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.

[UberVernunft]

Maybe I should start a new denomination: The Church of Unfettered Light, with a central doctrine that requires all members to wear Groucho nose/mustache/eyeglass gear, a jumbo afro wig, and green facepaint with orange ladybugs painted on the cheeks. And, a prohibition on being photographed except in profile.

Hehe.

I was thinking along those lines, but the only requirement in my religion is that women must always wear spandex or nothing at all.

Wait a second...I better think this one through.

[Siamese Princess]

f you really want to torque their jaws, tell them you would rather die than convert to Islam. I did it once, and the guy was so shocked, he didn't have a clue what to say next.

Not only would I rather die than convert to Islam, I recently purchased a Bushmaster XM-15 and I'll damn well try to take out as many of them before I go.

[UberVernunft]

Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

Background Information:

The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye was leasing land in Hialeah, Florida and planning to establish a church, school, and cultural center there.

Their religion was Santeria, which originated in Cuba in the 19th century and includes the ritual sacrifice of animals. In Santeria, ritual animal sacrifice is practiced at birth, marriage, and death rites. It is also used for curing the sick and other annual ceremonies.

In response to this, the city of Hialeah passed several ordinances specifically prohibiting animal sacrifice of any sort. The Church regarded these laws as an attempt to violate their First Amendment rights to freely exercise their religion.

Court Decision:

In 1993, the Court unanimously invalidated city ordinances outlawing animal sacrifices.

In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy noted that to avoid having to meet the compelling interest requirement, a law must be both neutral and generally applicable:

Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.

But Kennedy found that the laws in question were not of general applicability:

Although the practice of animal sacrifice may seem abhorrent to some, 'religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection.'

That the laws were designed for the express purpose of suppressing Santeria was demonstrated by the use of terms such as "ritual" and "sacrifice" in the statute. Furthermore, a resolution was also passed by the city which spoke badly against "practices which are inconsistent with public morals, peace and safety," and "reiterated" the city's commitment to prohibit "any and all [such] acts of any and all religious groups."

The city tried to claim that they had two secular interests in passing the legislation: protecting the public health and preventing cruelty to animals. Unfortunately, the laws that were passed did not go very far to meet those goals. For example, they limited the laws to cover just the types of practices that would (coincidentally?) occur during Santeria practices.

Significance:

This decision suported the standard set forth in Smith to determine whether a law violates the freedom of individuals' to exercise their religions. In order to not have to meet the compelling interest standard a law must be generally applicable and neutral. In particular, the government cannot pass laws which unfairly burden a minority religion, religious group, or religious doctrine.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)

[Roy Tucker]

This is a try on to see if they get get legitimate ID and then anyone can use the drivers license even a man covered except the eyes. I hope Tom Ridge can see through this.

[TC Rider]

If she were in Saudi Arabia they would not only not issue her a license, they would probably lay a beating on her for even asking for one.

The Muslim community is looking for every opportunity to sue and line their pockets over supposed discrimination.

[UberVernunft]

"Palo Mayombe is an Afro-Cuban "religion" that has come to America along with the Cubans. Its practitioners, called paleros, believe they can use parts of human bodies to enslave the spirits of the dead, which are then summoned to commit crimes and work evil."

"Margaret Ramirez, 74, lived in an apartment in Manhattan on 164th Street. She recently died in an automobile accident, and police came to her apartment to notify the next of kin. They found her son Michael Grahales, 54, who became "extremely unstable" on learning what happened to his mother and is now locked up in a mental hospital. Police also found what appeared to be a den of Palo Mayombe sorcery, complete with statues in every corner, skulls, chunks of flesh rotting in pots, and boarded-up windows. What most shocked police was a perfectly preserved newborn girl floating in a jar of formaldehyde. Since the son claims to know nothing about the body, police are left to speculate. "We haven't ruled out homicide, but we're hoping the baby was stillborn," says Lt. George Menig. "It's too creepy to think that it could have been a human sacrifice.""
(Laura Italiano and Maria Malave, Black-Magic Woman, New York Post, Aug. 28, 2000.)

Multi-Cult Madhouse

[VA Advogado]

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.

Good God, what part of FULL FACE is vague?

[VA Advogado]

She always has the option of not getting a license and not driving, after all, doesn't Islam prevent women from driving?

[Chemist_Geek]

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.

Point of information: "letting this woman go around veiled" is not the issue. The issue is her refusal to abide by Florida's statutory requirements for issuance of a driver's license.

The argument that wearing that full veil is a religious requirement is fallacious; many Islamic women wear a headscarf which only exposes from the eyebrows to the chin. That would be most likely be suitable for both Florida law and Islamic belief.

Unless, of course, she just wants to cause trouble. In that case, send her to Gitmo.

[EverOnward]

So where's that show of hands of people who really care about this?

If you can't see the many hands raised high by now, you're blind. Virtually everyone I associate with (both liberals and conservatives) feel we've shown remarkable restraint with these petty, sniveling, rude, pushy (the list goes on and on and on) barbarians, er muslims. The state of Maryland must know that as they're taking as many guns away from American citizens as they can, including a fellow who was "citizen of the year" in his community.

It will be interesting to see what finally pushes citizens to the point they can no longer restrain the resentment and the muslims are doing their level best to antagonize and agitate. My ambivalence towards muslims has turned to total disgust.

[Chemist_Geek]

As to the laws of the land, as well as state laws, if yu don't like them, then either try to get them LEGALLY changed

Looks to me like that's what she's doing.

No, she's trying to get some judge to legislate from the bench, a wholly inappropriate application of judicial power.

[wildwood]

Well, then why did she move to US? She knew well ahead that this is not an islamic stat

she moved to the states because

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

which of course would be impossible in muslim countries.

[dennisw]

Good work and research. I remember this one. Church of Bobaloo indeed!

[Don Myers]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. The state can suspend licenses or not issue them for valid reasons. So, at question here is the right of the state to control who drives in their jurisdiction.

[Chemist_Geek]

Wait a second...I better think this one through.

The Holy Body Mass Index must not get too high, otherwise they're excommunicated? (grin)

[webster]

I did some searching and found that there are several states that allow this...I can't beleieve it! See the following example:

Minnesota Rules, Table of Chapters

Table of contents for Chapter 7410

7410.1800 DRIVER'S LICENSE PHOTOGRAPH.

Subpart 1. Purpose. The purpose of this part is to provide for a method of identification on a driver's license in lieu of a photograph for persons with religious objections to being photographed.

Subp. 2. Scope. The scope of this part is intended to be consistent with Minnesota Statutes 1971, section 171.071.

Subp. 3. Issuance of driver's license without photograph. Procedures for issuing a driver's license without a photograph are:

A. Any person having religious objections to being photographed and to the use of a photograph as a means of identification may apply to the director of motor vehicle service for issuance of a driver's license valid without photograph.

B. In order to qualify for a driver's license valid without photograph, an applicant must present to the motor vehicle services director a signed certificate or statement that the taking of a photograph and its use as identification violates the tenets and beliefs of the applicant's religion. The certificate or statement must accompany the regular application for driver's license or renewal of license.

Subp. 4. Specifications for driver's license valid without photograph. The driver's license issued to qualified applicants having religious objections to the use of a photograph shall be the same as the classified photo license, except, in the space normally occupied by the photograph of the licensee, the following shall appear:

VALID WITHOUT

PHOTO IN

COMPLIANCE WITH

Minnesota Statutes,

section 171.071

AND Minnesota Rules,

part 7410.1800

STAT AUTH: MS s 171.071

HIST: 17 SR 1279

Current as of 10/18/01

[Former Proud Canadian]

Read the article, I think these people (identified as Mark Freeman and Sultaana Freeman) are where they came from. They seem to be on the same track as johnny jihad. I don't understand it. I guess it is the 21st century version of tune in, turn on, drop out.

[EverOnward]

"But don't bother calling on him to apologize, I'm not offended. And since I've been a Freeper since at least '98 ..."

hehehe, WindRiverShoshoni, you might want to click on your name now to see why you've blown the credibility you think you might have had, hehehehehe, Freeper since at least '98, hehehehehe.