her-husband/

At the end of the day it is seen as a chivalrous duty, for the man to walk in front, in all cultures that still practice it:

The "true" meaning of this is, when something happens, I will protect you.
If your man is walking ahead of you, he will see the danger before you. He will fight with it to protect you and you can run away while he is in the battle.

http://www.iromegane.com/japan/cult...woman-should-walk-3-steps-behind-her-husband/
In the UK it was once seen as chivalrous for men to walk on the outside of the pavement, to protect his 'lady' from any mud/water splash from passing traffic.

 

[transam]

Blimey the "ignored member" has responded or so it would appear ? sorry cannot respond to your post "want to be him again aka joe 90 (?)" because I cannot see it

probably some long winded waffle copied off the internet any way

 

[IWalkLikeHimaMartian]

Blimey the "ignored member" has responded or so it would appear ? sorry cannot respond to your post "want to be him again aka joe 90 (?)" because I cannot see it

probably some long winded waffle copied off the internet any way

No problem. As judy's sock puppet, (and she is high as kite! ) you would only understand her gibberish and fake news anyway.