posted on June 6, 2003 03:05:26 PM new
Muslim Woman in Florida Cannot Wear Veil in Driver's License Photo, Judge Rules
The Associated Press
ORLANDO, Fla. June 6 —
A Florida judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver's license photo.
Prosecutors had argued that allowing people to cover all but their eyes in their ID pictures could allow potential terrorists to hide their identities.
After hearing three days of testimony last week, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public, and that having photo identification was essential to that interest.
Thorpe also said Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.
Freeman, 35, had obtained a license that showed her veiled with only her eyes visible through a slit. But the state revoked the license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered, a demand made after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Freeman sued the state of Florida, saying it would violate her Islamic beliefs to show her face publicly.
Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail argued that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good, and that arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty.
posted on June 6, 2003 04:49:33 PM new
Good...glad to read it was decided this way. Driving is a 'privilege' not a 'right'. IMO, we cannot have un-identifiable people getting licenses, it defeats the whole purpose and opens licenses up to all kinds of abuses.
.......... this issue is much more than just black and white. Dozens of shades of gray fall in between the disputing sides of this argument, and even then, there is no clear way to differentiate right from wrong. This case reaches deep into the crevices of America’s insecurity issues. As much as we love to see ourselves as the world’s greatest—strong, all mighty and unconquerable—we all know that the events of September 11th have proven otherwise, whether or not we choose to admit it. Mrs. Freeman has taken the first of many steps that will be necessary in order for this nation of ours to assimilate into the inevitable global village, and with each of these steps, sacrifices must be made. Today’s debate extends far beyond one woman’s individual rights; it has raised questions of national and international concerns for security and even tapped that sensitive nerve of terrorism. What today’s guests and interviews have proven is that compromise is the golden rule. We have become too multinational and too globalized for there to be a single right answer.
posted on June 6, 2003 07:37:44 PM new
Helen - Here I thought you whole-heartedly supported separation of church and state? Are you now defending a case that is about state law vs. her religious practices??????
She is using her religious dress/burka to obtain 'special' previliges that would not be granted to a non religious person. If her religion had nothing to do with this issue, then any person who wants to wear a ski mask with only the eyes, nose and mouth cut out of it for their drivers license should be allowed to do the same.
We are a melting pot and a very diverse lot of people. Many different cultures have come here and learned to abide by our laws. I get offended when those of you start believing we American's need to be more 'enlightened and accepting' of some of the **practices** of other cultures WHEN it comes to changing our laws to accommodate them. What's wrong with them 'blending' in the way they have for generations? Why all this special treatment?
One example is that here in American we do not support aborting fetus' only because they are female, rather than male. But in India and China that practice is quite routinely done. So should we now accept their 'culture practices' because of this? I don't think so. Doesn't mean because a lot of people from India or China move here we have to change our laws to please their culture.
Same thing with the women that move here from African countries. They do sexual multiation on their genitals there when the girls are young. Some have practiced this culture behavior in America. Should we accept that practice here and make it legal because that is the way it was done in their birth country? No.
You appear to immediately jump to the conclusion that this issue comes up ONLY because of 9-11 and only out of 'fear'. There are times the different culture practices of those who wish to live here don't follow our laws or practices. I hope we never change our laws to accept these above mentioned cultural differences to accommodate these practices. And I'm VERY glad to see she's being held to the same 'requirement' of a facial picture that the rest of us are.
posted on June 6, 2003 09:09:59 PM new
If the judge allowed her to cover her face for her drivers licence, he would have to allow everyone else the same type of choice. It's stupid. You shouldn't choose countries to live in and expect them to adapt to your customs instead of you adapting to theirs.
Hi Linda! Haven't seen you around much. Hope you're A-OK and enjoying the spring!
I think the attorney wanted something out of this, fame, money etc.
I think that when it is common procedure to use other means of identification, such as using the eye or something that will be developed in the future that we aren't aware of at the present, people may be able to be "covered." Until that time, it is a privilege to have an ID or a driver's license.
Hi there Low there LindaK
I will have to agree with Helen. Just because she shared a link doesn't mean she agrees with the contents. I am that way, too. I share links and other people's opinions, but I may disagree.
posted on June 7, 2003 11:09:32 AM new
Hi back at you KD - No things are probably the worst they've ever been in my life. My husband is very ill and I'll only be here as time allows. We're waiting for an opening at a teaching University to give him a chance for survival.
------------------------------
Hi clarksville - I don't have a problem with you agreeing with Helen, ever. But I've **never** seen her post a like to something she didn't agree with....at least in part. And she is for world globalization and world decisions being made by the UN rather than the US acting in it's own best interests. Plus she didn't use quotes or state she was copying and pasting someone else's opinion.
posted on June 7, 2003 01:09:08 PM new"Hi clarksville - I don't have a problem with you agreeing with Helen, ever. But I've **never** seen her post a like to something she didn't agree with....at least in part. And she is for world globalization and world decisions being made by the UN rather than the US acting in it's own best interests. Plus she didn't use quotes or state she was copying and pasting someone else's opinion"
Linda, I can't believe the problem that you are having with my simple post above. After noticing the publicity surrounding this event, I searched to find more information about it. I decided that the interview was interesting and relevant to this thread so I posted a link and a quote that was obviously not mine becsuse it concluded with a remark to the group assembled..."What today’s guests and interviews have proven is that compromise is the golden rule. We have become too multinational and too globalized for there to be a single right answer." If you had read the quote, you would have understood.
Driving with that cumbersome garment must be difficult and since vision could be obstructed I wonder if she can safely drive an auto. Otherwise, I don't see the problem with making other arrangements for a photo. I've never had any occassion to use my photo ID where national security was at risk.
posted on June 7, 2003 01:36:33 PM newAfter noticing the publicity surrounding this event, I searched to find more information about it. I decided that the interview was interesting and relevant to this thread so I posted a link and a quote
It is interesting, Helen. And I have no problem with you posting a link to a discussion. It's good to see just how many people believe that we need to change our laws because of the different cultures/religious practices of others....this 'one world think'. I believe they move here....we don't change our **laws** to accomodate them and their religious practices/culture practices. Just stating a different opinion.
that was obviously not mine becsuse it concluded with a remark to the group assembled..."What today's guests and interviews have proven is that compromise is the golden rule. We have become too multinational and too globalized for there to be a single right answer." If you had read the quote, you would have understood.
Yes, I did miss the 'today's guests' etc. I still believe you never post a link unless there is something you agree with and as your last statement says, if I read it right , was that you see no reason other than the safety of driving issue why this shouldn't have been allowed. Which, if true, reinforces my statement that you almost never post a link or copy a statement that doesn't support your position on an issue. And supports my statement that you appear to me to not be following your usual stance of separation of church and state.
Driving with that cumbersom garment must be difficult and since vision could be obstructed I wonder if she can safely drive an auto. Otherwise, I don't see the problem with making other arrangements for a photo.
--------------
Thank you neonmania and clarksville for your concern. It's very much appreciated.
posted on June 7, 2003 01:41:16 PM new
Your are nitpicking Linda. And I really don't give a dam what you think. But I do wish that you would refrain from telling other people here what you *think* I think.
posted on June 7, 2003 01:59:21 PM new
Helen - Okay.... is this, or is this not a religious issue vs a state law? Or are you seeing this in some other way.
posted on June 7, 2003 02:00:23 PM new
Linda is not telling us what you think. For those that read your posts and follow your rants it's obvious and that is exactly what linday was pointing out. Due to the ruffled feathers it's even more obvious she is correct. IF this individual turned out to be a risk of some sort and something happened then boy would you all be over the government then for not doing something. Clear case of just searching for things to piss and moan about. If thats an indiviuals personality than trouble can be found in anything regardless of reality.
posted on June 7, 2003 02:00:23 PM new
Linda is not telling us what you think. For those that read your posts and follow your rants it's obvious and that is exactly what linday was pointing out. Due to the ruffled feathers it's even more obvious she is correct. IF this individual turned out to be a risk of some sort and something happened then boy would you all be over the government then for not doing something. Clear case of just searching for things to piss and moan about. If thats an indiviuals personality than trouble can be found in anything regardless of reality.
posted on June 7, 2003 02:55:42 PM new
OT - My prayers are with you and your husband at this uncertain time Linda. I hope things turn around. Do you keep a diary or journal by any chance?
posted on June 9, 2003 03:57:38 PM new
A few relevant points:
1) This is a Sept. 11 issue. Before Sept. 11, she had a state-issued driver's license with her face covered (except for her eyes.) After Sept. 11, she (and many other women) were called in by the state of Florida and told they had to have new licenses made with uncovered faces and, in many more cases, hair. (Many Muslim women wear hijab, but relatively few wear niqab the full-face veil that Freeman wanted to retain.) The state later backed off on the requirement to remove hijab but is fighting on the full-face veil issue. (Interestingly enough, all the people reported to have been called back in were Muslim. Sikh men wearing turbans were not asked to come in for new pictures.)
2) Florida issues temporary drivers' permits to thousands of people each year that have no photograph on them at all.
3) The ruling did not come under the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state, but under the Florida Constitution, (which has the same wording as the First Amendment) and the state law called the "Free Exercise of Religion Statute". That law (ironically, pushed through by religious conservatives in the Legislature to permit organized student-led school prayer) is probably broader than the First Amendment though it hasn't been tested.
4) The judge's order (which can be read here (note: PDF document) is pretty well-reasoned, and if you read it carefully, you'll see she's trying to find a balance while acknowledging that her ruling simply isn't supported by case law. (The only existing cases involve Pentecostal women who protested their photos on the basis that they were "graven images." They won.)
I think the judge had a really tough job before her in balancing the needs of society and the religious freedom of Ms. Freeman. If I were the judge in this case, I would probably make a similar ruling, especially when the topic under discussion is a drivers' license, not an ID card. The state of Florida does make accomodation for women who don't want to bare their faces in front of men. Most local DMVs now have areas where women can unveil and have their pictures taken in privacy.
I'm also not really interested in taking up for Freeman too much, because she doesn't seem like a very nice person, what with the child-abuse charges and all. (Obviously, there's no "dirty louse" exemption to the First Amendment but still, you pick your fights.) There is something interesting about this page, though. Look at the photo of Freeman testifying in the courtroom with her niqab on. Look at her mug shot. Can you tell it's the same woman?
posted on June 9, 2003 04:48:11 PM new
Sultaana Freeman has lost her lawsuit demanding that she be allowed to hide her face behind a Muslim veil for a drivers license photo. "Although the court acknowledges that plaintiff herself most likely poses no threat to national security, there likely are people who would be willing to use a ruling permitting the wearing of full-face cloaks in driver's license photos by pretending to ascribe to religious beliefs in order to carry out activities that would threaten lives," wrote Judge Janet Thorpe.
The ACLU, which favors freedom of religion except when it opposes it, represented Freeman, who, as the Associated Press notes, has previously doffed the veil for a government photo[/b]:
Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, started wearing a veil in 1997. [b]She had a mug shot taken without the veil after her arrest in Illinois in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin
3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care.[/b]
Child welfare workers told investigators that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the police records. The girls were removed from the home.
Because TheSmokingGun.com has the mug shot online, thousands upon thousands of people have now seen Sultaana Freeman's face who would never even have heard of her otherwise. There is some justice in the world.
A CNN sidebar surveys drivers-license rules in Muslim countries. It turns out that women don't cover their faces for ID photos in any of the listed countries: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. In Saudi Arabia, of course, women aren't allowed to drive at all. Why should a Muslim be able to use her religion to claim a legal privilege she wouldn't be accorded in Mecca itself?
posted on June 10, 2003 10:19:31 AM newWhy should a Muslim be able to use her religion to claim a legal privilege she wouldn't be accorded in Mecca itself?
This question pretty much summarizes the wrong-headed thinking that's been dogging this issue. The point is not whether someone is Muslim or Pentacostal, Buddhist or Baptist. The point is whether they live in a free country with a Constitution that guarantees religious freedom.
Obviously, there's always a balancing test. You can't kill goats on the courthouse steps, even if you do believe the judge can be possessed by a loa spirit to rule in your favor. In this case, the interests of the state in identifying Freeman overcame her right to free exercise of religion.
But the idea bear1949 is espousing - that there should be a different standard for different religions - is such a rejection of core American values that it reaches the point of being unpatriotic.
posted on June 10, 2003 05:16:44 PM newBut the idea bear1949 is espousing - that there should be a different standard for different religions - is such a rejection of core American values that it reaches the point of being unpatriotic.
Not at all...If you had bothered to read the section that address the issue of Muslim women having their photo's taken for their drivers license in their home countries. All women must bare their faces for those licenses, except in Saudi Arabia where women are not allowed to drive.
I don't think it is a matter of religion as it is a matter of public safety.
posted on June 11, 2003 12:58:32 PM new
I have to agree with The Bear on this one...
(Hear that noise...it is the world ending...)
In America, when we get a driver's license, we agree to suspend quite a few "rights" in order to have the priviledge to drive.
You HAVE to submit to a Breathalyzer or Blood test or you are automatically guilty. (violation of Fifth amendment: witness against oneself)
You agree to stay on properly desgnated driving areas(roads) and stay out of people's living rooms with your car, if at all possible.
You agree to drive within the speed limit (Yeah, right!)
And you agree to any other conditions imposed by the DMV authority (showing your face, stand behind the line, wait forever, allow us to take a picture of your worst side, etc...)
Bumper Sticker seen on Air Force One
How's my Diplomacy
Call 1-800-EAT-SH!T
[ edited by mlecher on Jun 11, 2003 01:00 PM ]
posted on June 11, 2003 01:56:58 PM new
OK. I'm going to try this one more time. In the first posts (the one on June 9 and the one on June 10) I clearly said that I thought the judge made the right decision. I still feel that way.
But bear also made the case that the horrific human-rights abuses in other countries (not allowing women to drive, etc.) somehow provides a justification for the Florida authorities to treat an American-born Muslim woman differently. That I disagree with. Vehemently. We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are.
------------The Talmud
My husband is very ill and I'll only be here as time allows. We're waiting for an opening at a teaching University to give him a chance for survival. 
Plus she didn't use quotes or state she was copying and pasting someone else's opinion. 