A 34 year old Florida woman, who converted to islam after a stint as an evangelical preacher is suing the state because they require all drivers licenses to have a facial picture them in the aftermath of 9/11.
The state claims Mrs. Freedman, who’s original license was has a shot of her in her niqab showing only her eyes, jeopardizes public safety.
Mrs. Freeman, her husband, her attorney, CAIR, 3 other muslim women in Florida and the ACLU claim requiring a full face photo burdens her exercise of religion. So too, does Orange County Circuit Judge Ted Coleman who refused to dismiss her case and decided to allow it to proceed through the State courts.
Listen lady; Take off the vail, have your DMV mug shot taken like the rest of us and shut the hell up.
While your at it, keep that niqab at home when your out driving around & picking up your kids at soccer practice. The thing looks like it definitely obstructs your view behind the wheel. The practice of your religion doesn’t give you the right to start plowing down pedestrians in your 1 1/2 ton SUV just because your husband insists you cover your face and in effect, wear blinders.
The more I think about, the less I’m convinced this has to do with your faith.
Truth be told; I belong to an ancient rastafarian order of naturalist steel workers who’s religion requires us to wear our welding helmets and face shields while driving completely stoned & naked between the hours of 7AM to 11:45PM weekdays. If we don’t comply with the orders of our high priest, we are forced to dance barefoot on a bed of red-hot bolts and rivets after just 3 bong hits. So even though I somewhat sympatize with your predicament, I choose to obey the laws of my state and defy the tenets of my faith in the interest of civil responsibility, respect of the law and public safety.
Hey, John. You forgot that the DMV there didn’t give her grief for that stance until they decided recently that she’s obviously wrong.
FWIW: Muslim scholars indicate she’s wrong, but since there’s no heirarchy (technically) in dar-al-Islam, she can interpret the scriptures the way she wants.
I think she needs to have her pic taken just like others. In order for the DL system to work, she needs to be able to be identified as the holder of the license. (yea, yea, the paper one does until the picture one comes in, point being eventually there is one).
As for the religious objections, my understanding of the veil etc. is the strict Muslims do not allow their women to be out w/o a male escorting them, so, I’m feeling about this about the same as I did w/the women who converted to Muslim while locked up and demanded that I provide non pork bacon for their dining pleasure. I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o’ pig wasn’t going to push 'em anywhere they weren’t already.
I feel differently tho’ about having the DL exams be available in other languages.
Monty I suspect (having dealt w/buracracies) that what happened on the first go-round was that she appeared in veil, refused to take it off for the pic and some low level bureacrat bought the religious freedom argument instead of bumping it upstairs.
Anyone ever notice how some Muslim women here in the US walk around dressed from head to toe in 100 degree August weather while their husbands waltz around in t-shirts and shorts?
What you suspect and what you feel don’t have any bearing in a legal case, just like what I suspect doesn’t.
For example: I suspect you’re inclined to ignore someone’s civil rights based on this comment:
Now, if they’d converted after they got chucked into jail for doing that other stuff, then that other stuff really doesn’t have any bearing on them following the new religion, does it?
nice try Monty - but in the first place, I did say ‘I suspect’ wasn’t claiming to know to a legal certainty.
and re: the selected quote
The people I was speaking of were inmates in the correction center I was running at the time. and they were in fact, at the same fucking time, doing drugs (we did urinalysis), drinking etc etc etc.
I seem to recall having pounded in my head over and over in driver’s ed “Driving isn’t a right. it’s a privilege”
If she is so insistent on keeping her face covered, she is well within her rights. The state is of course, well within their rights to refuse her driving privileges. She should feel free to drive on her own private property, however.
My question…and forgive my ignorance of the Islamic religion, so bear with me…
Islam does not allow women to drive, correct? (I thought I heard that somewhere.) If she is so devout in her religion that she wears the complete headcovering veil, why is she driving?
I agree with jk1245…the state is not obligated to give her a DL if she will not comply with the laws.
ivylass: Nope. Some fundamentalists ( i.e. the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia where you probably got that story ) are opposed to the concept of women driving ( it’s actually a little more involved than just the simple act of driving itself, but suffice it to say it’s dumb - IMHO of course ), but that is a pretty rare view in the Muslim world as a whole.
Actually this is an instance where I am inclined to say that the interests of the state trumps the right to individual Freedom of Religion.
By the way, I thought this had come up on this board before, but I can’t seem to find a link. Lost in the purge?
Don’t be such an asshole when you weren’t clear to begin with.
If they’re doing all that other crap, then yeah, they’re fucking hypocrites.
Which of your civil rights do you want ignored because you might be doing something someone else thinks is against your announced philosophy or religious views?
Well, I’m not too bothered. Photographs aren’t even close to reliable means of identification. I have had drivers licenses that ended up looking nothing like me by the end of the four year lifespan.
Identical twins have drivers license photos that do little to identify them. I say, if she doesn’t want her an unveiled picture taken, they should just require that she carry supporting documentation with her (such as a birth certificate, which is all that is required TO GET the drivers license in the first place). But that is up to the DMV to decide, and I don’t care much.
But the argument being put forward that DL photos are an important tool for criminal investigations is crap; it is not the responsiblity of the DMV to provide the police with mug shots for every driving citizen. It is not the responsibility of the DMV to provide bartenders with a tool for determining wheather someone is 21. It is the responsibility to ensure that drivers have demonstrated the necessary skills to drive and to provide evidence of that should anybody ever question it. If the DMV decides that can be done without clear photographs (after all, licenses existed for decades before they contained photographs) , then that is fine.
If a judge finds that reasonable accommodations can be made for her religious views, then that is fine with me.
But if the only reason we require a clear photograph is so that the police have a tool for investigation, then that isn’t fine. The police should just require everybody to go to the local precint so their picture can be taken; oh, wait, that might not be so legal.
(I have no idea if the linked article talks about the “investigative tool” defense, but the article I first read on this said it was the argument being put forward by the state.)
I believe that the ‘investigative tool’ aspect that is being touted isn’t as sophisticated as you suspect. It’s more of the 'is the person driving this vehicle claiming to be John Smith really John Smith?" Yes, people change during the course of the time they’ve got a license, but I don’t believe that the average person changes so much that they’re virtually unrecognizable w/the old license.
And what would the alternative be? The police have a duty/obligation once they’ve stopped a vehicle to at the very least confirm the person driving is a licensed driver, that the car’s insured and isn’t stolen. If they cannot confirm via a picture, what’s the alternative for the police on the side of the road?
I feel that wring is being pretty clear here. It seems that she feels that this case is little different from her personal experience, where people try to pick and choose which portions of a “religion” they allege they belong to in order to manipulate the system - in this case, the State of Florida.
And if this is how she feels, then I agree with her 100%.
The State (the generic term) can only accomodate Religions to a certain extent. We all know there is a limit, the only debate is over where the limit lies. For example, if one has the specious religion of always driving drunk, well, obviously that’s not going to fly. How about Sikhs carrying knives in zero-tolerance schools? How about a Catholic parent who sues a school district such that they will only serve fish on Fridays during Lent? (I hope I have this right…)
This woman, IMO, seems to have crossed the limit. Not by much, I will concede, but really now…
An identical twin’s photo license won’t distinguish between her and her twin - but it will keep most other people from using that license. BTW, around here, you need a lot more than a birth certificate to get a license (you need a total of six points, and most documents,including a non-photo DL are only worth one)
The altertnative to a photo which more than one person may resemble? Why, a fingerprint of course. Current technology provides for those nifty fingerprint scanners. I had to have my thumb scanned when I got my retired military ID card issued to me, so I know it’s in place.
And I suppose you support driving while wearing hijab over the face? If Mayalsian women and other pious Muslim women can get by with having the hair covered, then this woman, who doesn’t even have the excuse of being accustomed to full hijab, has not a leg to stand on.
She can wear a burqa at home or out on the town, but not behind the wheel of a car.
), but that is a pretty rare view in the Muslim world as a whole.