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.

[egb18delta]

Damn things don't not roll like a soccer ball.. I hated the biting, hitting, and the NON Rules to the game... Course the I'm not a Horse driver.... Hhahhah

[egb18delta]

Always slice right.....Have to hit them real hard... Burlap and sand is not a pool table..

[egb18delta]

Well ya, and get out of the way...

[nopardons]

He was a fantastic photographer. Great choice for a nic !

[egb18delta]

Why is there a discusion about this?? She can follow the State laws.. Just like me... Or not... Move, I this country is not a nice place to live... Simple??

[mathurine]

What's she need a driver's license for anyway. She should be outside the car running five paces behind it along with the other wives while the husband drives.

[nopardons]

It's several days old now, and is called Vanity on vanities and ( some other things, which I'm sorry that I have now forgotten) can be accessed , propably, buy going to you profile page, then going to Jim's, and ten looking for him on the forum. If anyone knows a quicker way to access it, please help out. THANKS.

I hope this helps. : - )

[nopardons]

It's several days old now, and is called " Vanity on vanities and ( some other things, which I'm sorry that I have now forgotten) ... " and can be accessed , propably, by going to you profile page, then going to Jim's, and then looking for him on the forum. If anyone knows a quicker way to access it, please help out. THANKS.

I hope this helps. : - )

[aimlow]

What we are seeing is the beginning of what is termed fourth generational warfare. No longer will it be nation versus nation, but culture versus culture.

[nopardons]

Oh gee, you people are really beyond belief ! Your tinfoil is wrapped far too tight .

Do you have any idea WHY just anyone, who owns a car, had to get a driver's license; originally ? It was because people were buying cars and immediately driving them ( driving other people's ); crashing them, causing accidents, and in general, driving when they shouldn't be. Hence someone came up with testing and licensing drivers.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING RECORDS ON ONE'S HEIGHT, WEIGHT EYE COLOR, AND ADDRESS !

Do you assume that driver's licenses are something new ? They are almost as old as the invention and sale of cars. I have my grandfather's from 1916 ; it has his height, weight, eye color, and address on it. BFD ... NOT !

[Long Cut]

You are quite right, sir. I often noticed that those who convert whilst incarcerated do not practice their new "religion" in any way CLOSE to the way its true adherents do. Yes, the fanatics are by far the most dangerous- whether named "Joe" or "Abdul Tupak Sixpac", a thug is a thug, and will seldom die on purpose.

It makes me laugh when some figure like a boxer or rapper comes out of stir wanting to be called his "Muslim" name. The next time he's seen, it will be with most certainly UN-veiled women, livin' large. Hypocrites.

Of course, no one ever asks them about this foolishness, nor asks if they know it was Muslims who sold (and still sell) human beings into slavery.

I guess if some can pervert religion into wanton murder and slaughter, some can pervert it to common crime as well. Did not most of the Nation Of Islam's founders do time? I seem to remember a story or two about Farrakhan and Malcolm X both having served stretches.

[GeronL]

what have I started? LOL =o)

[MrMiteE]

I agree with you that a DL is a privelege. However, a DL is not required to TRAVEL in a privately owned conveyance on a public highway. If you choose to exchange a right for a privilege, that is your perogative. But please, just because you are willfully blind to government deception does not mean we all have to be.

Wasting bandwidth? I think it is one of the most important issues of our time. Do we have rights, or merely privileges granted by Big Brother? That is the question.

Just because no salutation is required doesn't mean that rendering one is an offense. Saying 'Please' is never a requirement either, yet CIVIL folks do it all the time.

Finally, since it is I who is desirous of peace, it is up to me to decide how best to achieve it. I am of the opinion that the best way to achieve peace is by standing against ignorance.
Anyone who thinks that just because they have traded their right for a revokable privilege, I am therefore obligated to do the same, is ignorant.

Address the issues I have raised, sir. Does she require a license to 'travel in a privately owned conveyance'? If the answer is No, then the entire issue is based on a fallacy. If your answer is Yes, you are wrong.

PEACE, EH?

PS- I have no problem.

:o)

[TaxPayer2000]

"II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135"

okay , so will you bail me out of jail after I recite said code to the cop that arrests me after lets say 9 tickets of driving without a liscense?

[timestax]

This is just pure madness!! Deport these islamic wierdos ASAP!

[weegee]

Where is JimRob's new directive if you don't mind me asking, for myself and all the other uninformed people here. thanks.:)

No problem, I bookmarked it, Vanity Post on Vanity Posts, Duplicate Posts, Trash Posts, Commie Propaganda, etc., Vol V, No. 1

[Don Joe]

Nope, we're on the same side of this issue, I was arguing against her, she has no claim of being denied a right, or being "unfairly" denied a privilege (if there even is any such thing as being unfairly denied a privilege). She demands special treatment, and she shouldn't get it.

My "surface point" was that as far as rights and privileges are concerned, driving is neither fish nor fowl, and to ask the question of "which is it" borders on a form of "have you stopped beating your wife?"

The fact that driving is not an "absolute" right does not demonstrate that it is a privilege, nor does the fact that it's not a "pure" privilege serve as evidence that it's a right. There are things in this world that are neither rights nor privileges. Life is fraught with gray areas, and situations that require judgement, discretion, and/or thought. Driving is fairly simple as these matters go. Behave responsibly (i.e., demonstrate the ability to comprehend basic traffic rules and a modicum of control over a moving vehicle), and you'll be handed a license. If you comply with a reasonable set of rules, the licensing agent has absolutely zero discretion as to whether or not you get a license. He can't say "My cousin is his next door neighbor, and I know things about this guy, trust me, he shouldn't get a license, and he won't get one on my watch!" Any DMV drone who tried something like that would find his watch over with sooner than he'd anticipated.

Driving has "rights" aspects, and "privileges" aspects, but neither in totality.

[NYCVirago]

What's she need a driver's license for anyway. She should be outside the car running five paces behind it along with the other wives while the husband drives.

Now that's funny!