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.

[hobbes1]

It's much easier than that.

There IS NO RIGHT to drive. None, Zero, Zip, Nada. Driving is set up as a Privelege. Period. End of Story.

[Razz Barry]

It's a good thing.

[cactmh]

Driving is not a right.

[MrMiteE]

Good morning,
You are right of course, no judge would be impressed, yet it is not a word game, it is a truthful way of interpreting the wording of an Act. You do realize that the definition of driver (or any others) are agreed to by you when you submit your application?
The proper course of action is not to just ignore those Acts and then hope that you prevail in court.
The best way to deal with the situation is to force the authorities to either point out which section of which Act clearly, specifically and unequivocally removed a preexisting right or acknowledge the right still exists. If they are unable to do so, you then serve them with a Determination by Proxy. When you end up in court, you want to make sure you can prove you and the other party are in agreement that the action is not against the Act in question. Their silence when served with a Determination by Proxy, will suffice. The fact is, without your signature on their documents, they can't prove jurisdiction.
juris=oath, diction=speak. Your signature is evidence of oath spoken,and it is what gives them jurisdiction, not their documents. Their documents merely describe how they get jurisdiction. Beleive it or not, they have no claim without you first 'applying'.
I know it is hard to believe, but these tactics are working up here in Canada. Why would the Government want to take you to court for an action which they have already acknowledged is not contrary to the Act? They will look very stupid and the judge will toss them out. There are quite a few people up here travelling without license, and the cops are leaving them alone. WHY? Becasuse these people can prove an agreement exist between them and the government that acknowledges their right to do so.
Silence, in the eyes of the Law, is acceptance.
Peace, eh?

[summer]

Note: Peace to you too, but that may come a bit quicker if we get a handle on who in this country is in a terrorist cell and who is not.

People who do not want to provide any identification -- yet, demand the privilege of driving around here in this state or country are not looking too good to me; sorry.

[MrMiteE]

Hi,
When seen in that light, I agree with you. Being from a small town in Canada, I am less aware of the emotions in the States. I wish you well.

Cheers.

[summer]

Thank you as that reply was truly thoughtful.

I hope what happened at the Pentagon and the WTC never happens in Canada, but if it does, you will no doubt find yourself more willing to help your own country in security matters, while at the same time you may raise your own eyebrows a bit higher at people who think a photo on a driver's license, a mug shot, a passport, or a company ID is "against their religion."

If so, then -- with all due respect to them and their religion -- they should immediately relocate out of this country to a place where no photo is ever required.

I don't actually know of such a place, but these cave dwellers in Afghanistan sure look like they don't worry too much about photo ID, as they have plenty of other problems.

[summer]

BTW, I did not intend to omit, in my above reply, the tragedy of hijacked Flight 93, which crashed in PA.

Finally, I know this may sound horrible, but it would not bother me in the least if some of my existing tax dollars were used to help this Muslim woman purchase a one-way plane ticket to Afghanistan if she finds US and FL law so repugnant.

Nor would it bother if some of the US political leaders suggested to Saudi Arabia that Saudi citizens and Saudi nationals fly solely on their own airline, for so long as 95% of Saudi males view Osama bin Laden in a favorable light.

[summer]

"Nor would it bother me" is what I meant to type.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

My religion prohibits me from paying taxes. Think I can win in court?

[summer]

Then you too must be a Freedomist. We just started this new religion the other night, on htis very thread. We celebrate Festivus. Call an ACLU lawyer and let us know what happens! :)

[summer]

"this" !

[weegee]

I personally witnessed this in Saudi. The woman was in the back of a mini-pick-up, in blazing heat.

On the front seat was the driver, her stud, no doubt, and a GOAT!

The goat was ridding 'shotgun'.

What a country!

Maybe that goat was named Ahmed Ziffle. The owner could have been a Green Acres fan.

[XBob]

474 - "now not all lawyers need killing, there are a few honest ones out there. "

Yes, I met one once.

Am I replying to one now, ex-con?

[XBob]

474 - I am currently, unfortunately, employing a lawyer, who went to trial totally unprepared, and who has lost me a lot of money, and I am trying to figure out how to deal with it.

Perhaps you could tell me how - I would like to sue him for laziness and incompetence.

[XBob]

I lived and worked in Aquaba, Jordan for a while. Right at the tip of the Gulf of Aquaba (arabic name) Gulf of Eilat (israli name). This is a juncture of Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

We had to be very careful driving, because the Saudi men would come over the border and get drunk. And when we went swimming at the Holiday Inn, the Saudi women would come in and take off their head-toe black coverings, and put on bikinis, while the men sat and watched them and got drunk. There are some fine looking women under all those veils. Also some not so fine, but they generally just opened their veils.

[XBob]

The goat was ridding 'shotgun'.

Yes, I have seen that too. They did, however, make the camels ride in the back, and let the women ride in the front when there were camels in the back.

[Publius6961]

to ne hassled over your VERY new arrival in FR ; newbie !

More significant than being a newbie and ignorant, is being a previous banned poster and disruptor who seems to get (and enjoy) lots of reaction.

[zip]

but her husband said she did it only because she spoke no English and was unsure of her legal rights.

Just saw this and don't see the problem. A license is not a right but a privlege. period. No picture, no license. Where is the problem?

This is a law enforcement issue and has absolutely nothing to do with religion. I am really getting sick and tired of these whiney non citizens pulling this crap then the American Commie loving union AKA ACLU, suing to force OUR government to bend over to these thugs.

When will this end?