Archive for June, 2003

Thanks to Tim for this story about a classy Nevada brothel. See what happens when politicians stop being meddling nannies and allow people to choose their own lifestyle? Best of luck to them, but they have a long way to go before they catch up with the Japanese.

Remember "Sultaana Freeman," the woman who refused to show her face for her driver’s license photo? A number of arguments have been presented in support and in opposition of her "right" to have her photo taken with her veil on. Unfortunately, since no one understands what a "right" is anymore, no one can say whether driving is in fact a right and just what freedoms the the separation of [mosque] and state clause allows. The current interpretation is that as long as your religion (a) does not pose any immediate danger to the public, and (b) is followed by a sufficient number of electorally – motivated followers, you will be free to practice whatever stupid tricks your holy book prescribes. This is of course an arbitrary doctrine without any rational or Constitutional basis. So, "Native Americans" can smoke their dope and wear their bald eagle feathers on their own time, but they can’t file for unemployment insurance if they get fired for smoking their dope at work or claim that cannot find work because Friday is their "holy-day." (Whereas Christians who observe the usual Sat-Sun holiday can.) The rest of us can’t wear feathers of smoke dope because although that passes (a), it fails (b).

All men are born with a right to life, liberty, and property — and that includes the right to practice any idiocy your particular shaman prescribes — as long as you don’t harm anyone else in the process. The right to liberty and property includes the right to own and drive a car — but it is a violation of someone else’s right to force them to pay for your roads and traffic cops. There is no right to drive on public roads for anyone, whether you are Catholic, Southern Baptist or Harry Krishna because the maintenance of a "public roads" is theft. So in deciding whether Mrs. "Sultaana Freeman" has the right to have her face hidden involves making the best of a bad (immoral to be exact) situation. The question her collectivist judge is currently asking — what her religion "really" says is completely irrelevant in the matter. The number of people who share your delusion has no bearing on its truth. The only question the judge should ask "Does wearing a veil pose a threat to the safety of others?" Since wearing a veil undermines the primary function of having an ID (and thus undermines the valid police function of maintaining safety and carrying out justice), I would say that the answer is clearly yes. On that basis, and on that basis alone, there is no "right" to conceal your identity on a public road.

Now as to why I used quotations quotations for Mrs. Sultaana Freeman’s name, it turns out that her real name is "Sandra Keller," and as the photo taken for her 1999 felony aggravated battery (of a foster child) conviction shows, she has already exposed her real face to the cops a number of times since her 1997 conversion to Islam.