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.

[bwteim]

What are the laws like in FL?

See Florida Statutes 2001, CHAPTER 322, DRIVERS' LICENSES

[summer]

Re your post #203 -- LOL! Thanks, "RIGHT SAID SERE_DOC"! :)

[Xenalyte]

Sultaana Freeman . . . says her religion doesn't allow her to show her face to strangers.

I'd be interested in finding out why all the Islamic women in Houston don't veil, then. If it's required, all the Muslim women I see are going to hell. If it's not required, the Sultana (I refuse to recognize the stupid and artificial double vowels in Let's Make Up A Cool Name names) is WAY wrong.

I'd also like to know what her Christian name was before she elevated herself to Saudi royalty.

[Xenalyte]

We have an American USAF officer suing for the right NOT to have to wear the abaya in Saudi Arabia, and an American women suing for the right to wear it here.

No one is arguing that she doesn't have the right to wear the nijab here - just that if she doesn't take it off, she'll be refused the PRIVILEGE of a driver's license (which, last I checked, wasn't in the Constitution).

[Xenalyte]

. . . women must always wear spandex or nothing at all.

I'd advise a) rethinking this policy, or b) being quite selective in your membership. Spandex, like chainmail and a driver's license, is a privilege - NOT a right.

Plus, it's rather unforgiving. Leather all the way!

[Razz Barry]

May I join your church? I've talked of doing something like that for thirty years.

[bwteim]

I nominate you to keep track of all holiday matters

Sorry, been just too busy on FR keeping up with Bush2000, Toupsie, CheneyChick, Fish Hawk, and Sabertooth while trying not get fired from my day-job....Just keep in mind the forgettable words of Mo Udall:

"If nominated, I will run--for the Mexican border. If elected, I will fight extradition."

[Xenalyte]

So when do we celebrate it? I think the festivities should begin Friday at 4:30. And, of course, the rite must take place in an establishment that has a posted maximum occupancy.

[Xenalyte]

All hail Bob Dobbs!

[Harp]

BUT why did she want my headcovering (which just covers the crown of my head) off?

Probably because it's the standard thing to ask people to do. Men, for example, are asked to take off their caps, beanies, or ten gallon hats.

She might have known you were a Mennonite, but even if she did, she might have asked you to take the covering off anyway since it would be wrong to presume someone's religion because of what they wear. (Yeah, that's goofy political correctness.)

If I had to guess though, she probably just didn't recognize you as a Mennonite.

[summer]

"If nominated, I will run--for the Mexican border. If elected, I will fight extradition."

LOL...

[general_re]

I hardly think the Florida courts are going to give her something that the laws don't.

Uhhh, yeah. So you were on Mars or something during that whole Bush v. Gore thing, then?

[summer]

May I join your church? I've talked of doing something like that for thirty years.

Yes, of course, and as we now have an opening to fill with respect to someone to figure out and keep track off all holiday matters, perhaps you could give some thought to that and let us know.

[bwteim]

So when do we celebrate it? I think the festivities should begin Friday at 4:30. And, of course, the rite must take place in an establishment that has a posted maximum occupancy.

I'm game if you show up as "Xena lookalike by night" [does not have to be same as your DL photo....]

[hgro]

Too bad she doesn't live in Saudia Arabia. There she would have no problem - women aren't allowed to drive.

[Cacique]

Having a driver's license is a "privilege" NOT a "right". If you want to partake of that "privilege" you must comply with it's requirements.

[FourtySeven]

Kinda like the people in this Thread -- letting this woman preserve her privacy from grocery store clerks is like beating you half to death, it appears.

I agree with this up to a point. There is another issue here though, one that you inadvertently hit upon in this quote. Her intention is to hide her identity, that is why she wears the covering, that's why she doesn't want it removed in her drivers licence photo. But unfortunately in our society, for better or worse, driver licenses are used as a form of identification. Indeed, what is the point of having the picture there at all, if it's not to identify the holder of the license as the actual registered driver? After this picture is taken, she could conceivably give it to anyone who is similarly dressed, and that person could pass themselves off as her. Looking at the photo, I myself immediately thought of that possibility.

I do agree though that she has a right to hide her face, but since this can easily be used to fake identities, I don't think she should be permitted to do it on a form of identification that is widely accepted as reliable. It sets a dangerous precident, in my opinion.

[Goetz_von_Berlichingen]

"I don't show my face to strangers or unrelated males," Freeman said.

At the risk of sounding Jesuitical, it is not "her face" on the driver's license. It is an image of her face. To be an Islamic strict-constructionist, this would mean that only a "related male" could be present when were picture is taken. Even this can be obviated it the photographer is a woman.

If she is issued a license and for some reason is pulled over by the constabulary, I suppose that she could demand that only a female officer could look at the license. The almost politically correct solution to that problem is to clap her in irons and bring her downtown so that her credentials can be validated. And if they can't find a female officer for a couple of days, ain't that just too damned bad? As an Islamic woman, she should be used to prisoner status.

[summer]

I do agree though that she has a right to hide her face, but since this can easily be used to fake identities, I don't think she should be permitted to do it on a form of identification that is widely accepted as reliable. It sets a dangerous precident, in my opinion.

I agree -- and, I am shocked that Minnesota state laws allows this to happen, as someone demonstrated earlier by posting said laws on this thread.

[Hacksaw]

And of course, America's cancer, the ACLU, is behind this.