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

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.

Are you a really a ‘DRIVER’?
According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a ‘Driver’ is one who is engages in commerce on the highways. Are you planning on transporting cargo or passengers on the Highway and make a living from that? Then under the Law, you are a ‘Driver’.
There is another way, legally, to be a ‘Driver’. Agree to a different definition. When you ‘Submit’ your ‘Application’ you are agreeing to the definition of ‘Driver’ found in the Motor Vehicle Act. It is radically different from the one in Black’s and has been expanded to include that which was before merely a ‘Traveler’. They have left out the commercial facet of ‘Driver’ thereby removing the distinction between the two.
Guess what? According to them, you knew you were doing this and you BEGGED them for this new expanded, freedom-killing definition. The word ‘Application’ on the document with your signature is all they need to show. ‘Application’ means to BEG. People who BEG are assumed by the courts to know exactly what they are getting and what they are giving up for it.

If you knew what the words ‘Registration’, ‘Application’ and ‘Submission’ REALLY meant, every time you put your signature to documents with those words, you would feel violated.
Just what Is a ‘MOTOR VEHICLE’?
Here it gets a little tricky. Put on your thinking caps. The Motor Vehicle Act defines a Motor Vehicle. Again, if you have ‘Submitted’ an ‘Application’, you have agreed to this definition. They word it however so that it becomes a hook. When you read it without knowledge and logic, it is easy to assume it means something it does not.
From the Act:
"motor vehicle" means a vehicle, not run on rails, that is designed to be self propelled or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires;
Read that carefully. Know what it definitely doesn’t say? It doesn’t say: a vehicle, not run on rails, that is designed to be self propelled or propelled by electric power obtained from overhead trolley wires means "motor vehicle";
Yet, when you purchase an automobile, you read their definition of ‘Motor Vehicle’ and assume it means the opposite of what it is saying. They will even point this section out in court and if you accept it, it stands. The judge might know what I am about to show you, but if you don’t raise it, no one will.
Just because “All A’s are B’s” doesn’t mean, “All B’s are A’s”. Look at this diagram. (not shown sorry Imagine one box inside another, label the smaller one 'A', the larger one 'B') It’s easy to see the statement “All ‘A’s are ‘B’s” is clearly true. The reverse however, is clearly not true. Their definitions in their Acts are not clear and complete. Not only that, but sometimes they mean something which is totally incongruous with reality.
Look at their definition of ‘accident’.
"accident" includes an intentional collision;
Not only is the definition neither full nor complete, it is drastically expanded to include that which is opposite of ‘accident’. They cannot claim that one definition is full and complete when others clearly are not. Either they all are, or none are. This is also a perfect example of how they change definitions.

Now if the definitions are neither full nor complete, then there are other attributes, which further define a ‘Motor Vehicle’. Want to guess what it is? What if it was YOU SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, which created the necessary other attributes, which led to the status of ‘Motor Vehicle’ being conferred? You BEGGED them to consider your property to be a ‘Motor Vehicle’. And you know what they get you to do then? You will have to send them THE Manufacturers Certificate Of Origin. Guess what you need to prove ownership of your private property? You need the Bill of Sale and the MCO. What do you have after ‘Registration’? You get a ‘Certificate of Ownership’ and you keep the Bill of Sale. They have the MCO.

Your ‘Certificate of Ownership’ certifies that BOTH of you own that property. You do see their name on it, don’t you? And they have the MCO, which you BEGGED them to accept. Under the Law, they now have the Right to decide who can ‘Drive’ that ‘Motor Vehicle’ and how. After all, it’s partly theirs because you begged them to accept it.
Registration
From the Act:
Registration and license
3 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the owner of a motor vehicle or trailer must, before it is used or operated on a highway,
(a) register the motor vehicle or trailer with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,

This part, along with how they word the definition, finishes how they hook you. They use the word ‘must’. Better sit down for this. MUST MEANS MAY! It is an invitation and is not used in the imperative sense. It is a directive. It creates NO obligation on your part; it does however create one on theirs. Before they can claim that something is a ‘Motor Vehicle’, the owner must register. That is the missing attribute, which defines a Motor Vehicle. The owner MUST engage in a voluntary act of ‘Application’ and ‘Submission’. Once that has been achieved, the claim of Motor Vehicle Status can be lawfully made.

All the power ICBC has over you is a direct result of your voluntary actions. Before you sought your Driver’s License, did you ask them about your ‘Common Law Right to Travel’? Why not and whose fault is that? It’s not too late. Ask them now. Ask yourself, ‘If what they are doing is so good, why do they use so much deception to get you to buy it?

From the Book: ‘Registration, Application & Submission means Drop’em, Bend Over a Don’t Expect Lube; How the government REALLY gains Power.' By Robert Arthur

Although this is written about British Columbia, I am willing to bet the same deception is used just about every where. Anyone here think the goobermint doesn't use deception? Anyone?

Peace, eh?

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.