Pasta Quest: DMV. Esoteric Edition.

Obliq

16. If applicants must be a member of an organised religion, how is it determined that an applicant genuinely believes all primary tenants of the religion associated with the religious headwear thus making them a genuine member of that organised religion?


This one is my favourite. I hope they answer this one...

And well done UDP

rovoagho

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

FouxDaFaFa

rovoagho wrote: »

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

Who are you to say he doesn't have religious tenants? They live in the glow of Pastafarianism and he charges them in smiles and loyalty.

What are you, a bigot?

:pac:

rovoagho

Do the tenants wear headgear, that is the question.....

robindch

UDP wrote: »

Thanks for the suggestions. I have sent my notification of action under the equal status acts 2000-2011 by registered post this morning with the following questions included:

I'd also have noted:

This post where the local authority claimed that pastafarianism isn't a belief:

Local Authority wrote:

"While it is acceptable to wear head covering in accordance with religious beliefs we do not believe that you have demonstrated that the use of head covering is related to a religious belief"

And this post in which the RSA declares that the beliefs to constitute a "religion", albeit a 'parody religion'":

RSA wrote:

However, it is not possible to accept that headgear worn in relation to a 'parody religion' can be accepted.

In this case, the RSA has admitted that the beliefs are a genuine religion, hence the local authority's grounds for refusal have been removed, so the local authority should have no problem in granting you a license with the colander in its rightful place.

BTW, it seems the story is getting some coverage:

http://www.theemptyshirt.com/2013/11/27/irish-rsa-discriminate-against-follower-of-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/

UDP - have you contacted TheJournal about this? I think it's the kind of thing they'd be quite happy to cover.

UDP

rovoagho wrote: »

They'll probably have lawyers jumping on use of tenants instead of tenets. You can hear the ah-ha! from here.

Pretty stupid mistake on my behalf. Even with something as bad as that the grammar used in their letter to me was much worse.

UDP

robindch wrote: »

I'd also have noted:

This post where the local authority claimed that pastafarianism isn't a belief:

And this post in which the RSA declares that the beliefs to constitute a "religion", albeit a 'parody religion'":

In this case, the RSA has admitted that the beliefs are a genuine religion, hence the local authority's grounds for refusal have been removed, so the local authority should have no problem in granting you a license with the colander in its rightful place.

The problem is the change to using NDLS centres.

robindch wrote: »

BTW, it seems the story is getting some coverage:

http://www.theemptyshirt.com/2013/11/27/irish-rsa-discriminate-against-follower-of-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster/

UDP - have you contacted TheJournal about this? I think it's the kind of thing they'd be quite happy to cover.

I would rather not contact anyone. I don't exactly want it all over the news if possible (probably unlikely now).

Cabaal

I think the media covering this would undermine the faithful such as UDP and this in turn could be used to the RSA's advantage should they catch wind of it.

cerastes

I presume the purpose of all this is to highlight the prejudice of deferring to mainstream/religions?

Didnt someone mention here on this thread, that in Canada? no religious intrusion on id/driving licences?
Do mainstrem religions expect or are allowed to have headgear or other religious related paraphernalia on passport photos?

Sulla Felix

cerastes wrote: »

I presume the purpose of all this is to highlight the prejudice of deferring to mainstream/religions?

Didnt someone mention here on this thread, that in Canada? no religious intrusion on id/driving licences?
Do mainstrem religions expect or are allowed to have headgear or other religious related paraphernalia on passport photos?

I can't find anything newer than 2012 to establish whether French Sikhs won the right or not. I'm pretty sure though that France is the exception, that in most of the EU they would be able to wear their headgear for official ID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16547479

recedite

UDP wrote: »

I would rather not contact anyone. I don't exactly want it all over the news if possible (probably unlikely now).

Spoken with true humility, there can be no doubt now that you are a
genuine and humble servant of His Noodly Highness, the FSM.

cerastes

Sulla Felix wrote: »

I can't find anything newer than 2012 to establish whether French Sikhs won the right or not. I'm pretty sure though that France is the exception, that in most of the EU they would be able to wear their headgear for official ID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16547479

"It says a ruling by the UN was not binding, and that France declined to issue IDs with headgear"
&
"The ruling is not legally binding"

"In 2008 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed an appeal on grounds of security. It said that whilst Shingara Singh's religious rights had been infringed, France was justified to ban the turban on the driver's licence photo because the turban posed a security risk of fraud and falsification."

While Im sympathetic that someone holds their beliefs so strongly, I dont believe they should expect the world to bend to their beliefs.
They say in the article they couldnt get medical treatment without ID, would they persist so stubbornly if it was their child, it seems they might?

where does it end?

Guyanachronism

Sorry I missed the letter but after reading this thread yesterday it got me thinking:

New licenses are being issued in line with EU directives such as DIRECTIVE 2006/126/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 December 2006 on driving licences Text

The basis being that licenses should be uniform in appearance to make it easier for the authorities dealing with free movement. As people have posted Austria and the Czech Republic have allowed people to wear a collander in their pictures, both are EU member states bound by the directive.

So a few questions:
- If a pastafarian was to travel to Ireland is there circumstances where Irish authorities would consider their driver's license invalid. (If they in most likelihood say, no the license would be valid, the reposte is well why would they refuse your picture with a collander, EU citizen are to be treated equally otherwise it's a barrier to free movement.)
- From their interpretation of the relevant directives is issuing a license with you wearing your religious head gear in contravention of any standards for drivers licenses set by the EU.
- Why is pastafarian headgear acceptable in Austria and the Czech Republic but not Ireland, or something like that, basically call into question the differing standards.

It would be great to see this go to the ECJ and I would say the ECJ would rule in favour of pastafaraians but with a very technical ruling that because collanders don't obscure ones face that it's fine and not touch the issue of religion.

I would really take issue with them using parody as a basis for rejection. Parody is a legitimate form of freedom of expression. Even if you admit the religion is a bit of a joke, it doesn't remove your right to freedom of expression. The current mayor of Reykjavík comes from a parody political party, should his candidancy have been rejected becaue it was initially a joke.

robindch

^^^ Good thinking.

Sulla Felix

cerastes wrote: »

"It says a ruling by the UN was not binding, and that France declined to issue IDs with headgear"
&
"The ruling is not legally binding"

"In 2008 the European Court of Human Rights dismissed an appeal on grounds of security. It said that whilst Shingara Singh's religious rights had been infringed, France was justified to ban the turban on the driver's licence photo because the turban posed a security risk of fraud and falsification."

While Im sympathetic that someone holds their beliefs so strongly, I dont believe they should expect the world to bend to their beliefs.
They say in the article they couldnt get medical treatment without ID, would they persist so stubbornly if it was their child, it seems they might?

where does it end?

Oh, I don't either, I was just providing the result of a google search on the question asked. :P

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Sorry I missed the letter but after reading this thread yesterday it got me thinking:

New licenses are being issued in line with EU directives such as DIRECTIVE 2006/126/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 20 December 2006 on driving licences Text

The basis being that licenses should be uniform in appearance to make it easier for the authorities dealing with free movement. As people have posted Austria and the Czech Republic have allowed people to wear a collander in their pictures, both are EU member states bound by the directive.

So a few questions:
- If a pastafarian was to travel to Ireland is there circumstances where Irish authorities would consider their driver's license invalid. (If they in most likelihood say, no the license would be valid, the reposte is well why would they refuse your picture with a collander, EU citizen are to be treated equally otherwise it's a barrier to free movement.)
- From their interpretation of the relevant directives is issuing a license with you wearing your religious head gear in contravention of any standards for drivers licenses set by the EU.
- Why is pastafarian headgear acceptable in Austria and the Czech Republic but not Ireland, or something like that, basically call into question the differing standards.

It would be great to see this go to the ECJ and I would say the ECJ would rule in favour of pastafaraians but with a very technical ruling that because collanders don't obscure ones face that it's fine and not touch the issue of religion.

I would really take issue with them using parody as a basis for rejection. Parody is a legitimate form of freedom of expression. Even if you admit the religion is a bit of a joke, it doesn't remove your right to freedom of expression. The current mayor of Reykjavík comes from a parody political party, should his candidancy have been rejected becaue it was initially a joke.

I wish I could thank this twice. Very, very good thinking.

MrPudding

Guyanachronism wrote: »

So a few questions:
- If a pastafarian was to travel to Ireland is there circumstances where Irish authorities would consider their driver's license invalid. (If they in most likelihood say, no the license would be valid, the reposte is well why would they refuse your picture with a collander, EU citizen are to be treated equally otherwise it's a barrier to free movement.)

There is a principle of mutual recognition within the EU. This can be seen in a number of areas and basically means is something is good enough, legally, for one state, then it should be good enough for the other states.

This mutual recognition would apply to driving licences, it is covered in Article 2, section 1 of the document you have linked to. And yes, this does have the potential for a state to recognise something as valid which it would deny its own citizens.

Guyanachronism wrote: »

- From their interpretation of the relevant directives is issuing a license with you wearing your religious head gear in contravention of any standards for drivers licenses set by the EU.
- Why is pastafarian headgear acceptable in Austria and the Czech Republic but not Ireland, or something like that, basically call into question the differing standards.

I only had a quick glance at the directive, but I can't see anything relating to the the standards that should apply to the picture. This would mean, presumably, that setting the requirements for what is acceptable, in terms of the picture on the licence, falls within the state's margin of appreciation. That is to say, each individual state is entitled to decide the rules relating to pictures on driving licences that it issues.

What they can't do, however, is decide that a licence which has been properly issued in another state is invalid because the picture, whilst complying with the rules in the issuing state, does not comply with their rules.

MrP

Guyanachronism

MrPudding wrote: »

There is a principle of mutual recognition within the EU. This can be seen in a number of areas and basically means is something is good enough, legally, for one state, then it should be good enough for the other states.

This mutual recognition would apply to driving licences, it is covered in Article 2, section 1 of the document you have linked to. And yes, this does have the potential for a state to recognise something as valid which it would deny its own citizens.

I only had a quick glance at the directive, but I can't see anything relating to the the standards that should apply to the picture. This would mean, presumably, that setting the requirements for what is acceptable, in terms of the picture on the licence, falls within the state's margin of appreciation. That is to say, each individual state is entitled to decide the rules relating to pictures on driving licences that it issues.

What they can't do, however, is decide that a licence which has been properly issued in another state is invalid because the picture, whilst complying with the rules in the issuing state, does not comply with their rules.

MrP

The EU angle is by no means a KO, but it would force RSA to rule out a lot of excuses and possibly put them in an awkard position.

It's also a case of precedent, I can't see the RSA risking an incident by calling into question Austria and Czech standards. If Austria and Czech Rep as well as Poland actually. believe that a colander doesn't compromise the picture, how are they wrong and the RSA right? Otherwise the RSA must come up with another excuse or issue the license.

runawaybishop

Guyanachronism wrote: »

Otherwise the RSA must come up with another excuse or issue the license.

Or they choose option 3: ignore

MrPudding

Guyanachronism wrote: »

The EU angle is by no means a KO, but it would force RSA to rule out a lot of excuses and possibly put them in an awkard position.

It's also a case of precedent, I can't see the RSA risking an incident by calling into question Austria and Czech standards. If Austria and Czech Rep as well as Poland actually. believe that a colander doesn't compromise the picture, how are they wrong and the RSA right? Otherwise the RSA must come up with another excuse or issue the license.

I see no conflict between the EU directive and the RSA's position. Each state has considerable room to decide what is acceptable or not to them. This is not a question of the RSA saying the other states have got it wrong. Each state is free to make its own decision. That the RSA, or whoever, has decided that for licences issued this state a picture with a colander is not acceptable says absolutely nothing about the validity, or otherwise, of a license issued in a state where it is allowed. Further, just because Ireland won't issue a license with such a picture does not mean they won't recognise a license from a state that does allow it.

As I tried to say in my previous post, but clearly didn't, the state can, and obviously does, recognise a license as valid even though it would not issue that license itself. All it concerns itself with is that it was properly issued and it is valid as per the regulations of the state that issued it. Mutual recognition takes cRe of the rest.

This is not about one state being right and a other being wrong. It is about each state being able to set its own standards.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not about one state being right and a other being wrong. It is about each state being able to set its own standards.

Yes, but the EU is all about setting common standards. So not a KO as was said, but you have the RSA on the back foot on the issue.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Yes, but the EU is all about setting common standards. So not a KO as was said, but you have the RSA on the back foot on the issue.

No, it does not put the RSA on the back foot. The EU stuff is not relevant to this issue. Have you looked at the Directive that was linked to? It says nothing about the photographs to be used on the license. Most of the directive concerns itself with standards of training and testing. With respect to the license itself it sets out a standard style of license, along with anti-forgery technology and a few other bits and pieces. It says nothing about the photo other than the license should have one.

There is no KO here, there isn't even a girly jab or a slightly embarrassing slap. I really don't see how it is relevant. If the RSA decided that the Austrian guy's license was invalid then there would be an issue, because they would be breaching the requirements of mutual recognition, but there is no evidence being presented that they would find such a license invalid.

Of course I may be missing something, which has been known to happen, so perhaps you could explain to me why this puts the RSA on the back foot.

MrP

Days 298

How about this? Or is the constitution only dusted off to prevent abortions nowadays?

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice
of religion are, subject to public order and morality,
guaranteed to every citizen.

[every citizen has the right, it says no where that the citizens practices must be part of a large group or mainstream religion and I dont see how traditional pastafarian headgear in an ID is a threat to public order and morality]

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make
any discrimination on the ground of religious profession,
belief or status.

[RSA a state body wont issue a practicing pastafarian a driving licence impeding their ability to travel]

MrPudding

Days 298 wrote: »

How about this? Or is the constitution only dusted off to prevent abortions nowadays?

2. 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice
of religion are, subject to public order and morality,
guaranteed to every citizen.

[every citizen has the right, it says no where that the citizens practices must be part of a large group or mainstream religion and I dont see how traditional pastafarian headgear in an ID is a threat to public order and morality]

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make
any discrimination on the ground of religious profession,
belief or status.

[RSA a state body wont issue a practicing pastafarian a driving licence impeding their ability to travel]

I am not sure it even needs to go this far. The regulations allow for something to be worn on the head when it is part of a genuinely held relgious belief. That much is prety clear. It will be interesting to see what the response is to the 16 questions UDP has asked. I expect the application was dismissed a some kind of a joke, certainly the repsonse did not appear to be partiuclarly well thought out and may well be an individuals respons rather than the position of the RSA. They may try to brazen it out, but the law is on UDPs side on this, even before bringing in any (possibly) relevent constitutional arguments.

In an extremely nerdy way I find this very interesting.

MrP

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

so perhaps you could explain to me why this puts the RSA on the back foot.MrP

As a general principle, the EU is moving towards standard formats in passports, driving licences etc..
If some countries have already validated new pastafarian style photos under the same EU legislation, whatever it is, that does not necessarily mean Ireland has to follow suit, but there would be an implication that the Austrians etc. are not going about this the right way if we deliberately choose to interpret the same rules differently. If the RSA are going to push their own interpretation, then they should be prepared to produce good reasons for it.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

As a general principle, the EU is moving towards standard formats in passports, driving licences etc..
If some countries have already validated new pastafarian style photos under the same EU legislation, whatever it is, that does not necessarily mean Ireland has to follow suit, but there would be an implication that the Austrians etc. are not going about this the right way if we deliberately choose to interpret the same rules differently. If the RSA are going to push their own interpretation, then they should be prepared to produce good reasons for it.

I know that the EU is trying to standardise things in a lot of areas, but I really think you have this wrong here. Have you read the directive that was linked to by Guyanachronism?

I have already explained a couple of time here, the EU has said nothing about standardising the photos. No one is interpreting anything here. There is no "pastafarian style photos" being validated under any EU legislation. The EU legislation set out standards for what the licence should look like, from a layout and colour perspective. It also gives details about anti-forgery technology that should be implemented as well as RFID technology that can be implemented. No where in the EU legislation does it set out standards for the photos themselves. Austria, by allowing pictures of driver with colanders, has not interpreted the EU legislation as allowing this. There is nothing in the EU legislation that speaks about this. Austria has decided that a person holding pastafarian beliefs is entitles to wear the headdress associated with those beliefs. They have done this on the basis of an interpretation of their own legislation, which, given the silence of the EU legislation on that particular subject, they are perfectly entitled to do.

Further, any state would appear to be entitled to decide what, in their view, constitutes a valid photo, for the purposes of being used on a driving licence. They will make this decision based on their interpretation of their own law in this area. So we are in a position where the RSA may refuse to allow an Irish pastafarian to wear a colander in his driving licence picture, and there is nothing in the posted directive that says they can't, but at the same time the RSA must accept, as valid, the driving licence of a pastafarian wearing a colander on his head which was issued in another EU state where such pictures are allowed.

If the colander on the head is going to be challenged it is not going to be by way of this EU legislation trying to standardise driving licences, simply because there is nothing there of any use. Irish legislation already gives a person the right to wear items of clothing related to their genuinely held religious belief on their driving licence photo, it is this legislation that must be used to challenge the refusal to allow such pictures.

MrP

Pantech

MrPudding wrote: »

If the colander on the head is going to be challenged it is not going to be by way of this EU legislation trying to standardise driving licences, simply because there is nothing there of any use. Irish legislation already gives a person the right to wear items of clothing related to their genuinely held religious belief on their driving licence photo, it is this legislation that must be used to challenge the refusal to allow such pictures.

MrP

Words cannot describe how much I love this thread!

Personally, I'd prefer to see this succeed for the reason outlined by MrP above - that if they allow religious headgear, they can't pick and choose which religious headgear, so the absurity of this can be pointed out by insisting on wearing a pasta strainer.

If this is only allowed on a technicality such as it was allowed in another EU country and therefore must then be allowed in Ireland, it doesn't really address the key issue. It also gives the authorities here an "out", in that they can then throw their hands up and say it was only allowed because of the EU, rather than it being a perfectly valid point on it's own.

John

recedite

MrPudding wrote: »

I know that the EU is trying to standardise things in a lot of areas, but I really think you have this wrong here. Have you read the directive that was linked to by Guyanachronism?

I read over it, yes. Nobody is saying the EU legislation will force Ireland to allow the colander to be worn. The best way to put this is that the EU would "like" to see member states using the same rules, but on the other hand there are certain areas which the EU tends to stays out of as much as possible, including matters concerning religion. There are no EU rules as regards what is allowed in the photo, as yet.
At the same time Ireland "likes" to be seen as a member state that conforms to any EU standards and is an early adopter of same. We were not required to change our signposts from miles to Km, or to join the euro currency, but we did those things.
Anyway, there is an aspiration stated in the EU directive;

EU wrote:

(3) The possibility of laying down national provisions with regard to the period of validity provided for in Directive 91/439/EEC leads to the co-existence of different rules in different Member States and over 110 different models of driving licences valid in the Member States. This creates problems of transparency for citizens, police forces and the administrations responsible for the administration of driving licences and leads to the falsification of documents which sometimes date back several decades.
(4) In order to prevent the single European driving licence model from becoming an additional model to the 110 already in circulation, Member States should take all necessary measures to issue this single model to all licence holders.

If there are versions of this "single model licence" being carried by other EU nationals which allow the wearing of the colander it puts the RSA on the defensive, or "on the back foot" to some extent if they wish to make their rules different. That's all it is, but I agree they are not actually in breach of any EU legislation.

MrPudding wrote: »

Irish legislation already gives a person the right to wear items of clothing related to their genuinely held religious belief on their driving licence photo, it is this legislation that must be used to challenge the refusal to allow such pictures.

Well, lets look at that then.
Here's the the current statutary instrument (ie. "the law")
There are two parts to it. The first part is the main text which is a copy and paste job of the EU directive we discussed above. This is how the directive is officially "transposed" into Irish law.
The second part is a graphic of the current driving licence application forms and their guidance notes. This means that whatever instructions are given in the forms themselves, also constitute the law.

Re photographs, the form says; "Head coverings, other than for religious reasons are not allowed"
It also says you should refer to the dept. of foreign affairs website and check whatever guidelines apply to passport photos, as they also apply here.
So we have an additional derogation given now for headgear; on "medical grounds".
"Don’t wear a head covering unless it’s for religious or medical
reasons"

However I don't see anything referring specifically to "genuinely held religious belief" or anything that obliges anyone in the Road Safety Authority/National Driving Licence Service to make a value judgement on an applicant's stated religious beliefs. This could end up being the crux of the matter. Who can really say whether any other person really believes in their stated religion?
Or whether one religion is always real, and another always a parody?

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

I read over it, yes. Nobody is saying the EU legislation will force Ireland to allow the colander to be worn. The best way to put this is that the EU would "like" to see member states using the same rules, but on the other hand there are certain areas which the EU tends to stays out of as much as possible, including matters concerning religion. There are no EU rules as regards what is allowed in the photo, as yet.

I really can't see what the problem is here... If the EU wanted the states to use the same rules for photographs in the new licences they would have said so in the directive. There is no "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean..." By not specifying any rules on the photographs they are allowing the individual states to decide what constitutes a valid photograph for them, as the issuing authority for their own licences.

You are just making stuff up here. You can't read meaning into a directive that simply isn't there.

recedite wrote: »

At the same time Ireland "likes" to be seen as a member state that conforms to any EU standards and is an early adopter of same. We were not required to change our signposts from miles to Km, or to join the euro currency, but we did those things.

Yes, and the Irish driving license complies completely wih the standards laid down in the directive. To say that they don't requires you to read something into the directive that isn't there.

recedite wrote: »

Anyway, there is an aspiration stated in the EU directive;
If there are versions of this "single model licence" being carried by other EU nationals which allow the wearing of the colander it puts the RSA on the defensive, or "on the back foot" to some extent if they wish to make their rules different. That's all it is, but I agree they are not actually in breach of any EU legislation.

I really don't see how they are put on the defensive or the back foot. If the states are free to develop their own rules regarding what is and is not allowed on their photographs then what is the problem with them doing it?

If a state decided they they did not allow any religious headdress on their photos would that put the RSA on the defensive or on the backfoot?

Put it another way, let's imagine UDP gets refused and decides to take it all the way. First he will appeal to the RSA. If that does not work he will perhaps seek a judicial review. If that does not work he wil work his way up the court system until he reached the Supreme Court. What is he going to argue at each level? Is he going to argue that Ireland is breaching a directive on driving licenses? No. He can't because they aren't. Is he going to argue that Austria allow it? No, because it isn't relevent to his case, he isn't an Austrian trying to get an Austrian licence. He is going to argue that headware is allowed for religious reasons, he wears a collander for religious reasons and by allowing headware for some religious people, but not him, he is being discriminated against.

If he has no joy in the Supreme Court he may even go to Europe. But again, what will be argue here? Not that a direcive on driving license standards has been breached, but that his relious freedom has been breached.

recedite wrote: »

Well, lets look at that then.
Here's the the current statutary instrument (ie. "the law")
There are two parts to it. The first part is the main text which is a copy and paste job of the EU directive we discussed above. This is how the directive is officially "transposed" into Irish law.

Not sure if you are being critical of this approach or merely pointing out how it is, if you are being critical, this is a fairly common way of tranposing EU law into domestic law, and Ireland would not be alone in doing this. If you were merely pointing it out, sorry.

recedite wrote: »

The second part is a graphic of the current driving licence application forms and their guidance notes. This means that whatever instructions are given in the forms themselves, also constitute the law.

Re photographs, the form says; "Head coverings, other than for religious reasons are not allowed"
It also says you should refer to the dept. of foreign affairs website and check whatever guidelines apply to passport photos, as they also apply here.
So we have an additional derogation given now for headgear; on "medical grounds".
"Don’t wear a head covering unless it’s for religious or medical
reasons"

However I don't see anything referring specifically to "genuinely held religious belief" or anything that obliges anyone in the Road Safety Authority/National Driving Licence Service to make a value judgement on an applicant's stated religious beliefs. This could end up being the crux of the matter. Who can really say whether any other person really believes in their stated religion?
Or whether one religion is always real, and another always a parody?

So the "genuinely held religious belief" is a phrase that tends to be used in cases related to religious freedom. As I am sure you are aware, laws are typically not very precise, and even where they appear to be, there tends to be some interpretation.

In the UK there has been a rash of religious freedom cases, and in most of them you will find religious belief has been interpreted as meaning genuinely held religious belief.

Perhaps I should not have used thsat term in relation to Irish legislation, as I don't know if religious belief has been interpreted that way, but it does not seem unreasonable to suspect it will be. And whilst the courts will try to avoid it where possible, they do occasionally have to determine if a belief is genuinely held. This is a question that will be answered the same as any other question judges have to answer, on the basis of the evidence laid out before them.

That said, whilst I don't agree with pretty much all you have said, as it does not seem to have any basis in law, I do agree that a person in the RSA making a judgement call, that they are not really in a position to make, is very likely to be the crux of the matter.

MrP

recedite

I'm not at all critical of the copy and paste method of transposing EU law. There is no other way to replicate a directive throughout the EU.
I'm merely trying to clarify and narrow down what exactly "the law" says on the matter of religious headgear in photos, and pin down where exactly the difference arises between between Ireland and, say, Austria. Or if there is any actual difference at all.
As the transposed first part is identical throughout the EU, it can only occur in the second part, which is the application form.

MrPudding wrote: »

Perhaps I should not have used that term in relation to Irish legislation, as I don't know if religious belief has been interpreted that way, but it does not seem unreasonable to suspect it will be.

"Genuinely held" may well come to be a valid interpretation here, as a result of a hypothetical Supreme Court case, or the UK could be turn out to be equally (ir)relevant as Austria, in terms of precedent.
Either way, it is not for some minor official in the NDLS to infer some new interpretation of the law when that particular wording is not expressly written in the statute.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

. . . If a state decided they they did not allow any religious headdress on their photos would that put the RSA on the defensive or on the backfoot?

FWIW, I believe this is the position in France. A Sikh, refused permission to wear his turban in his driving licence photograph, appealed the position through the French courts and all the way to the ECHR. He lost.

recedite wrote: »

"Genuinely held" may well come to be a valid interpretation here, as a result of a hypothetical Supreme Court case, or the UK could be turn out to be equally (ir)relevant as Austria, in terms of precedent.
Either way, it is not for some minor official in the NDLS to infer some new interpretation of the law when that particular wording is not expressly written in the statute.

Actually, it is for the NDLS officials to interpret the law. They have to, in order to apply it, and it’s their job to apply it. If they’re in any doubt as to what it means, in they can do things like take legal advice (the State Solicitor’s Office does quite a bit of this advisory work) or, in an extreme case, apply to court for directions. Mostly they resolve the matter without applying to court, though, and if a citizen is unhappy with their interpretation of the law, then the citizen can take it to court.

For what it’s worth, I think there’s a bit of a question mark over legislating for the standards for driver’s licence photographs by scheduling an application form which contains notes on the subject. The substantial regulations deal with this in reg. 53 and, apart from explicit requirements about signature on the back and about dimensions, the question of whether the photographs “provide an adequate facial likeness of the applicant for identification purposes” is a matter for “the opinion of the licensing authority to whom the application is made”. I think if the Minister wants to take away that discretion from the licensing authority and replace it with concrete requirements about not having headgear, white background, etc, then the proper way to do that is to amend reg. 53. As matters stand, I think there’s a conflict between the express language of reg. 53, and the notes to the scheduled applications forms. And I think there’s a sporting chance that the courts will hold that reg. 53 prevails.

But leave that aside for a moment. Let’s assume that the courts do accept that the notes to the scheduled forms are effective to legislate standards for photographs. The legislated standard is that “head coverings, other than for religious reasons are not acceptable”. There’s a punctuation error, but nothing turns on that, I think. You can either challenge this by saying that an exception for religious reasons is impermissible, but I see no likelihood that the challenge will succeed, either on Irish or EU law grounds. Or you can argue that your wearing of a colander is indeed for religious reasons.

That’s a matter of fact, and your evidence about your reasons for wearing the colander will carry a lot of weight. The thing is, are you prepared to perjure yourself? (By “you” I mean you, the hypothetical applicant, and not you, recedite.) To succeed you will have to say that you do feel a religious obligation to wear a colander, analagous to the obligation a Jewish man feels to wear a kippah or a Sikh man feels to wear a turban. Is this in fact true, and if it’s not are you prepared to lie? If you say that your reason for wearing the colander is to satirise religion, and/or to protest about accommodations and exceptions in secular law for religious sensibilities, you will not succeed; those are political reasons for wearing a colander, not religious. Plus, even if you do say what is needed, if the court doesn’t accept it you will still lose. You will be cross-examined about your claim to feel a religious obligation, asked to explain the basis of this, asked to show that you systematically wear a colander in going about your daily life, and asked to point to the religious community which observes this practice, so to lie convincingly will not be easy.

I think a much stronger case is the one I pointed to first; argue that the notes on the form do not override reg. 53 and argue that the licensing authority cannnot reject your photograph unless they are of the opinion that the colander prevents the photograph from being an adequate facial likeness. Wear the colander tilted back at a stylishly rakish angle so that neither it nor its shadow obscures any part of your face or ears.