The state of Florida is being sued by a Muslim woman, after the state suspended her Drivers License because she declined to take off her veil (which reveals only her eyes) for the picture.
I certainly respect Sultaana Freeman’s beliefs. If she feels it is improper or undignified to appear unveiled to “strangers or unrelated males,” that is certainly her prerogative.
But Florida law states, both clearly and properly, that a drivers license must have “a color photographic or digital imaged driver’s license bearing a full-face photograph.” The implications for being able to identify the holder are clear — that’s the purpose of the picture in the first place.
If Freeman declines to be so photographed (and, presumably, to unveil for a policeman), she cannot be given an drivers license (which is, of course, a privilege, a “license,” not a right). That’s not religious prejudice, that’s just common sense.
The only weakness in the state’s case is that, apparently, Freeman was able to obtain an Illinois DL while veiled, and on a February 2001 license issued by Florida. The Florida error was discovered during a review of DL records in November, post-9-11.
(Via OpinionJournal)
Lawyers; I cant believe this is a case. I say send her ass back to wherever she came from where taking a drivers lisence picture with her with a ninga mask on is allowed. sorry, but this is just a pathetic woman and I show no sympaty to her or religion.
I disagree. Customs (and moral dictates) of what is private and proper and allowed have varied widely over time and place. People fifty years from now might be equally contemptuous to folks who are reluctant to have DNA samples kept on file, or to have drug tests taken on a random basis to people in public places, etc., even though there are quite a few people today who would object vehemently to such things today.
So I’m sympathetic. But I don’t think she should be allowed to get away with it.
Think of the implications…..if you’re underage and want to buy an adult beverage, throw on the abaya and head to the package store. Same for cigarettes. As you said, driving is a privilege, not a right. Public transportation is always an option.
Depending on where you’re starting and where you want to go (let alone how long you want it to take you to get there), public transportation is not always an option.
That having been said, I agree.
She needs to obey the law. What if she had a religious tenet that prohibited her from being fingerprinted, etc. The list could go on and on. Sorry, lady, obey the law or don’t drive, use a credit card, cash a check or whatever.
She needs to obey the law. What if she had a religious tenet that prohibited her from being fingerprinted, etc. The list could go on and on. Sorry, lady, obey the law or don’t drive, use a credit card, cash a check or whatever.
She needs to obey the law. What if she had a religious tenet that prohibited her from being fingerprinted, etc. The list could go on and on. Sorry, lady, obey the law or don’t drive, use a credit card, cash a check or whatever.
I was of the understanding that married women were not allowed to interact with any other male, for any reason.
I was also of the understanding that a married woman was not allowed to go anywhere unescorted.
How is it *she* is driving the car? This is allowed?
Why do I doubt that?
And the compromise is to wear the head covering for the photo that frames the face like a nun’s headgarb – the hair, the most sinful part, will be covered. And then wear the full covering – if it lets you drive SAFELY – but be prepared to show your face again when (oops, if) you get pulled over and asked to show your id, your proof of insurance, and your face, please, ma’am.
We have a strong population of peoples up here (Detroit area) that require the woman to cover their hair. I have never seen a woman trying to drive with the limited sight the full head cover allows, and I hope I never do.
I do remember I saw an ‘accident’ where a woman had ‘lost control’ of her Lexus and flipped it into a tree – she was wearing headgear – and after one news report – the story went ‘away.’ I have always wondered if it was a suicide attempt and felt deeply sympathetic for the two babies that were involved. I never learned, since the story was repressed, if any of the victims survived.
At the risk of sounding flip, the specifics of What Women May Do in Islam seems to vary as widely and inconsistently as the same question in Christianity. It may very well be that the woman in question is “permitted” to drive, but “not permitted” to have her face seen by anyone. I can accept that, and even respect it, but it does not, to my weigh of thinking, outweigh the security issues (which a variety of folks here have spelled out) involved.
I just can’t believe that freedom of religion can cover something this rediculous. What is the idea of identification? If Muslims want to sue because our laws won’t allow them to kill non-muslims, as their Quran calls for (kill the jews and christians wherever you find them) what then? Our laws require picture ID’s, you don’t like it? Go back to wherever you came from and you won’t have to worry that you don’t have a drivers license because they won’t allow you to drive anyway….
Freedom of religion (or, rather, freedom not to have state religious beliefs imposed upon you) always seems silly and ridiculous when it’s not your own sacred ox being gored. Nonetheless, it certainly seems that the state has a compelling reason to require photo ID on a drivers license, and unless there’s a significantly useful alternative, it’s a requirement that should stand. The particular objections (whether it’s religious injunction or just not photographing well) really don’t matter.
A free country and the freedom of religion that doesn’t mean to break the rules and abuse the sistem. Rules and regulations are made for our own safety the safety of others and the safety of our country. Or she use a full face picture ID or use other transportation, it’s her problem. People came to live in a country which have different rules of what they beleive and they try to brake the rules because they have the right to speak with freedom the freedom that this country gave it to them. I am with the state of Florida
I am, too, with Florida on this — but sometimes freedom of religion does mean breaking the rules — or, rather, contesting rules that impose on freedom of religion without a compelling state interest.
So, for example, a religious injunction against killing “breaks the rules” that the state may establish regarding a draft for the armed services; I would be reluctant to force such people to serve in the army, regardless (both because of that religious belief and because they would not be as effective soldiers); the acknowledgment of Conscientious Objector status seems a reasonable compromise (and a process to determine whether applying for CO status is, in fact, “abusing the system” is an important part of that).
Appealing to having just “the rules” trump everything, in order to provide “safety” is not necessarily the path I’d want to see us follow, though others seem more comfortable with it.
If this lady is able to get her picture on her driver’s wearing a veil I am going to start a campaign to get as many people as possible to get our pictures wearing veils. I will demand that I get to wear a veil for my drivers license as well.
Aha. Just figured out why this suddenly started getting commented upon. The woman in question is suing the state, under its religious freedom law.
One of the items that’s being pointed out is that there are already exceptions made to the photo ID requirements:
Marks and Freeman also say the state should exempt her from unveiling because the state already makes exceptions for temporary-permit drivers, foreigners and military personnel with out-of-state licenses.
As evidence, Marks cited the more than 4,361 temporary licenses issued without pictures in the past five years to drunk drivers, suspended motorists and others with impaired health and bad vision.
“An exemption is an exemption,” Marks said in his opening salvo. “If you’re going to give it for secular reasons, you have to give it for religious reasons.”
Volokh has commentary here and here.
And commentary here on the “driving is a privilege, not a right” argument.
This sack of chum would not even be allowed to operate a motor vehicle in the wonderful Islamic states she is so defensive about, nor would she be allowed out in public without a male escort.
Give the [Expletive deleted. -Ed.] a drivers license with a picture of her in her veil, then ship her off to Saudi Arabia and let her see how far she gets trying to drive a car in public.
This is just a sad case of a woman and her husband trying to get some free money for being “discriminated” against.
I call bullshit !!!
You may well be right. I think the case needs to be decided on the merits of the argument, however, not on personalities.
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Dave. Someone that isn’t really being wronged in any way, yet wants to scam the court into buying into his or her arguement, should NOT be allowed to get away with it because they’re playing make believe with the truth, and the personality MOST DEFINATELY should be taken into consideration. This woman is not offended in any way by removing her veil.(It certainly didn’t bother her when she had mug shots taken in another state when she was arrested)
The previous case, as I recall, took place before her conversion to Islam.
I believe that this women is an American who converted to Islam, which draws parallels to former smokers who become vehemently anti-smoking, and converts to Chisitianity who can become adamently fundamentalist after their conversions ( I am not speaking of all converts, just a small subset).
It takes zeal to become a convert. And sometimes overzeal.
What is this world coming to? these people are accepted into non Muslim communities and allowed to carry out their Muslim culture pretty much without any discrimination.
Now imagine if you will if I were to go to Godamistan and walk around in a pair of boxer shorts and sandals with my girl friend in a bikini on my arm.. We’d be bloody shot!
But it seems in western civilisation these people can use their own customs and prejudices to get their own way? its not uncommon here in the UK for a police officer to stop an Asian person for a random stop check and for them to turn to the officer and say “You only stopped me because im Asian” the poor police officer then doesn’t want to be branded a fascist and lets the driver go without checking any details etc. just because do-gooders would brand him a fascist…. Think I’ll go live in Australia.
Well, after all, one of the things that sets “us” apart in a positive fashion from some others is our tolerance and sensitivity to accusations of unequal protection under the law. I don’t know that we want to change that.
Can that attitude be exploited? Certainly, and we have to guard against that. Such exploitation is not only unfair, it’s ultimately hurtful to society for the very reason that it stirs up resentment.
There certainly needs to be a reasonable balance between tolerance and respect of personal beliefs on the one hand, and societal responsibilities on the other. Neither anarchy nor fascism are desirable.
well as said above.. send her home with her driving license and car and see how she likes stones for breakfast… lol 😉
I’ll note that, since this woman is a convert to Islam, and her “home” is, in fact, the US.
So many stupid people. This woman is an American who converted to another religion. She wants the same freedom given to others in exemptions as part of her religion. I see majority of americans are racist and illiterate. Jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts and making decisions based upon their own racial and religious prejudice. Quite amazing to see the bigotry of americans.
BAH!
Marks and Freeman also say the state should exempt her from unveiling because the state already makes exceptions for temporary-permit drivers, foreigners and military personnel with out-of-state licenses.
As evidence, Marks cited the more than 4,361 temporary licenses issued without pictures in the past five years to drunk drivers, suspended motorists and others with impaired health and bad vision.
“An exemption is an exemption,” Marks said in his opening salvo. “If you’re going to give it for secular reasons, you have to give it for religious reasons.”
She wants the same freedom given to others in exemptions as part of her religion.
Apparently so. Freedom of religious practice is substantial in this country, but not absolute. Religious practices that violate other laws or Constitutional provisions are not automatically protected, but must be evaluated on balance. If my religion forbids me from paying income tax, requires me to drive at high speeds through residential neighborhoods, or relieves me of respect for the property rights of others, the conflict between my religious rights and the public needs to be adjudicated. While the default is usually to respect the religious injunction or requirement, there are limits.
It’s also necessary to balance this against the possibility of abuse. Allowing someone to claim that a religious restriction permits someone to avoid photo identification is liable to dangerous abuse by those who wish to act in a fraudulent or criminal fashion. In thise case it’s different from, say, wishing to wear a particular religious accoutrement that violates an office dress code (though, conversely, restricting such accoutrements is allowable when it makes, say, a shop floor position unsafe).
“An exemption is an exemption,” Marks said in his opening salvo. “If you’re going to give it for secular reasons, you have to give it for religious reasons.”
In the ruling on the case, the judge said (around p. 11) that the issuance of temporary permits is differnt than that of permanent permits (temp permits are only issued to those who have had permanent photo permits, and require at the end of their time period a new photo permit). Further, Florida has no control over what other jurisdictions require, but can control what restrictions it uses.
I can’ find any news into on this since last summer. Anybody know where the appeal is?
I see majority of americans are racist and illiterate. Jumping to conclusions without knowing the facts and making decisions based upon their own racial and religious prejudice. Quite amazing to see the bigotry of americans.
Any particular bigotry here you want to point out, as opposed to making broad generalizations about a national group (ahem)?