Muslim Woman Sues over Drivers License [FL: Show your face on driver license photo; FL Woman: No]

The Orlando Sentinel ^ | Jan. 30, 2002 | P. Gutierrez and A. Rippel

[summer]

Muslim woman sues state over drivers license



By Pedro Ruz Gutierrez and Amy Rippel |
Sentinel Staff Writers
Posted January 30, 2002

WINTER PARK -- A 34-year-old woman is suing the state for suspending her Florida drivers license after she refused to have her photo taken without an Islamic veil.

Sultaana Freeman, a former evangelist preacher who converted to Islam about five years ago and wears the traditional niqab, says her religion doesn't allow her to show her face to strangers.

She filed suit earlier this month asking an Orange County judge to review her case.

"I don't show my face to strangers or unrelated males," Freeman said in an interview Tuesday at the office of her American Civil Liberties Union attorney. Only her emerald-green eyes and mascara showed through her veil.

The niqab is different from a hijab, or partial head covering, which doesn't hide the face and which some Muslim women wear for their drivers license photos.

Freeman, who is on an apparent collision course with the state, is bracing for a possible showdown on the fundamental freedoms of the U.S. Constitution.

"Florida law requires a full facial view of a person on their drivers license photo," said Robert Sanchez, a spokesman for the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. "We have no choice but to enforce it."

Florida law says license applicants shall be issued "a color photographic or digital imaged drivers license bearing a full-face photograph."

ACLU lawyer Howard Marks argues that the law is vague. "I don't think the state statutes mandate a photograph," he said.

Marks said he also will cling to a state law on religious freedom that states the "government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion. "

Barry University Professor Robert Whorf said the state is probably within its right to ask for a full-facial photograph. "It makes common sense if the state of Florida were discriminating against her because of her religion; that would more likely be unconstitutional," he said. "If the state of Florida's rationale for insisting the veil not cover the face is for law-enforcement purposes that apply to everyone, then clearly the state of Florida is not discriminating against anyone for religious reasons."

To husband Abdul-Malik, also known as Mark Freeman, the state's action is an infringement on his and his wife's rights.

"It's a reflection of Sept. 11," said Abdul-Malik, 40, a 1980 Edgewater High School graduate and 1984 Florida State University graduate.

The Freemans said they only want recognition that their interpretation of Islam requires women to cover their faces.

Sultaana Freeman said she never had trouble in Illinois, where she worked as a civil engineer with the state's utilities company. That state, without objection, issued her license with a photo that showed only her eyes.

Her Florida license was issued with her face covered last February, but the state demanded a new photo without her veil in November. State record checks began after Sept. 11.

Altaf Ali, executive director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said he knows of three other times Muslim women were refused Florida drivers licenses because of their headdresses. "I'm sure there's a lot more that's happening and not getting reported," he said.

Ali is asking the state to clarify its policy on religiously mandated clothes, and he wants the state to train employees about Muslim needs.

Yasmin Khan, 39, of West Palm Beachsaid she tangled with motor-vehicle officials when she was refused a drivers license in mid-December. Khan, a native of Trinidad and a Muslim, said she pulled her headdress back to her hairline -- as far as her religious beliefs would allow -- for the Dec. 17 photo but was told she needed to remove it completely. When she refused, she was denied a drivers license, she said.

"I decided to call anybody and everybody because I needed my license. I have kids, and I need to leave my home," she said.

Two days later, after getting help from local politicians, Khan was photographed with her hijab pulled back for her new drivers license.

In Daytona Beach earlier this month, Najat Tamim-Muhammad, 41, was refused a Florida identification card because she declined to remove her hijab.

Two years ago, Tamim-Muhammad, a native of Morocco, removed her headdress for the ID photo, but her husband said she did it only because she spoke no English and was unsure of her legal rights.

Idris Muhammad, her husband, said they plan to go back to the office to explain to a supervisor why she cannot remove the hijab. They hope to have the photo taken at that time.

"We understand the fear that comes with dealing with people you don't know or understand," he said. "In my opinion, it violates our equal rights under the law. Most people, when you sit down and explain why the women wear the hijab and the seriousness of not having it on, understand."

Amy C. Rippel can be reached at arippel@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5736. Pedro Ruz Gutierrez can be reached at pruz@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5620.

[sistergoldenhair]

I believe NY's voter card actually says "not to be used for ID"

So does my Social Security card, but that has never stopped anyone from using my SSN to identify me.

[snippy_about_it]

BS, these people really think WE are going to conform to THEIR ways, BS. It only makes us angrier.

[nopardons]

I saw what he wrote; however , I also saw what YOU have been writing ( baiting, and a lot of it ) ; so YOU get a taste of your own medicine.

Really, you've been here since '98 ? Not under THIS nic. So, how many times have you been banned / left & come back / decided to hide your identity ? No wonder you are so enamoured of this veil thingy. : - )

I saw your nic, but hey, you could be lying . You might be a full bloodied Chinese, or a Tuttsi, or a mixture of all races and ethnicities, who came to America 3 months ago. You have already either lied, or been monstrously confused about a story I was giving as an example. I've been here ( lurking and member ) since most of '98. My nic has remained the same. I don't make up garbage, when I don't know something, I am trustworthy . Can't say the same for you, dear. Just keep on didgging that hole. : - )

[wafflehouse]

right on! what does she need a DL for anyway? i thought muslim women couldnt drive, and could only leave the house accompanied by a male?

[Harp]

I don't really care why she wants to veil, just like I don't really care why a communicant wants to eat flesh and drink blood. It's a question of principle -- they have a right to Free Exercise in their religion, and I certainly see no harm in letting this woman go around veiled. I can appreciate that this might intimidate or frighten some American men, but their infantile social development should not dictate law.

Lol. Love that desperate dig at American men. It really makes your argument.

No one sees a problem with "letting this woman go around veiled," they see a problem with someone not complying with the law while driving.

As for free excerise of religion, I'm with Antonin Scalia. Freedom of religion does not grant a license to break the law. To enforce something otherwise would be "courting anarchy," as he puts it, every time someone cranked out an excuse for an exemption.

It takes only a little imagination to forsee new religions with instant rituals popping up that would be illegal if it were not for the religious drapery. If you think that we could stop new religions from making such claims, consider some old religions needing only a tweak to make female circumcision, Talibanesque "whack-a-wife" rules, or even Suttee of Hindu tradition a part of formal religion.

Yeah, now there's some free exercise.

[snippy_about_it]

I shouldn't sign on so early in the morning.

What is to stop the religious group of ski mask wearers to decide they, too can't show their faces, or the religion of panty hose wearers, or clowns, maybe they don't want to show their real faces, for religious reasons. After all this is a FREE country.

I need to go now before I blow a gasket.

[weegee]

For a new member and a person who claims American Indian heritage, you are certainly well versed in the muslim faith and seem to be almost singularly interested in this as a topic.

[My back yard]

Yes, you're right. I was thinking out loud again, badly. This is absurd.

[mmmmmmmm....... donuts]

How about giving the option of a thumbprint? That a form of ID where she can wear her burqa.

[GRRRRR]

You need a Fl-DL to ride a camel??

Let's GRRRRoll'

[weegee]

I believe NY's voter card actually says "not to be used for ID"

So does my Social Security card, but that has never stopped anyone from using my SSN to identify me.

Ever see an ACLooney lawsuit to stop the collection of SS#s at the time of driver's license renewal (now required because of deadbeat dad laws)?

Certainly would've been a better protection of the public's rights from this so-called civil liberties group.

[weegee]

I saw your nic, but hey, you could be lying . You might be a full bloodied Chinese, or a Tuttsi, or a mixture of all races and ethnicities, who came to America 3 months ago.

John Lindh Walker claimed to be black in some of his usenet posts as Prof J. He took great outrage at "caucasians" use of the N word and several other methods of whitey's oppression.

[DeaconRed]

She might have a case if driving were a "RIGHT".
Driving is a privilage, NOT A RIGHT.
You have NO RIGHT to be on the highway.
If you don't want to play by the rules. Simple, DON'T DRIVE.
Read your drivers license carefully, Accepting the license, means you give up a lot of rights. One is you agree to submit to ANY drug & alcohol test while driving.

[peteram]

The ACLU Doesn't have a leg to stand on!

In Florida (as well as other states, I'm sure), obtaining the ability to operate a motor vehicle on it's streets is a privilege accorded to a person by the state. It is not a right. No where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that man has an unalienable right to drive. This is NOT a constitutional issue. Therefore, the religious persuasion of the driver has no impact.

If a person gets stopped by the police and is deemed intoxicated via a field sobriety test, their license is confiscated and suspended on the spot, before the alleged offender even gets to court. Some would think that this violates the alleged offender's right to due process, but that is not the case at all. Because operating a motor vehicle is a privilege - not a right. The rights of the offender pertain - in this instance - only to the misdemeanor charge of DUI, for which due process is adhered to. The drivers license aspect is simply an administative procedure.

With this in mind, if this woman wants to operate a motor vehicle in the state of Florida, then she will have to show her face on the photo - or walk. There is no constitutional issue regarding religion here. She could be from the religion of Facially Covered Women from a Far Off Land, and it still wouldn't matter. If you desire to drive - you follow the rules - or you walk.

[bimbo]

She has a RIGHT to practice her religion.
She has NO RIGHT to drive - it is a PRIVELEGE.
She has a decision to make: wear the veil and forego the driving, or remove the veil for the picture and drive.

[riverrunner]

I disagree with most of these post it wasn't that long ago that no one had their photo on a lic. The states were black mailed with federal highway taxes makeing them put photos on the lic. We do not need photo Id.s Every body who gives up freedom for sercurity are doomed to be slaves.