Part of this post contains information gathered via Ennis' post at Sepia Mutiny.
Is this the first time that a US state has attempted to ban religious head gear from official identity photos? One Oklahoma law maker has added a requirement in a state bill which if passed will make it unlawful to have one's driver's license picture taken wearing hats, turbans, head scarves and even eye glasses.
The proposed bill (House Bill No. 1645) is not just about the ban on head / face coverings – it pertains to many other issues. The requirement of a bare visage for driver's license pictures was introduced by state representative Rex Duncan. The following passage appears on page 14 of the web version of the bill.
- Hats, head scarves, head garments, bandanas, prescription or nonprescription glasses or sunglasses, masks or costumes that cover or partially cover the head or shoulders are strictly prohibited and shall not be worn by the licensee or cardholder when being photographed for a license or identification card.
I have a couple of questions:
- What about facial hair? My husband's last passport showed him without a beard. The photo was taken during a short span of time when he had shaved it off. He normally wears a beard. Is a full open face with and without a headdress more difficult to match than one with and without a beard?
- How confusing is changing hair color or style? Couldn't that pose a problem?
I do believe that Duncan actually introduced this measure specifically targeting Muslim women with hijabs. All the other accoutrements were included for a show of fairness. I guess women with hijabs are especially menacing. (How many bank robbers choose hijabs as their choice of disguise?)
A Muslim woman was asked to leave her place in line at a credit union in Southern Maryland and be served in a back room because the head scarf she wore for religious reasons violated the institution's "no hats, hoods or sunglasses" policy, the woman said yesterday.
The incident at the Navy Federal Credit Union on Saturday was the second in a month for Kenza Shelley, and Muslim advocates fear it could become a problem nationwide as many financial institutions, intent on curbing robberies and identity theft, ban hats and similar items without appropriate accommodations for religious attire.
"This may be the tip of the iceberg," said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations. "There's got to be a way to work it out so that this security concern does not lead to violations of constitutional rights." …
Tom Lyons, senior vice president for security at Navy Federal, said he was not aware of Shelley's case and could not discuss it specifically. But he defended the credit union's policy, implemented in December, saying it was designed to prevent armed robbery and identity theft. He said it would not be unreasonable for bank employees to ask customers who refused to take off their hats to move to a separate room so they could be identified.
Well okay, point taken. But do banks check for wigs?
Accidental Blogger 
3 responses to “Bare Identity”
Used to be [alter cocker voice], drivers licenses didn’t even include a photograph.
Leaving aside any First Amendment, freedom of religion implications, if the purpose is better official identification, I would think that it would be most valuable to have the driver appear as they usually do, turban, etc. and all.
One of my best friends from high school had an enormous Jew-fro when we were young that he always kept hidden under a sort of Rastafarian hat (not a great aesthetic choice, IMHO, but to each his own). He hated his hair and never took off the hat (ironically, he is now bald as Mr. Clean). For his drivers license, the state worker similarly insisted that he take off the hat– perhaps it was official or unofficial policy, or perhaps just crabby bureaucratic rigidity. My friend’s response was to do so and pluck out his hair to maximum spherical volume. The resulting photo, taken by a state worker apparently intent on capturing a “complete, accurate” picture of the subject’s face and hair, was of a giant globe of fuzz surrounding a tiny spot of a face in the lower center of the frame.
Funny stuff, and a lesson in the questionable nature of “complete, accurate” representation, no doubt.
LikeLike
Anna,
We need to hear more of the alter cocker voice.
In the case of a Sikh man (the observant among whom can have long flowing hair, especially in their youth) without his turban, a very similar thing would happen as happened to your Rasta hat wearing friend.
Sometimes silly little prejudices can get in the way of common sense. Ross Perot apparently did not allow any employee to sport facial hair. But he was a cranky, old billionaire running a private enterprise. Elected officials and state agencies should be a little more wise and less authoritarian. If they can’t force others to conform to their personal preferences, some idiots will try to use the law as a tool of humiliation. Unfortunately, with the culture of the Bush-Cheney era of illegal wire taps, intrusive airport checks and phony no-fly lists, some lawmakers got in the habit of high handedness. After all, a hijab is not a burqa!
LikeLike
Totally agree with both of you – it’s a stupid law that doesn’t make any sense if the true intent is to help with identifying people. It’s all politics – a way to drum up hate among the citizenry by attacking something foreign in their midst. It only isolates the various communities more than they already are.
LikeLike