Posted on 05/29/2003 11:32:30 AM PDT by Timesink
MAY 28--Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait. Following her 1997 conversion to Islam, Sultaana Freeman (formerly Sandra Keller) was arrested in Decatur, Illinois for battering a foster child. Freeman, 35, pleaded guilty in 1999 to felony aggravated battery and was sentenced to 18 months probation. As a result of the conviction, state officials removed two foster children from Freeman's care. The mug shot of the felonious Freeman (below left) was taken after her arrest in the Illinois case. Freeman returned to the dock this week--that's her testifying in the below right photo--to challenge Florida rules requiring prospective drivers to submit to unveiled photos for their licenses. Last year, Freeman sued the state after her license was revoked when she failed to allow officials to photograph her sans headdress. State officials contend that, in light of the September 11 attacks, it is crucial that all motorists now be photographed in an unadorned state. (1 page)
For more on Freeman's case, check out Court TV's coverage.
Fundamentalist Christians can get their driver's licenses without pictures.
A federal Court of Appeals forced the state of Nebraska to issue a driver's license without a picture to a fundamentalist Christian, and the US Supreme court affirmed the case.
No picture, no problem for Christians.
What about
No picture, no problem for Muslims?
Exactly. Unfortunately, however, many people feel that their religion or race entitles them to a special form of treatment. In fact, they sometimes feel they are entitled to an all out free ride and will continue to do so as long as we who pull the wagon allow them to take a ride.
The PC crap needs to come to a screeching halt ASAP. Cops can't stop obviuosly suspicious persons, people who pay zero taxes bitch because they don't get a tax-break and worshippers of evil make a mockery of our system by demanding to wear a mask on their DL's. As someone who is brutally mugged by the IRS on an annual basis to pay for all this, I call BS!
Consider the following possibilities:
1. One "Muslim convert" woman forces state to allow her to both drive, and get driver's license, wearing "veil" (mask).
2. Having set this precedent, soon all states will be forced to follow suit(?), for ANY Muslim woman.
3. As a natural progression, Police officers will not be allowed to look at the face of these women, to verify identity.
4. With everything but the eyes covered, it is almost impossible to tell, for certain, whether the person inside the veil/burkah/chador, etc. is either female, or male.
5. There is plenty of room, under there, for a suicide/homicide bomb vest.
6. With the 9-11 terries, we found that they were "religiously" authorized to drink, go to strip joints, etc as a sort of DISGUISE.
7. The end result of this foolish lawsuit could very well be thousands of "young middle-eastern men" going around, in public, wearing a complete disguise, with complete impunity! Absent OTHER "probable cause," they cannot be stopped (and frisked), nor can they be required to take off the veil, for a drivers license check. (Their driver 's license photo would only show a black mask and a couple of eyes, anyway.)
And, the police couldn't single out such veiled people, even for surveillance, because THAT has already been condemned as "racial profiling!"
Talk about catch-22.
DG
Jew? That would figure, since the ACLU is filled with self-hating Jews who love to hurt the religion.
I would send that article to the Florida's D.A. office. It could help to prove that the definition of "Islamic Law" she cites is her's alone, since it is not reflected in major Muslim nations.
I am not joking. Don't assume they have thought of this. The money is to be a Defense Attorney...Prosecutors aren't too bright in many cases (Marcia Clark, etc.)
P: Correct me if I am wrong, but under Islamic Law, women are NOT permitted to drive a car.
E: I think you have swerved into the Magic Catch 22.
P: What does that mean is simple to understand English? Am I correct or in-correct.
E: You nailed it. Or is that not simple to understand English?
Egypt allows women to drive. And guess what, they are required to have a photo license...WITHOUT THE VEIL!!!!
(1) Nebraska driver's licensing requirement that applicants submit to having color photograph taken for affixing on the license unconstitutionally burdened subject applicant's free exercise of her sincerely held religious beliefs, supported by historical and biblical tradition and implemented in her daily life, that the taking of her photograph would violate the Second Commandment's express forbidding of the making of any graven image or likeness of anything in creation, andThe U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in Jensen v. Quaring, 472 U.S. 478 (1985).
(2) requiring that applicant receive her license without complying with photograph requirement was reasonable accommodation of her religion and did not violate establishment clause.
The two other cases directly on point are Dennis v. Charnes, 646 F. Supp. 158 (D. Colo. 1986), and Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc, 380 N.E.2d 1225 (Ind. 1978). Both cases found the right to a non-photo driver's license under religious exemption.
The Colorado case, also a federal case, is Dennis v. Charnes, 646 F. Supp. 158 (D. Colo. 1986). Once again, the plaintiff was a Christian who objected to photographs on the ground that they were graven images. The Colorado district court found for the plaintiff and granted him a religious exemption.
The Indiana case, although is a state case, is the earliest case I've seen. The case is Bureau of Motor Vehicles of The State of Indiana v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc, 269 Ind. 361 (1978). Like the other cases, it deals with a Christian who believed that photographs were graven images and didn't want a photo driver's license. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld this right.
Please not that the US Supreme Court has reversed itself many times, therefore if the Florida case goes to the US Supreme Court, this previous precedent can be overturned or sidestepped by a narrow ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.