Religious exemption from having photo on gun license? Really?

I couldn't quite believe this. Is this actually for real or are Rebel just making it up?
So if I'm understanding this correctly, in Canada, a male Islamic terrorist can simply get a license,
walk into a gun store wearing a burka and use his wife's details to purchase a gun?
Oh ****ing hell. Surely not. Why is this not a bigger story?
<< MODERATOR EDIT: BYPASS PROFANITY FILTER >>

 

Doesn't concern me what the Canadians do. It's their country, they have the right to do what they want.

 

Don’t know if they made it up or are just ignorant but it’s one of the two.

It seems it is true that Canada has scope for religious exemptions for photos on gun (and driving) licences but it has existed for a long time and was primarily introduced for Hutterites (a Christian sect) rather than Muslims. It’s also worth noting that there is no general rule in Islam against being photographed so I doubt Muslims would be able to meet the criteria and the Canadian rule is photo or no photo so the idea of photos of Muslim women in burkas because of this is a fantasy.

https://thegunblog.ca/2017/05/25/rcmp-says-1182-gun-licences-dont-have-photos-ccfr-reports/

 

Ok then, a Hutterite can simply get a license, walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

Well the Rebel reporter in the video posed as a Muslim woman and the official talking to her said that she can get an ID without a photo. So it sounds to me that Muslims WOULD in fact meet the criteria. The question really is, why have photo's at all? What purpose do they serve? They can't be all that important if some people are exempt.

Now that I think about it, I can't really see what purpose it really achieves, but there shouldn't be exemptions. Whatever happened to equality?

How is that a rule? Isn't that just the two options?

The idea would be that they wouldn't be photographed at all, not photographed in their burkas.

 

The official simply told her what the rules are, nothing specifically relating to Muslims. An application of any religion would still need to get the formal statement from a religious leader stating the religious restriction on having their photo taken. There is no such general rule in Islam. There could well be some Islamic sects where they would seek the exemption, just as there clearly is within Christianity and probably is in other faiths. The point remains that there is nothing specific about Muslims here and the video seemed to make an intentional effort to suggest there is.

I don’t think there should be religious exemptions either. I do think it’s interesting how such exemptions can be created with Christians or Jews in mind and exist for a long time without anyone complaining but as soon as anyone brings up Muslims (even falsely), it’s a huge controversy. If someone had made a similar video objecting to the exemption but without mentioning Muslims, they’d probably be condemned for attacking religious freedom.

 

Yeah, okay, I was wrong there. She only told the official that she is a "fully veiled woman" which I can't think of applying to anyone other than Muslim women, but still the official was just explaining the rules, with no specific religion in mind.

The problem with this is that it would be very easy to forge one of these. Even if it was done by a legitimate religious leader, the leader could simply lie for the person saying that their religion requires them to not have their photo taken. Anyway, the more I think about it, the more I can't really see the advantage in having a photoless ID (for someone intending on an attack) and also can't see the advantage to the government by having photo inclusive ID's. In both cases, people can get a license and then buy a gun and kill people if they want. The only thing I can think of is a well known, recognised criminal who gun shops have a photo of so they can look out for them and refuse custom to. Theoretically, this criminal could be veiled when purchasing. Although, perhaps some gun stores require visual ID of customers prior to sale.

There are some Christian sects which would seek this exemption? Who are they? I'm a practicing Christian myself!

Exemptions such as?

As a practicing Christian, I can safely say that I would oppose any religious exemptions which would apply to Christians but I just can't think of any, but I'm looking forward to what you might inform me about. I live in Australia, but perhaps there are in fact such exemptions in your country and I'd be interested in hearing about them. What country?

 

I don’t know. The rules say the religious leader has to have authority to solemnise weddings which suggests there could be some kind of formal cross check. I also expect this would be a very rare case, especially for someone who wasn’t Hutterite, so would be checked manually rather than just going through some automated process.

Like any form of ID, it’s about confirming that the individual is the one the ID relates to. Without a photo, it would be easier for someone who isn’t legally permitted to buy firearms for whatever reason to use stolen or borrowed ID for example. It won’t make a huge difference on its own, it’s just one aspect of the wider system and why pretty much all significant forms of personal ID include a photo.

We’ve already established that this exception was implemented for the small Hutterite Christian sect in Canada, who apparently have specific religious principles against being photographed.

Anti-discrimination laws for religious organisations, employee rights to refuse to perform certain job roles for religious reasons, favourable tax rules for religious organisations, curriculum requirements for state-funded religious schools. I’m in the UK but I’d be surprised if at least some of these don’t exist in Australia too. Note that I’m not automatically objecting to any of these, I’m just pointing out that most of the were established with established religions (primarily Christians and Jews) in mind and some people only raise objections when they apply to (or are perceived to apply to) Muslims as well. It’s the double standard of wanting the exceptions for themselves but objecting when people they don’t like get to make use of them too.

 

Yeah of course that's the obvious reason behind photo ID, but I just didn't think it was relevant to buying guns. If someone stole or borrowed an ID with no photo and tried to buy a gun, I don't suspect there would be many gun shops that would sell to someone without wanting some other ID to corroborate other details such as address. The problem is when it comes to fully veiled muslims. While there is no general rule in Islam against being photographed, there is a very strict rule about woman having to cover their face. So what would be the purpose of a photo of a covered face? So I'm sure that the photo exemption would be extended to them on the basis that there is no face to be photographed. And there in lies the danger.

Sorry, yes you did mention that.

Oh yes, of course we do. These are institutional exemptions but I was thinking about personal exemptions.

 

If that’s the case, not having a photo shouldn’t be an issue regardless of who the card-holder is. Hutterite, Muslim or someone, it else doesn’t make any difference.

There isn’t “a very strict rule about woman having to cover their face” in Islam. That why most Muslim women, especially in the west, don’t (a number will cover their hair but not the face). A subset of Muslim women will be completely veiled in public and a subset of them wouldn’t submit to being photographed for forms of ID like this (of course, a subset of those wouldn’t have the independence to be buying their own firearms anyway ).

In the unlikely situation of such a Muslim woman being granted a gun licence without a photo under this exemption though, wouldn’t we be in exactly the situation you described above? The wider licencing process will have already established that individual is OK to have firearms and gun stores will do whatever is necessary to validate that a customer is indeed the person on the card (they probably have a legal responsibility to do so). My basic point stands – there’s no greater risk if this existing exemption is used by (some) Muslims than when it is used by (some) Christians.

I wasn’t though, and it was my point the examples were backing up. The point was that we’ve long had all sorts of special considerations labelled as “religious” but in practice intended for Christians (and sometimes Jews) and there are a lot of people who don’t object to them, even support them when their challenged on general principles but then vocally object if there is any suggestion of the same rules applying to Muslims. This video is a classic example of that phenomena (or possibly the knowing used of the phenomena to get hits).

 

I read they just gave millions of dollars to a terrorist for being in guantanamo.

Odd decision that one.

 

At least he was a citizen of Canada and his rights had clearly been violated. The illegal alien who was payed $190,000 by the city of San Francisco on the other hand is a very different story! The US is a joke! I really don't know what I'm going to hear next!

 

Yeah agreed, if it is the case. The problem would only arise with people with a covered face, as unlikely as it may be, as it would be impossible to verify from other ID, as none of them will have a photo either. I'm only assuming that the photo exemption applies to drivers license too. I'm not sure how someone who can't have their photo taken can EVER properly prove their identity. It would be a difficult task.

Yeah of course. Although I don't think there would be a subset of fully veiled women who WOULD submit to being photographed, it would surely apply to all.

Ah, but a man who is using a woman's ID on the other hand!

Sure, if the gun store has a policy of doing other verification. We don't know if this is done by 100% of them, if its a legal obligation or if it is purely left to individual discretion. I doubt that it is the later though.

If it is the case that some gun stores would allow sale from just seeing a photoless ID, then I would have to disagree with you. If a muslim man successfully purchased a gun with someone else's ID and a Christian man did the same, who do you suppose is the more likely to use it in an attack? I'm sorry, but the statistics speak for themselves and I can't remember the last time a Christian walked into a nightclub killing 49 people. I swear its never happened.

 

You’re conflating two separate issues. If someone is veiled, it wouldn’t make any difference whether their ID has a photo or not. IDs with no photo is the issue in question here. Religious (or indeed other) mandatory face coverings is another.

Then you’d be wrong. Islam can be as diverse, complex and frankly, logically inconsistent, as any other religion.

Then maybe you (and for that matter the people who made the video) should be doing a little more research before leaping to conclusions?

Given that the vast majority of Muslims pose no threat of violence and some Christians people do (it’s not as if it matters whether it’s religiously motivated or not), the difference between the chances of a random Muslim and a random Christian posing a threat is statistically insignificant. Statistics speak for themselves, ignorant misinterpretation of statistics speak for the persons interpreting them.

 

And you know this just how?

 

Lol @ the Original post

Muslim Terrorists are getting Firearms licenses in order to commit crimes and acts of Terrorism ?

That is chocolate cake Rich !

 

You didn't say how the difference between the chances of a random Muslim and a random
Christian posing a threat is statistically insignificant. And it looks like you think that there IS a difference.

 

Well I didn't say that, but its theoretically possible.

 

Because we're talking about populations counted on the scale of millions and dangerous individuals numbering in the tens or hundreds. Even if ten times as many Muslims were a threat, 99% or them would still be safe just as 99% of the non-Muslims would be. Being scared of someone just because they're Muslim is irrational.

 

Some people fear others that are "Different",
Hippies in the 60's Beatnicks, Bohemians etc....
Gay people, Jews etc....
To fear or hate any Group is Bigotry, plain and simple.

 

Is it bigotry to fear or hate Islamic extremists? (the vast minority of muslims) If it is then I'm a bigot, plain and simple. And surely so are you.

 

So you're saying that even if there are ten times as many Muslims than Christians who were a threat, it can't be said that a Muslim is statistically more likely to carry out an attack? You may need to think about that.

Absolutely, but I never said I am scared of someone just because they're muslim.

 

It is also theoretically the absolutely stupid theory of the Decade.

1993, first attack on the World Trade Center, a fertilizer truck bomb, no Guns were used.

9/11/01 second attack WTC, both towers destroyed, Airliners, no Guns used.

Other Terrorist attacks, bombs, illegal imported AK Rifles, Grenades, etc....

Now we are to believe Terrorists are now applying for firearms Licenses in order to carry out Terrorist attacks ???

Perhaps good Muslims want legal licensed Guns in order to defend against those bad Muslims that have explosives and other weapons and are planning to kill many in acts of Terrorism ?

 

No. Statistics can be complicated but these are basic principles which everyone should understand given how they apply to everyday discussions like this. There is a difference between it being more likely that an attack is carried out by a Muslim and it being more likely that a specific Muslim will carry out an attack.

To take extreme hypothetical examples, imagine a Muslim grandma, 90 years old, wheelchair bound, spends her time knitting and spoiling her grandkids compared to a non-Muslim, 28 year old man, gang-member since childhood, just out of prison where he picked up a heroin addiction and contacts in a right-wing extremist group. By your principle, grandma is a greater threat. In truth, the general religious grouping isn’t the most significant factor in making that determination. Even if there were a hundred attacks by Islamist extremists and none by any other group, the relative threat from these two individuals wouldn’t change.

Because there are so many other significant factors and such a wide range in all of those factors across different people, you can’t be confident that only knowing a random individual is Muslim automatically means they’re a greater threat than a radon individual you only know isn’t.

Good, but I’m suggesting it was the OP video (and material like it) is based on that, either such fear by the creators or a knowing building on and encouraging of that fear by them. The simple fact remains that they’ve taken a situation that has existed for a long time without anyone expressing significant concern and all they’ve done to turn it in to a big scare story is add the word “Muslim”.

 

Yeah, I know that gun attacks are not the norm for terrorists. Of course, we can throw in the recent truck attacks too.
Sure, we're mostly talking about bombs, usually strapped to a terrorists chest. However, not every attacker has the necessary resources at their disposal to make or get hold of a bomb. The Orlando terrorists used a gun for a reason, when a bomb would've been far more effective.

No, we have no reason to believe that is happening. However, if this no-photo exemption was able to be exploited and it enabled terrorists to easily purchase guns, then gun attacks could become more common. And it would be happening in Canada where this exemption exists.

That would be great! Unlikely though - the average moderate Muslim wouldn't even voice that extremism is wrong and I don't blame them, as they'll just be murdered. However, two thirds of British Muslims wouldn't even anonymously inform authorities if they knew about a terrorist plot according to a 2016 poll. I CAN blame them for that. That's supporting terrorism in my book.

 

Absolutely, but I'm not talking about a specific Muslim am I?

LOL. I can assure you, that when I apply my principle to this hypothetical example, Grandma is certainly not the greater threat!

Just so we're clear, my original argument was that a Muslim is more likely to carry out an attack than a Christian, not a non-Muslim. For the sake of argument, I'm pitting the two religions up against one another. I think you've just completely misunderstood what I'm saying, so its no wonder that we're on completely different tracks.

And by the way, if it is between Muslims and non-muslims within a western country, the more likely to carry out an attack of any kind is non-muslims! That's just down to the fact that non-muslims make up the majority of the population. However, obviously mass attacks are a different story, with the exception of the USA with all of those school massacres!

Yep, I agree 100%!

Of course not. However, all Muslims vs all practicing, devout, Christians is a different story. A Muslim is more likely to carry out an attack, its just that simple and any reputable statistician would agree.

Yeah, I mean of course the accurate title would've been, "Special gun rights for religious people." They used the word "Muslim's" to get views.