Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In License Photo - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

merkerguitars · 06-07-2003, 11:56 PM

Linky

Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In License Photo

POSTED: 6:43 a.m. EDT June 6, 2003
UPDATED: 7:44 p.m. EDT June 6, 2003

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver's license photo, agreeing with the state that allowing people to show only their eyes would undermine efforts to stop terrorists.

Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe agreed with the state's assertion that if Sultaana Freeman could keep her face off her driver's license, so could others planning harm.

Freeman had said it is against her religious beliefs to show her face in public, but Thorpe ruled her right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by the photo requirement.

The state "has a compelling interest in protecting the public from criminal activities and security threats, and that having access to photo image identification is essential to promote that interest," wrote Thorpe, who heard three days of testimony last week.

Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist praised the decision, saying "Nothing is more important than making sure that our people are safe."

Freeman refused to speak with the media after meeting with her attorney, but her husband said they would continue to fight the state's policy.

"She's not lifting the veil," Abdul-Maalik Freeman said. "This is a religious principle, this is a principle that's imbedded is us as believers. So, she's not going to do that.

"We'll take the next step, and this is what we call the American Way."

Attorney Howard Marks said the ruling would be appealed.

"It's really a sad day for Americans," Marks said. "Hopefull, we'll look back at decisions like this in the future and realize this was a mistake."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has been supporting Freeman's fight, said the ruling "is a needless restriction on religious freedom with no benefit to public safety."

"We're concerned because the government's tendency in the aftermath of September 11th has been to restrict numerous freedoms merely for the sake of restricting liberty, rather than to make us truly safer," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida's executive director.

"Today's ruling runs counter to the most basic principles of religious freedom that give everyone -- including members of minority religious communities as well as majority Christian faiths -- the right to practice and worship as they choose."

The ACLU noted that a driver's license can be obtained without a photo in 14 states.

Freeman, 35, had sued Florida after the state revoked her license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered, saying it violated her religious beliefs. Her previous license showed her veiled with only her eyes visible.

The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles had offered Freeman an alternative -- lifting her veil in a private room in front of a female worker -- and Thorpe's ruling stated that proposal would not have caused harm.

"We tried to be as accommodating as we can while still following the law, which is very clear," department spokesman Bob Sanchez said. "I think the judge has recognized that the law is not only clear but pretty reasonable."

Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001.

Nine months later, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered.

Freeman claims her religious beliefs require her to keep her head and face covered out of modesty and that her faith prohibits her face from being photographed.

Her lawyers argued that instead of a driver's license photo, she could use other documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card to prove her identity if necessary.

But a state attorney countered that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to lift their veil and expose their face if the action serves a public good. Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail said arrangements can be made to have Freeman photographed only with women present to allay her concerns about modesty.

Thorpe, in her ruling, noted that Freeman "has been willing to have her picture taken many times, albeit veiled, and eyes are facial characteristics of living beings."

The judge also pointed out that Freeman's husband testified that he shares his wife's beliefs -- but he never objected to being photographed for his own driver's licenses or throughout the televised trial.

During the hearing, Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997. She had a mug shot (photo left) taken after her arrest in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The children were removed from her home, according to records from the Decatur (Ill.) Police Services.

Child welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the Decatur Police records.

Thorpe didn't allow much of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence.
____________________________________________________
Ok this top I don't know which side to pick....one side of me says hey we should respect other peoples beliefs...but the other side of me says this is america...freedom costs something.........what do you think?

Shokan · 06-08-2003, 12:22 AM

The purpose of an I.D photo is to identify what you look like. Putting a mask over your face prevents that.

Nuff said.

Halx · 06-08-2003, 12:36 AM

Correct ruling, absurdly obnoxious justification.

hilbert25 · 06-08-2003, 01:03 AM

That's one of the stupidest fights that I have seen in a long time, especially since they said that she could take the picture, in the company of only a female, in a separate room, which is allowed, but she refused.

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 01:03 AM

What was the judge on about?
Was she saying that she knew better about the woman's relgious beliefs: "eyes are part of the face, HaHa, caught you out."?
Was she saying that because her husband let himself be photographed there was an inconsistency with his belief that women should not be photgraphed?

Anyway, I think it was the wrong decision.
If there are alternative ways to ID someone (fingerprints, birth certficate, signature) albeit with a little more effort, then we should make the extra effort to accomodate their religious beliefs.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 01:29 AM

Didn't they make an extra effort? And besides, there's nobody forcing her to unveil herself ... she doesn't have to drive, but if she wants to she has to be identifiable. With fingerprints/signature/birth certificate: What will the cop who pulls her over do if she has her licence but not her birth certificate? Treat it as if there was no licence at all? Then get sued? With fingerprints, does the cop kep with him equipment to check that? And signatures ... I don't think I have written my own signature twice in the same way. IMO that's not a method of identification.

Shades · 06-08-2003, 01:57 AM

Signatures aren't a valid identification by themselves. And driving is a privalige, not a right. If she doesn't want to submit to the rules, that's fine- she doesn't have to have a license. What's so hard about that?

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 01:58 AM

In the UK you don't need to drive with a licence, you just need to produce it at a police station within 7 working days of it being requested. How does it work in the US?

No I don't think they made any extra effort. What extra effort do they think they made (other than taking her to court!)?

As article said, in 14 states you don't need a photo on the licence.
What is the national security threat posed by not allowing her to use a different form of ID? To me this is an issue of freedom and religious tolerance, not natuonal security. Organised terrorists would (a) just follow the rules, blend in and not draw attention to themselves as she has, and (b) be well organised and funded enough to buy false driving licences if they needed them.

Stopping a few Muslim women from keeping their dignity and forcing them to use photo ID will not stop another 9-11.

And as for 'driving is a privilege'. What makes you think that in a country that is founded on extensive individual rights, the freedom of the individual and the limiting of the state. Are you saying that she has a right to buy a gun and a right to buy a house and a right to buy pretty much damn well anything. But not a car? That is a privilege that the government must give you? My view is that we have the right to buy a car but we must prove that we can drive it safely. Once we have done that then we free to drive. If the government wants to keep tabs on us with a driving licence then okay, but it is up to them to make sure that they fit their system around my religious and human rights.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
My view is that we have the right to buy a car but we must prove that we can drive it safely.

This is the essence of the argument. I think a photo identification on the licence is required to prove that you can drive safely.

I agree with you that all the talking of national security and terrorism is BS. And I think that the fact 14 states doesn't require photo ID is rather the problem that needs to be solved than that 36 states require photo ID.

And the extra effort was offering her a way of taking the photo that doesn't go against her religion.

SecretMethod70 · 06-08-2003, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
In the UK you don't need to drive with a licence, you just need to produce it at a police station within 7 working days of it being requested. How does it work in the US?

we must carry our driver's license with us at all times that we are driving a vehicle. Failure to do so in itself is worthy of a ticket, so if I get pulled over for speeding and don't have my driver's license, I get 2 tickets - 1 for speeding and another for no license. On my court date I can then bring my valid license from the time of the ticket and show it to the judge at which point the ticket for no license would be thrown out.

Quote:

As article said, in 14 states you don't need a photo on the licence.

I too think that that's a problem that should be fixed in those states, not the other way around.

Quote:

What is the national security threat posed by not allowing her to use a different form of ID? To me this is an issue of freedom and religious tolerance, not natuonal security. Organised terrorists would (a) just follow the rules, blend in and not draw attention to themselves as she has, and (b) be well organised and funded enough to buy false driving licences if they needed them.

This is very true. The issue isn't her though. It's a matter of if she can do it, then anyone will be able to do it in the future. Meaning that anyone who wished to hide their face would be able to cite that case as an example that they should be allowed to. I'm not sure whether I agree with the reasoning entirely or not, but that's what I take it to be.

Quote:

And as for 'driving is a privilege'. What makes you think that in a country that is founded on extensive individual rights, the freedom of the individual and the limiting of the state. Are you saying that she has a right to buy a gun and a right to buy a house and a right to buy pretty much damn well anything. But not a car? That is a privilege that the government must give you? My view is that we have the right to buy a car but we must prove that we can drive it safely. Once we have done that then we free to drive. If the government wants to keep tabs on us with a driving licence then okay, but it is up to them to make sure that they fit their system around my religious and human rights.

One cannot buy a gun without adhering to certain requirements for it, just like one can't drive a car without doing so. One of those requirements is a valid driver's license with (in most states) a photo ID. Driving isn't a necessity to life therefore we have no responsibility to ensure that all people can do it. If she doesn't want to get a valid driver's license, that's fine - she just can't drive herself anywhere. There's public transportation, walking, cabs, etc.

And like others have mentioned, they offered her a way to get the picture taken that doesn't go against her religion at all. Were she to be pulled over, she could simply then explain to the officer - if it's male - that due to her religious beliefs she can only show her license to a female officer. They can call one over - just as they do when they have to frisk female's - and all would be well. That looks like extra effort to me.

izzzzy · 06-08-2003, 03:22 AM

she aint the lone ranger she is a criminal do you want to risk the next step?

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
they offered her a way to get the picture taken that doesn't go against her religion at all.

Okay, I think I should set out my argument so that it isn't specific to her (a criminal?) and her religious beliefs (Islam).

My point: If you have a religious belief that your photo should not be taken (by anyone) and you have proven capable of driving safely, then you should be allowed to drive. If the state requires proof of your competency then they must establish a verification system that does not require the person to break their religious beliefs, so long as such a verification system is feasible. In the case of driving licences it is quite feasible to use non-photo methods (I drive in the UK without a photo ID, and I could do the same in 14 US states) and so the state cannot use this excuse.

Is this a genuine issue?
Yes, there have been cases (e.g. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Pentecostal House of Prayer, Inc ) where Pentecostal Christians have said they refuse to use photo ID as it would go against their religious beliefs. In all these previous cases the religious belief has been respected. In the Freeman case the Judge ruled that in the new post-9.11 world, the religious belief could not trump national security.

My point on the national security issue:
Imagine a world where Freeman had been allowed to wear a veil in her photo ID (but she had to support it with another form of ID as well). Now a terrorist enters the country (presumably using a passport with a photo) and then starts a new life in the US as a cover for a terrorist attack. But they need to use a car to drive around. And they need a driving ID. Now I ask you, what terrorist is going to draw attention to themselves by invoking the right of Muslim women to wear a veil in ID photos? They wouldn't. If they were male they couldn't (they don't wear veils!) and if they were a woman they would simply try and fit in with everyone else as part of their cover.

The Judge invoked national security to overturn a good legal precedent. IMHO she should not have.

izzzzy · 06-08-2003, 04:25 AM

child beating part of that religeon too?

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 04:37 AM

izzzzy - this forum thrives on thoughtful contributions, heartfelt opinions and lively debate. Please bear that in mind next time you post.

seretogis · 06-08-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
The Judge invoked national security to overturn a good legal precedent. IMHO she should not have.

Imho (

), it's ridiculous for someone to be able to refuse to have their photo on a form of identification. Having a drivers license is not a "right", and in order to acquire one everyone should need to follow the rules. As for established legal precedent, at least it finally has been overruled.

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 05:32 AM

Why do you say it is "ridiculous"? They are just asking for the state to respect their religious views and use an alternative form of ID. Not a worse one, just an alternative one.

Why should the believer have to bend for the state - and never drive - and not the state bend for the believer?

If there was a religion that forbade its followrs to be photographed, would you be happy with the fact that a whole religious group would be essentially banned from driving simply because the goverment can't be bothered to be a bit flexible in what forms of ID it recognised?
Its a driving licence for goodness sake. All it does is say "this person passed a driving test". Its not as if the fate of the nation is at stake here.

JadziaDax · 06-08-2003, 05:35 AM

If she refuses to have her picture taken for a driver's license, then what about a passport? They WILL NOT issue this woman a passport without a photo taken to their specifications. So she can forget about the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca. It's a bunch of bullshit, if you ask me. There are other women who are of the same religion who are also veiled, yet there are no problems with them having their pictures taken for a driver's license or passport (or any other forms of ID). There is something else going on here. There are other reasons, probably for illegal activities (just speculation), that she is refusing to be photographed for ID.

SecretMethod70 · 06-08-2003, 05:38 AM

In the US a driver's license is the primary form of identification for everything, so it does a lot more than just say "this person passed a driver's test." If the person didn't have a driver's license they would need a state ID (also with a photo) for many things - writing checks for example.

Furthermore, her religion DOESN'T say she can't be photographed at all. It jsut says she can't uncover her face in front of men - and they were willing to acoomodate that.

Besides, even if it did, what if a person's religion says they need to cut off a dog's head every month. Where does the state bending for the believer end? Do we just ignore animal cruelty laws for that person?

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 05:41 AM

I think the problem is that if there's no identification on the licence itself you'd need to have a separate piece of documentation that it realy is your licence. Now if those are separated, will that count as Driving Without Licence? And if there's a picture here of the woman with a veil, how will the officer who stops her know that he needs to check for additional ID?

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 05:43 AM

She is not asking for a passport, she is asking for a drivers licence.

That there are some (most in fact) Muslims who will let themselves be photographed is not the point. The point is that this is her religious belief and it is a valid one. It was also the religious belief of many Pentecostal Christians and the courts acknowedged that fact.

The issue is not whether something else is going on here. The issue is whether someone should be allowed to both drive and have their religious beliefs about photography respected.

Why are you so keen to laugh at her being unable to make her yearly pilgrimage to Mecca?
Why does everyone care so little about the religious beliefs of others?

sixate · 06-08-2003, 05:46 AM

</center>

Here's how simple it is. I don't care what a persons religious views are. It shouldn't give them special privileges over others. It's a fucking drivers license and it's not like the fucking picture is gonna be all over TV or something. Now her face is all over TV and the internet because she feels like she should have special privileges. Good job dumb ass. Fuck her. If she doesn't like the way things are done here then get the hell out of the country and go find one that you like more!

Laws apply to all people no matter what their religion may be.

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
If there was a religion that forbade its followrs to be photographed, would you be happy with the fact that a whole religious group would be essentially banned from driving simply because the goverment can't be bothered to be a bit flexible in what forms of ID it recognised?

I'll be the first to answer that. That would make me extremely happy. Our government shouldn't be flexible in the form of ID it requires. If someone let's religion rule their life that much then they don't deserve to drive.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JadziaDax
There are other women who are of the same religion who are also veiled, yet there are no problems with them having their pictures taken for a driver's license or passport (or any other forms of ID).

Maybe they're not as pious

I was thinking mostly along the lines she just wants to be a bitch ... or has an authority problem or something.

Quote:

Originally posted by SecretMethod70
n the US a driver's license is the primary form of identification for everything, so it does a lot more than just say "this person passed a driver's test."

Just because it's used for identification doesn't mean that it is intended for that use. The licence needs to prove that you can drive, the fact that it's convenient to use it for other things is a side issue.

4thTimeLucky, if we're talking about a hypothetical case where someone had a religion which said "Thou shalt not be photographed" I agree that the state should allow separate forms of identification within reason. I don't think either signature, birth certificate or fingerprints are good enough though.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 05:57 AM

sixate, your laws are mainly based on Christian values, and they are made to fit the Christian majority of the populace. But since people are allowed to worship other religions, some flexibility may be allowed for people worshipping a minority religion that wasn't taken into account at the time of pasisng the law. But once again I wish to stress my point: some flexibility.

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 06:06 AM

Sixate
You make so many outrageous statements that I don't know where to begin. But then I guess you intend to take such an extremist position to get a reaction, so I'll move on.

SecretMethod

If their religious beliefs dictated that they should make regular animal sacrifices then what would a reasonable state do?
Well here's a list of countries who have made expemptions to their laws on animal cruelty to allow religious believers to make animal sacrifices:

UK, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand....... I could go on.

SecretMethod70 · 06-08-2003, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
SecretMethod

If their religious beliefs dictated that they should make regular animal sacrifices then what would a reasonable state do?
Well here's a list of countries who have made expemptions to their laws on animal cruelty to allow religious believers to make animal sacrifices:

UK, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand....... I could go on.

Note the old adage "what is popular is not always right."

I see no reason why a state shouldn't require photos on a driver's license. In fact, I see every reason why they SHOULD.

And once again, her religion doesn't say that she can't be photographed. It just says she can't be unveiled before MEN - and they were willing to accomodate that. It's very reasonable.

Mr. Mojo · 06-08-2003, 06:28 AM

<a target=new href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html">(linky) CNN had an informative box on ID pictures in other Muslim nations:</a>

DRIVER'S ID RULES IN MUSLIM NATIONS

Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.
Egypt: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
United Arab Emirates: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Oman:Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Kuwait: Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Qatar:Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Bahrain:Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures
Jordan: Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures

She's lucky she doesn’t live in Saudi Arabia… Last time I checked, Driving was a privilege, not a right.

So she should give up driving - if her religion is more important. Or move to one the 14 US states that don’t require a photo ID. (I think those states will change that soon)

why is that when ever a American is in another country, we are told to follow the laws of our host country so as not to disrespect them. But our laws are not followed?

eribrav · 06-08-2003, 06:30 AM

This is an interesting thread and while I do not agree with 4th timer, I appreciate the points he or she has brought up. Thank you for making me think.

Interestingly enough, I heard it stated yesterday that the sect of Islam she purports to follow forbids women to drive.

I think she's doing this for reasons other than just wanting the license without the photo.

sixate · 06-08-2003, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eribrav
I think she's doing this for reasons other than just wanting the license without the photo.

Bingo! And we now have a winner.

sbscout · 06-08-2003, 07:16 AM

the only thing that bothers me is that the state is changing its rules due to 9/11. It issued her a license with her face covered prior to the attack, then sought her out to revoke the license; the state didn't wait until renewal time...

that being said, in Indiana bald men can't wear a hat to cover their domes because "it disguises their true appearance." My guess is that this rationale would be used with face coverings as well.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo
why is that when ever a American is in another country, we are told to follow the laws of our host country so as not to disrespect them. But our laws are not followed?

I believe this is an American woman? Being muslim doesn't exclude you from being American, does it?

And of course, when you're in another counyry you must respect the country's laws, but within your own country you should work to try and get the laws to work in a way that pleases you (this is another aspect of the Democracy thingy).

SecretMethod70 · 06-08-2003, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sbscout
the only thing that bothers me is that the state is changing its rules due to 9/11. It issued her a license with her face covered prior to the attack, then sought her out to revoke the license; the state didn't wait until renewal time...

that being said, in Indiana bald men can't wear a hat to cover their domes because "it disguises their true appearance." My guess is that this rationale would be used with face coverings as well.

Yes. The reason for the ruling is wrong. The ruling however is right.

enjoyduff · 06-08-2003, 08:01 AM

If you want to drive, respect the rules. If you dont want to respect the rules that everyone else follows, take public transit or ride with someone else. Or does her religion forbid the use of buses and taxis?

butthead · 06-08-2003, 08:02 AM

I'm pretty sure in my DMV driver's test booklet that it says driving is priveledge and I agree with that. Until it becomes just as pratical to use other identification methods, this woman should be required to use photo ID for her liscense.

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Note the old adage "what is popular is not always right."

Very true. The popular opinion on this thread seems to be that we should make her unveil or stop driving. I think the adage aptly applies.

However you asked me what the state should do, as if you were implying some reductio ad absurdum argument. I am pointing out that the conclusions didn’t seem absurd to all those states.

Quote:

I see no reason why a state shouldn't require photos on a driver's license. In fact, I see every reason why they SHOULD.

Surely you can see the *reason*. The reason is that the state, where possible, should respect an individual's religious beliefs. Whether you think the reason is a good one or not is where we disagree.

Quote:

And once again, her religion doesn't say that she can't be photographed. It just says she can't be unveiled before MEN - and they were willing to accomodate that. It's very reasonable.

This doesn't really concern me. What concerns me is the right of a person who believes that they should never be photographed to drive.
The article says that, "Freeman had said it is against her religious beliefs to show her face in public", which presumably means in front of anyone of any sex in a public police station.
BUT that is not what concerns me. She may be lieing, she may be a bad mother, she may be a genuine believer. That is by the by. What I want to get right is the principle.

Quote:

DRIVER'S ID RULES IN MUSLIM NATIONS

Saudi Arabia: Women aren't allowed to drive
Iran: Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face.

That these countries do not uphold their citizens liberties does not suprise me. That Americans would like to emulate them, does.

And again, whether all Muslims, some Muslims or no Muslims will let themselves be photgraphed is not the key issue. That is why I said lets imagine a hypothetical religion where photos of oneself are against your religious beliefs. Of course there are some religious people who do have this view (otherwise we wouldn;t be having this debate) - some call themselves Muslim, some call themselves Christian, some come from other faiths - but that is not the issue.

Quote:

Why can't they take the bus

Governments often tell their citizens to bend to the demands of the state. Sometimes they are right to. Sometimes they are not.
Why couldn't black people just sit happily at the back of the bus and keep to their own beaches?
Sometimes you have to stay "no. i want to drive and i don't want to compromise my religion. you say driving is a privilege? Fine, i have earned that privilige by pasing my test. now i'll give you proof of ID and my ability to drive in abundence, just don't make me break my religious code to do it."

cdwonderful · 06-08-2003, 08:08 AM

it is simple,
drive the car----no veil
want to wear veil?----ride the bus.

it is public safety and not religeon here

The_Dude · 06-08-2003, 08:51 AM

religion cannot be used to override the law, i knew it was coming.

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 09:44 AM

Not override, of course not, but IMO it must be possible to be a little bit flexible.

4thTimeLucky · 06-08-2003, 09:56 AM

I thought you were a libertarian Dude?

And why is it religion overriding the law and not the law overriding religion? She had her religion and she had her legal driving licence before this ruling.

People in liberal democracies do not ask that religion 'override' the law. They ask that the law take account of religion. This is a recognised part of any liberal democracy:

- In America ones religious activities and beliefs are defended by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Ammendment.
- Sikh's with turbans are exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets.
- Jews, Muslims and others are exempt from certain animal cruelty laws so that they can sacrifice animals.
- Religious conscientious objectors are allowed not to fight if called in a draft.
- The right to refuse to work on a Sunday because of ones religious beliefs has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
- Prisons must accomodate the dietary and prayer needs of their religious inmates.
- Religious believers are given special exemptions in marriage and divorce laws.

... the list goes on.
We respect religious beliefs and ask the state to accomodate them. In the case of driving licences and photos I believe the state is not being acccomodating enough and can only get away with it because of 9-11 and the fact that this lady is in a tiny minority.

krwlz · 06-08-2003, 10:25 AM

Yes, people are allowed religious freedom, but not when it endangers people! This is ridiculous, why do people always think there ought to be an exception for themselves?

Atanvarno · 06-08-2003, 10:48 AM

There's no endangering as long as an alternate form of identification is used.

06-07-2003, 11:56 PM	#1 (permalink)
merkerguitars Buffering......... Location: Wisconsin...	Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In License Photo Linky Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil In License Photo POSTED: 6:43 a.m. EDT June 6, 2003 UPDATED: 7:44 p.m. EDT June 6, 2003 ORLANDO, Fla. -- A judge ruled Friday that a Muslim woman cannot wear a veil in her driver's license photo, agreeing with the state that allowing people to show only their eyes would undermine efforts to stop terrorists. Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe agreed with the state's assertion that if Sultaana Freeman could keep her face off her driver's license, so could others planning harm. Freeman had said it is against her religious beliefs to show her face in public, but Thorpe ruled her right to free exercise of religion would not be burdened by the photo requirement. The state "has a compelling interest in protecting the public from criminal activities and security threats, and that having access to photo image identification is essential to promote that interest," wrote Thorpe, who heard three days of testimony last week. Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist praised the decision, saying "Nothing is more important than making sure that our people are safe." Freeman refused to speak with the media after meeting with her attorney, but her husband said they would continue to fight the state's policy. "She's not lifting the veil," Abdul-Maalik Freeman said. "This is a religious principle, this is a principle that's imbedded is us as believers. So, she's not going to do that. "We'll take the next step, and this is what we call the American Way." Attorney Howard Marks said the ruling would be appealed. "It's really a sad day for Americans," Marks said. "Hopefull, we'll look back at decisions like this in the future and realize this was a mistake." The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which has been supporting Freeman's fight, said the ruling "is a needless restriction on religious freedom with no benefit to public safety." "We're concerned because the government's tendency in the aftermath of September 11th has been to restrict numerous freedoms merely for the sake of restricting liberty, rather than to make us truly safer," said Howard Simon, ACLU of Florida's executive director. "Today's ruling runs counter to the most basic principles of religious freedom that give everyone -- including members of minority religious communities as well as majority Christian faiths -- the right to practice and worship as they choose." The ACLU noted that a driver's license can be obtained without a photo in 14 states. Freeman, 35, had sued Florida after the state revoked her license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered, saying it violated her religious beliefs. Her previous license showed her veiled with only her eyes visible. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles had offered Freeman an alternative -- lifting her veil in a private room in front of a female worker -- and Thorpe's ruling stated that proposal would not have caused harm. "We tried to be as accommodating as we can while still following the law, which is very clear," department spokesman Bob Sanchez said. "I think the judge has recognized that the law is not only clear but pretty reasonable." Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001. Nine months later, after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered. Freeman claims her religious beliefs require her to keep her head and face covered out of modesty and that her faith prohibits her face from being photographed. Her lawyers argued that instead of a driver's license photo, she could use other documents such as a birth certificate or Social Security card to prove her identity if necessary. But a state attorney countered that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to lift their veil and expose their face if the action serves a public good. Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail said arrangements can be made to have Freeman photographed only with women present to allay her concerns about modesty. Thorpe, in her ruling, noted that Freeman "has been willing to have her picture taken many times, albeit veiled, and eyes are facial characteristics of living beings." The judge also pointed out that Freeman's husband testified that he shares his wife's beliefs -- but he never objected to being photographed for his own driver's licenses or throughout the televised trial. During the hearing, Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997. She had a mug shot (photo left) taken after her arrest in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The children were removed from her home, according to records from the Decatur (Ill.) Police Services. Child welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the Decatur Police records. Thorpe didn't allow much of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence. ____________________________________________________ Ok this top I don't know which side to pick....one side of me says hey we should respect other peoples beliefs...but the other side of me says this is america...freedom costs something.........what do you think? __________________ Donate now! Ask me How! Please use the search function it is your friend. Look at my mustang please feel free to comment! http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=26985

06-08-2003, 12:22 AM	#2 (permalink)
Shokan Addict Location: Canada	The purpose of an I.D photo is to identify what you look like. Putting a mask over your face prevents that. Nuff said. __________________ Legalize it.

06-08-2003, 12:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Correct ruling, absurdly obnoxious justification. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-08-2003, 01:03 AM	#5 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	What was the judge on about? Was she saying that she knew better about the woman's relgious beliefs: "eyes are part of the face, HaHa, caught you out."? Was she saying that because her husband let himself be photographed there was an inconsistency with his belief that women should not be photgraphed? Anyway, I think it was the wrong decision. If there are alternative ways to ID someone (fingerprints, birth certficate, signature) albeit with a little more effort, then we should make the extra effort to accomodate their religious beliefs. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 01:29 AM	#6 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	Didn't they make an extra effort? And besides, there's nobody forcing her to unveil herself ... she doesn't have to drive, but if she wants to she has to be identifiable. With fingerprints/signature/birth certificate: What will the cop who pulls her over do if she has her licence but not her birth certificate? Treat it as if there was no licence at all? Then get sued? With fingerprints, does the cop kep with him equipment to check that? And signatures ... I don't think I have written my own signature twice in the same way. IMO that's not a method of identification. __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-08-2003, 01:03 AM	#4 (permalink)
hilbert25 Psycho Location: nOvA	That's one of the stupidest fights that I have seen in a long time, especially since they said that she could take the picture, in the company of only a female, in a separate room, which is allowed, but she refused.

06-08-2003, 01:57 AM	#7 (permalink)
Shades Insane	Signatures aren't a valid identification by themselves. And driving is a privalige, not a right. If she doesn't want to submit to the rules, that's fine- she doesn't have to have a license. What's so hard about that?

06-08-2003, 01:58 AM	#8 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	In the UK you don't need to drive with a licence, you just need to produce it at a police station within 7 working days of it being requested. How does it work in the US? No I don't think they made any extra effort. What extra effort do they think they made (other than taking her to court!)? As article said, in 14 states you don't need a photo on the licence. What is the national security threat posed by not allowing her to use a different form of ID? To me this is an issue of freedom and religious tolerance, not natuonal security. Organised terrorists would (a) just follow the rules, blend in and not draw attention to themselves as she has, and (b) be well organised and funded enough to buy false driving licences if they needed them. Stopping a few Muslim women from keeping their dignity and forcing them to use photo ID will not stop another 9-11. And as for 'driving is a privilege'. What makes you think that in a country that is founded on extensive individual rights, the freedom of the individual and the limiting of the state. Are you saying that she has a right to buy a gun and a right to buy a house and a right to buy pretty much damn well anything. But not a car? That is a privilege that the government must give you? My view is that we have the right to buy a car but we must prove that we can drive it safely. Once we have done that then we free to drive. If the government wants to keep tabs on us with a driving licence then okay, but it is up to them to make sure that they fit their system around my religious and human rights. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-08-2003 at 02:05 AM..

06-08-2003, 03:22 AM	#11 (permalink)
izzzzy Crazy Location: SW NEW HAMPSHIRE	she aint the lone ranger she is a criminal do you want to risk the next step?

06-08-2003, 04:25 AM	#13 (permalink)
izzzzy Crazy Location: SW NEW HAMPSHIRE	child beating part of that religeon too?

06-08-2003, 04:37 AM	#14 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	izzzzy - this forum thrives on thoughtful contributions, heartfelt opinions and lively debate. Please bear that in mind next time you post. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 05:32 AM	#16 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Why do you say it is "ridiculous"? They are just asking for the state to respect their religious views and use an alternative form of ID. Not a worse one, just an alternative one. Why should the believer have to bend for the state - and never drive - and not the state bend for the believer? If there was a religion that forbade its followrs to be photographed, would you be happy with the fact that a whole religious group would be essentially banned from driving simply because the goverment can't be bothered to be a bit flexible in what forms of ID it recognised? Its a driving licence for goodness sake. All it does is say "this person passed a driving test". Its not as if the fate of the nation is at stake here. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 05:35 AM	#17 (permalink)
JadziaDax Loser Location: who the fuck cares?	If she refuses to have her picture taken for a driver's license, then what about a passport? They WILL NOT issue this woman a passport without a photo taken to their specifications. So she can forget about the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca. It's a bunch of bullshit, if you ask me. There are other women who are of the same religion who are also veiled, yet there are no problems with them having their pictures taken for a driver's license or passport (or any other forms of ID). There is something else going on here. There are other reasons, probably for illegal activities (just speculation), that she is refusing to be photographed for ID.

06-08-2003, 05:38 AM	#18 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	In the US a driver's license is the primary form of identification for everything, so it does a lot more than just say "this person passed a driver's test." If the person didn't have a driver's license they would need a state ID (also with a photo) for many things - writing checks for example. Furthermore, her religion DOESN'T say she can't be photographed at all. It jsut says she can't uncover her face in front of men - and they were willing to acoomodate that. Besides, even if it did, what if a person's religion says they need to cut off a dog's head every month. Where does the state bending for the believer end? Do we just ignore animal cruelty laws for that person? __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

06-08-2003, 05:41 AM	#19 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	I think the problem is that if there's no identification on the licence itself you'd need to have a separate piece of documentation that it realy is your licence. Now if those are separated, will that count as Driving Without Licence? And if there's a picture here of the woman with a veil, how will the officer who stops her know that he needs to check for additional ID? __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-08-2003, 05:43 AM	#20 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	She is not asking for a passport, she is asking for a drivers licence. That there are some (most in fact) Muslims who will let themselves be photographed is not the point. The point is that this is her religious belief and it is a valid one. It was also the religious belief of many Pentecostal Christians and the courts acknowedged that fact. The issue is not whether something else is going on here. The issue is whether someone should be allowed to both drive and have their religious beliefs about photography respected. Why are you so keen to laugh at her being unable to make her yearly pilgrimage to Mecca? Why does everyone care so little about the religious beliefs of others? __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 05:57 AM	#23 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	sixate, your laws are mainly based on Christian values, and they are made to fit the Christian majority of the populace. But since people are allowed to worship other religions, some flexibility may be allowed for people worshipping a minority religion that wasn't taken into account at the time of pasisng the law. But once again I wish to stress my point: some flexibility. __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-08-2003, 06:06 AM	#24 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Sixate You make so many outrageous statements that I don't know where to begin. But then I guess you intend to take such an extremist position to get a reaction, so I'll move on. SecretMethod If their religious beliefs dictated that they should make regular animal sacrifices then what would a reasonable state do? Well here's a list of countries who have made expemptions to their laws on animal cruelty to allow religious believers to make animal sacrifices: UK, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, New Zealand....... I could go on. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 06:28 AM	#26 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	<a target=new href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/28/license.veil.ap/index.html"><b>(linky) CNN had an informative box on ID pictures in other Muslim nations:</b></a> DRIVER'S ID RULES IN MUSLIM NATIONS <b>Saudi Arabia:</b> Women aren't allowed to drive <b>Iran:</b> Women wear a traditional chador, which does not cover the face. <b>Egypt:</b> Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>United Arab Emirates:</b> Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>Oman:</b>Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>Kuwait:</b> Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>Qatar:</b>Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>Bahrain:</b>Women do not cover their face in I.D. pictures <b>Jordan:</b> Women can drive if their faces are covered but do not cover their face in I.D. pictures She's lucky she doesn’t live in Saudi Arabia… Last time I checked, Driving was a privilege, not a right. So she should give up driving - if her religion is more important. Or move to one the 14 US states that don’t require a photo ID. (I think those states will change that soon) why is that when ever a American is in another country, we are told to follow the laws of our host country so as not to disrespect them. But our laws are not followed? __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression

06-08-2003, 06:30 AM	#27 (permalink)
eribrav Junkie Location: upstate NY	This is an interesting thread and while I do not agree with 4th timer, I appreciate the points he or she has brought up. Thank you for making me think. Interestingly enough, I heard it stated yesterday that the sect of Islam she purports to follow forbids women to drive. I think she's doing this for reasons other than just wanting the license without the photo.

06-08-2003, 07:16 AM	#29 (permalink)
sbscout Disorganized Location: back home again...	the only thing that bothers me is that the state is changing its rules due to 9/11. It issued her a license with her face covered prior to the attack, then sought her out to revoke the license; the state didn't wait until renewal time... that being said, in Indiana bald men can't wear a hat to cover their domes because "it disguises their true appearance." My guess is that this rationale would be used with face coverings as well. __________________ Always question authority... it'll keep the bastards on their toes!

06-08-2003, 08:01 AM	#32 (permalink)
enjoyduff Upright	If you want to drive, respect the rules. If you dont want to respect the rules that everyone else follows, take public transit or ride with someone else. Or does her religion forbid the use of buses and taxis?

06-08-2003, 08:02 AM	#33 (permalink)
butthead Loser Location: SF Bay Area, CA	I'm pretty sure in my DMV driver's test booklet that it says driving is priveledge and I agree with that. Until it becomes just as pratical to use other identification methods, this woman should be required to use photo ID for her liscense.

06-08-2003, 08:08 AM	#35 (permalink)
cdwonderful another passenger Location: Youngstown, Ohio	it is simple, drive the car----no veil want to wear veil?----ride the bus. it is public safety and not religeon here __________________ Never try to teach a pig to whistle it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.....

06-08-2003, 08:51 AM	#36 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	religion cannot be used to override the law, i knew it was coming. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

06-08-2003, 09:44 AM	#37 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	Not override, of course not, but IMO it must be possible to be a little bit flexible. __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -

06-08-2003, 09:56 AM	#38 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	I thought you were a libertarian Dude? And why is it religion overriding the law and not the law overriding religion? She had her religion and she had her legal driving licence before this ruling. People in liberal democracies do not ask that religion 'override' the law. They ask that the law take account of religion. This is a recognised part of any liberal democracy: - In America ones religious activities and beliefs are defended by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Ammendment. - Sikh's with turbans are exempt from wearing motorcycle helmets. - Jews, Muslims and others are exempt from certain animal cruelty laws so that they can sacrifice animals. - Religious conscientious objectors are allowed not to fight if called in a draft. - The right to refuse to work on a Sunday because of ones religious beliefs has been upheld by the Supreme Court. - Prisons must accomodate the dietary and prayer needs of their religious inmates. - Religious believers are given special exemptions in marriage and divorce laws. ... the list goes on. We respect religious beliefs and ask the state to accomodate them. In the case of driving licences and photos I believe the state is not being acccomodating enough and can only get away with it because of 9-11 and the fact that this lady is in a tiny minority. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

06-08-2003, 10:25 AM	#39 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	Yes, people are allowed religious freedom, but not when it endangers people! This is ridiculous, why do people always think there ought to be an exception for themselves?

06-08-2003, 10:48 AM	#40 (permalink)
Atanvarno Tilted Location: Norway	There's no endangering as long as an alternate form of identification is used. __________________ Memorization is a poor excuse for intelligence." - Cesar Martinez-Garza (1973 ->) -