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.

[DJ88]

Is this the ACTUAL PICTURE of the DL? Because if they are claiming it is, it IS NOT. The picture does not appear to be real. I have a FL driver's licence, and my picture is underneath the "Class E" part, but if you were looking at it you would not have to turn it to see the person's picture. It would be FACING you. Also....there is no "state" there right in the middle of your face. There is a irridescent one, but it would start right next to the "a" in Florida, not in the middle of your face.

[bwteim]

I don't know if it is real pic. Check on link from JGrubbs:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/618460/posts?page=198#198

a few pages back for full picture.

[JD86]

Driving is a privilege, not a right....go by the rules or don't drive, your choice...and hers..:)

[weegee]

I am genuinely interested in why you think she should not give a mug shot if arrested, or a passport photo for an American passport.

It may be an unfair burden to arrest her for violating "man's law" when she declares she only be tried in "Islamic courts" under "Islamic law".

[mvpel]

Summer, see reply number 305. The only reason everyone is convinced that conducting oneself on the public roads using one's private property is a privelege instead of a right is because we've been systematically duped over the decades by governments who reap billions of dollars in licensing revenues from this deception.

Did George Washington need to get a riders' license and a set of tags for his horse's rump in order to conduct himself on the public roads using his private property (his horse)? Nope. What has changed since then? Certainly not the Constitution in this regard.

[JD86]

I don't write the laws, only report on them...:)

[Don Joe]

"Church of the Lukumi Babalu"

If you say "Hey," followed by the above highlighted passage aloud, you get, "Hey, look a' me, Babaloo!"

Was that grim lot somehow inspired by that all time great tune, "Bobaloo's Wedding Day"?

[Don Joe]

"Good God, what part of FULL FACE is vague?"

The words, obviously. :)

Straining at gnats...

[weegee]

Not just a troll, a banned troll back with a new name.

[Don Joe]

"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."

Bingo. If this flies, the next step could easily be a requirement that they wear gloves, and theaten lawsuits if any "infidel" demands that they remove them for fingerprinting when applying for security clearance, when arrested, and so forth.

There's got to be a reason (or a slew of reasons) that they're striving so hard to set a precedent with this.

[weegee]

Could be, I know the song you're talking about and that certainly what it sounds like.

[Don Joe]

"Will you express similar sentiments when IDs with biometric data or perhaps DNA samples become the next mndate for the sake of 'security'."

One sign of maturity is the ability to set reasonable boundaries, and think in other than completely black and white terms.

I see nothing wrong with biometrics such as thumbprints or retinal scans for drivers licenses. I'd draw the line there, because that's entirely sufficient for the DL requirements, i.e., verifying that the bearer is in fact the licensee. DNA profiles on the other hand are way over the top, akin perhaps to instituting the death penalty for jaywalking, cooking chicken wings with a blast furnace, and killing mosquitoes with H-bombs.

When we demand an all-or-nothing response, we're apt to get nothing. IOW, if we insist that no readily defeated ID method be included in a DL, the only thing we accomplish is to discount ourselves out of the equation. Thus, those who want to go to the extreme in the other direction will get what they want without "objection". Say goodbye to thumbprint, say hello to encoded inner-cheek swab DNA sequence.

[Don Joe]

"Whoa. I felt the wholesale price of aluminum just go WAY up."

When I see stuff like that, I'm reminded of Lou Costello's famous blackboard skit, where he uses a few square feet of chalk marks to prove that 2 + 2 = 22.

[Don Joe]

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

That depends on whether or not she's bright enough to change her "Islamic" last name to "al Gore", doesn't it?

[Don Joe]

"possport? = passport"

Jab a hyphen between the two esses and you'll have a reasonable approximation of how they view our laws.

[duck soup]

That's no muslim, that's Martha McSally testing a Florida law. The eyes gave her up.

[EugeneConservative]

I think just about any police officer or DMV will tell you that a drivers license is a priviledge, not a right. If she doesn't want to show her face then no drivers license. It's easy - she doesn't have to show her face and the state doesn't have to take her picture!

Oh, but I forgot this is about imposing one's beliefs on the government and forcing everyone to sacrifice their rights to have safe driving regulations enforced. It's all about me!!! (whine, whine)

[Pistias]

Methinks whoever mixed you put in a little more of one than the other, n'est-ce pas? ;)

[Don Joe]

"In my home state, driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

"I imagine most others are like that. Your license can be revoked or not granted if you refuse to meet the requirements."

It's actually somewhere between the two. If it was truly a privilege, it could be revoked for any or no reason, and if it was an absolute right, it could not be revoked for any reason.

As it stands, you have a "right" to drive so long as you do so in compliance with the law, which applies equally to any and all. The DL issuing agency can't deny you that "right" on any basis other than failure to adhere to the law. They can't say "sorry, we don't like your kind, go away," for example.

[Argh]

he wants the state to train employees about Muslim needs

Muslim needs = every human's needs = food, shelter, clothing (depending where you live)... etc.

Since when is a driver's license a need? Since when is covering your face for an ID photo a "need"? Whiny worse-than-useless bastards.