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.

[summer]

Let some of these ladies see what they look like in the summertime.

What, as if all men wouldn't need this because they all look so great??? Hardly!

[summer]

Re your post #469 - very interesting. Thanks for sharing that.

[summer]

Re your post #471 - LOL....

[He Rides A White Horse]

You know summer, sometimes I think that they are merely probing for weaknesses in security.

We have a woman refusing to remove her headdress to board a plane; a woman suing because she doesn't want a photo ID.

The other day a female terrorist commits a suicide bombing.

I'm wondering if the next attack will feature women; just a funny feeling.

[He Rides A White Horse]

.......and if so, they are probably laughing to themselves as the ACLU helps them in their endeavor.

[summer]

I'm wondering if the next attack will feature women; just a funny feeling.

I'm with you. And, I don't think "tin-foil hat" is an appropriate description for what we're feeling here.

[He Rides A White Horse]

I don't think "tin-foil hat" is an appropriate description for what we're feeling here.

Not at all. They may be culturally backwards, but they aren't stupid.

Put yourself in their shoes, right?

If I were them, I would be doing just that. Looking for lapses in security, testing the waters here and there, seeing what one could get away with. I think that is what they are doing.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Sometimes it is best to conceive a worst case scenario, then prepare for it. Better safe than sorry, especially in these times.

[Southern Federalist]

There is nothing funny about that. Have you never heard about mighty oaks and little acorns, and long journeys beginning with a single step? The point is to begin establishing a series of legal precedents on small points that can then be cited as a basis for larger steps.

By the way, as I predicted, CAIR has now involved itself in this issue, not with this woman's case, but with another Florida Muslim woman making the same demand. See "Head covering keeps woman from getting ID photo taken".

Daniel Pipes and Steve Emerson have pretty clearly shown that CAIR is an Islamist front group with ties to Hamas.

I am big on the free exercise clause myself, but when claimed religious obligations constitute a clear public danger, then religious practice is going to, and should, encounter state resistance. Issuing what are in effect identification papers which do not actually identify any specific person, whether to Muslims or anyone else, constitutes an obvious public danger, since such identification can readily be given to or stolen by criminals and used to facilitate crime and worse. A driver's license with a picture of a veiled head on it does not identify any particular person and therefore constitutes a public danger, as well as being absurd.

[summer]

Looking for lapses in security, testing the waters here and there, seeing what one could get away with. I think that is what they are doing.

And, that's exactly what they did before 9-11. How many times did they fly those routes, engage in fake situations just to see how close they could get to the pilot's cabin, etc. I can certainly understand how some people look at this Muslim woman's current "claim" as nothing more than one more test to see how far we are willing to go to let our guard down again.

[summer]

BTTT to your post #488.

[summer]

The point is to begin establishing a series of legal precedents on small points that can then be cited as a basis for larger steps.

You made many good points there, including this one above.

[He Rides A White Horse]

And, that's exactly what they did before 9-11. How many times did they fly those routes, engage in fake situations just to see how close they could get to the pilot's cabin, etc. I can certainly understand how some people look at this Muslim woman's current "claim" as nothing more than one more test to see how far we are willing to go to let our guard down again.

Yep.

[summer]

And, now I am wondering this: what if she did win this case, and then other Muslims try to apply her win to situations where a private employer demands full face photos on company ID cards?

Would Muslims then going to point to this legal win and say:

"Hey, not only are WE excused from giving mug shots to police, and passport photos, but, we ALSO don't have to give our photos to employers on company ID cards -- thanks to this US Supreme Court decision here, recognizing our right not to be photographed."

This is a very scarey thought to me.

[summer]

Would Muslims then going to point = Would Muslims then point...

[Southern Federalist]

Thanks for the kind words. Here is another interesting Pipes article on the same subject.

[summer]

Thanks for the link. I intend to take a look when I have some more time. :)

[summer]

And, BTW, you're welcome. :)

[jws3sticks]

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!

[Dukie]

Good morning, DJ and regrets for a late reply !

One sign of maturity is the ability to set reasonable boundaries...

Gee, I'm feeling good this morning, so I'll assume that you did not intend the condescending and patronizing tone of that first sentence. IMHO, your use of the word "maturity" undercuts your argument, since some here are probably so mature as to remember the broken promise in the words: Not for Identification Purposes on the bottom of a card that we all now carry for that exact purpose.

I see nothing wrong with biometrics such as thumbprints or retinal scans for drivers licenses

Now, see. This started with a photo and you're already to concede retinal scans and fingerprints. What if, as is likely, these too prove to be forgable ? Concession of a principle tends to beget further surrenders.

When we demand an all-or-nothing response, we're apt to get nothing.

A true statement in most uncoerced negotiations. However when the demand is to the state and the wish is for increased security, you can be certain that it will be granted with ever more chains and shackles.