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?

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

Nuff said.

Correct ruling, absurdly obnoxious justification.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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

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.

child beating part of that religeon too?

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

Imho (:D), 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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

<center>http://www.raceworx.com/funnypics/captain%20obvious.gif</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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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?

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.

Bingo! And we now have a winner.

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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

it is public safety and not religeon here

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

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

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.

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?

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

We need to see her face on the license.

Everything else is over-analyization of this issue.

There is no need to "see her face on the licence". You must be able to know quickly that the licence belongs to the person presenting it without the use of much equipment.

Right now, unfortunately, that means either a photo on the licence or a separate photo-ID.

So what's your point? "Seeing her face on the liscense" isn't needed, but now it is because we do not have more advanced identification methods in mainstream use?

If she can have her photo on another ID, why not on her liscense?

My point is that all that is needed is a way of proving that the licence belongs to the person presenting it. This need not be a photo on the licence, but I cannot think of a good alternative right now. Others may.

Sorry bud, but that sounds to me like "this is terrible! I can't think of anything better but we certainly can't have this!"

Well, until you or someone else can think of something better then this is how it has to be.

Want something instead of photo IDs being required? Well, how about everyone in the US is required to have their fingerprints in a database and - when the computer power gets good enough - the police can take our fingerprints at their car and match it with the database. Or, how about everyone has chips implanted in them at birth? Oh...so I guess having a stupid little photo on your license doesn't seem so bad now does it? THOSE are the alternatives. Having a photo is not unreasonable - and they tried to accomodate this person in such a way that there would be nothing that she did against her religion yet she STILL refused it.

Secret, yes, I know that's the best alternative I've been able to come up with as well (a safer one, in fact, than photo).

If you look back on my previous posts in this thread you'll see that I have argued against this woman. I support the judge's decision, but on a general basis, I think the state should be flexible when it is possible. And I don't support the "Everyone must have Photo now and always" - line.

What I have been saying is. Your licence must be possible to connect to you and you only, quickly, and with little equipment. The way I see it that is the only requirement that should be made.
As it is, photo is the way of connecting you to your licence. That doesn't mean that a photo is the requirement. It means a photo is what is used to meet the requirement.

ATM, there is only a theoretical difference between the two.

I always felt that having a drivers license is a privelege.

You must abide by the same uniform set of rules as everyone else to have the privelege. If you choose not to, you forfeit the privelege.

This won't endanger anyone. Nobody in the UK drives with a licence in their car and the licences don't have photos. Its not a problem at all.

Besides if its such a threat then we simply make it harder for terrorists to pass undetected using the photo-exemption than to pass undetected by simply geting or faking a photo licence. How can we do that? Well, by saying that everyone must use photo ID licences unless they come to the registry office with a religious reason. Then they must provide a stringent set of ID (birth certificates, national security number, pay slips, utility bill) and register the details of their cars, which will be shown on the new photo-lacking ID. When they are stopped by the police then they have their ID checked, they make sure the car details match the licence and they take a fingerprint. That is then checked back at the office - if it fails then you know the full details of the person who has given their ID away. No terrorist would risk that. They'd just get a genuine photo ID or buy a fake one.

Is this an imposition on the state? Hardly. I would expect no more than a tiny handful of people to go through this rigorous process and cite a religious reason. And then the chances of them being pulled over the police are going to be tiny as well.

Is this worth doing for the people concerned? Yes. They would rather be put out by a lot of bureaucracy than contravene their religious rules. You try getting a Jew to eat pork or a Hindu to eat beef or a Muslim to disparage Allah. Then you will see how impirtant people's religious beliefs are.

Because at the end of the day we are all just individuals and the state is their to serve us. The state should not be allowed to trample on people's religious beliefs just because it feels like it or can make up some ridiculous claim to a securiy threat or because it will only hurt a few people and we don't really 'get' them anyway.

To be frank Ashcroft is taking Americans rights away left right and centre and none of you seems to be concerned about this. It is only when you yourself finds yourself at the end of a secret phone/email tap, having you library records searched or are imprisoned without charges or access to a lawyer that you will take note and complain.
By standing up for people religious rights you send a message to the state that they cannot steam roller over peoples liberties.

4thtime, the state should not indeed trample people rights, but if tewre is going to be a rule/regulation/law, it needs to apply to EVERYONE! Regardless of race/religion/creed/sex, etc. If it doesnt, it has no worth as a law.

Correct my if I am wrong 4th, but wasnt this case in the US, Not the UK?

Billege summed it up nicely, we need the face. Thats just how it works.

Many laws apply differently to different people. I listed some of the cases where the difference is religious on page one. Other differences that laws recognise (and apply differently to) are: age, disability, sex, nationality, job, income, criminal record...

So it is quite clear that laws need not apply to everyone in a blanket fashion to be valid or worth anything. In fact it is the subtle nuances of laws, and not their crude 'one size fits all' nature, that can make them effective.

Yes this case was in the US. My point is that the UK has been fighting a terrorist 'war' on its soil for many, many years. We have had Prime Ministers nearly assassinated and our cities bombed. Yet we have never needed to resort to photos on driving licences - there is simply no point to them. Anyone can sit a driving test, pass and get an ID. Sticking a photo on it doesn't cause any more bother to a terrorist, who after all is just an ordinary person but with an evil intent in their mind. What does the photo really help achieve? It makes sure you know that this piece of paper belongs to this person and that they have passed a 40 minute road skills test. Wow!
My other point is that the UK experience (no photos) is matched by 14 US states, so it isn't as if the concept is alien to the USA. Those states have presumably been getting along just fine, as the UK has.

That just begs the question.
It is also factually untrue. It is just how it works in some places, but not others.
You make it sound like it has been some fundamental principle of government for all time that driving licences must have photos on them! "Thats just the way it is son. God made it that way. Don't ask questions"!

That is absolutely the most hilarious thing I have read on this board. It shows just how off-base that claims of "religion > rules" are in this country. If you can justify any breaking of laws/rules with "freedom of religion", I'm going to start a religion that involves random human sacrifices and refusal to pay taxes.

Driving is a privilege
 

Driving is a privilege not a right, but you do have the right to have a fair chance at your privileges. I like this one brain teaser, there’s a foot race, but some people have a bum leg, do they deserve to have a head start to run the race, or do they just deserve the to opportunity to run and nothing more?

seretogis, I think it's more of a matter of being a bit flexible on the rules to accomodate to other's needs when it doesn't *really* cost you much.

If women cover their faces because of traditions from other country they come from, and expect to be granted the same courtesies in America, is absolutely insane to say the least.These people have enough freedoms in the world without demanding more.

Hmmm,..Imagine this women being pulled over by the police,who just happen to have their faces covered,she's arrested and briefly appears before judge whose face is also covered.

Can you smell civil liberty lawsuit.

Take the cloth off your head for the picture or be sent back to where you are from,if you are not U.S citizens.All it takes is one person conceiling their identity and setting a precedent.Many people are very lucky to be in America.They should at least adapt to the culture rather than trying to change it.

They offered to have a woman take a photograph in a separate room so that she would not have to go against her beliefs. She denied that very acceptable option. Flexible is one thing, completely ignoring rules is another.

EXACTLY. When exactly did we change from a "melting pot" to a compartmentalized tackle-box? The adage "when in Rome, do as Romans do" should be common courtesy when you visit or live in a nation which is not your origin.

4thTimeLucky, in the US the license is used as more than just proof of permission to drive. It's used very much for identification, for example to buy liquor or gamble in Vegas, so if you can't tell whether the person in the photo is the person in front of you it's useless.

The muslim sect she says she belongs to doesn't allow women to drive.

good

Atanvarno and Shades.... They pretty much summed it up. Nuff said.


EDIT: seretogis also... :D

i) She isn't asking to break the law she is asking for the law to respect her beliefs.
ii) The law on murder would not be given exemptions for religious beliefs and I would not want it to. Neither would she or the ACLU. What we are asking for is reasonable. The case is in Florida, where their 1998 Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the state of Florida must not interfere with a person religious practice (a right protected under the First Ammendment) unless there is a "compelling government interest".
My case is that there is no "compelling government interest", they are just being too lazy, inconsiderate and paranoid to set up a non-photo system for the handful of people who need it.
I have already made suggestions as to how a safe and cheap system could be set up and this would negate the "compelling" argument.

You are spot on. She came to Florida from some strange, distant land: Illinois.
She is an American citizen who converted to Islam.
And those Pentecostal Christians, where do you plan to ship them back to? England?
Her rights are your rights. If you want to be allowed to practice and believe according to your faith then you should allow her to do the same.
And "These people" clearly do not have enough freedoms, otherwise she wouldn't be in court trying to defend those that have been taken away from her.

Remember: For the last 17 years of her life (assuming she got her licence at 17 and is now 35) she has been or would have been allowed to drive with a licence with no photo. No compelling reason for all those years and for the dozens of years before it.
Then one day that government takes away her licence and says "there is now a compelling reason". Erm, what? Where did it spring from? It can't be 9-11 because we've ruled that one out. So what on earth can it be?

She is a Muslim. A pretty devout out at that it seems. Do you really think that she would mind if her driving licence only let her drive and not go gambling in Vegas or buy alcohol?

And let me get this straight: For the purposes of the shop keeper, a signature is not adequate for identifying that the person is who they say they are on the driving licence, but a signature is adequate for identifying who they say they are on their credit card?

------
What I see is a group of people who talk about "them" and "those people". Who seem to think "these people" are a sponge and inconvenience in America and should go back to "their own country". Who see a religious belief that they don't really 'get', so you don't really respect. Who are scared that her kind are a threat to you somehow.
She is a US citizen. She is one of you. She has the same rights and freedoms as you do. She pays the same taxes that you do to uphold those freedoms. All she wants to do is drive her car in peace without having to disgrace herself and her religious beliefs by showing her face to a stranger. What her precise religion is is irrelevant. You could place anyone into this story, so long as they believed that the taking of their own photo was morally and religiously wrong. It is the First Ammendment principle that a person is free to express, follow and practice their religion that is at issue here. She isn't asking for much. To the state it would be no hassle at all - they could even charge her a special licencing fee to cover any costs - but to her it is a matter of giving up her beliefs or her right to drive.

gibber, seregotis, the woman in question was American, so I don't think making any remarks about "going back to where you came from" makes much sense. But as previously stated, I completely agree that there has been enough flexibility for this woman.

What I have rather been trying to argue is that in general, photp is not required on the licence, but a form of identification is.

HiThereDear, the fact that it's used for that is just a convenience matter, there are plenty of other things you could use for that.

seretogis, being part of "your" nation (American) requires you to be Christian? Or just non-muslim?

4thTime, the fact that signature is sufficient for Credit Cards makes me feel unsafe, it is not good enough.

If the law states that a photo ID is required (and while it may not say that explicitly, that's what judges do - interpret laws) then she IS asking to break a law.

That's just the thing - she DOESN'T "need" it. They DID offer to set up a system that wouldn't go against her beliefs at all. What's so hard to understand about that?

Please recap these suggestions because apparently I'm missing them. A person carrying 6 forms of ID - none with a photo - is no more clearly the possessor of that identification than a person carrying only one form of ID without a photo.

I live in Illinois, and as far as I'm aware pictures are required on our licenses as well.

As other have mentioned - the religion she is basing this argument on doesn't even allow her to drive. You brought up conscientious objectors concerning the draft in the US earlier. See, the thing is though - the government WON'T give someone conscientious objector status (where they would STILL force the person to participate, just in something along the lines of a medic unit) unless that person can prove to a reasonable extent that they believe and FOLLOW THE BELIEFS they claim to have. In other words, if I were to get drafted and claim conscientious objector status, based on my religious beliefs, and I couldn't show that I follow those religious beliefs and follow them well then the government would not grant me conscientious objector status. Similarly, she has proven that the beliefs which she is claiming to have that cause her to not be able to be photographed are really not all THAT important to her - because if they were she wouldn't be driving in the first place.

Freedom isn't an excuse for anarchy. There's no such thing as a set of rules that accomodate everyone and it's only detrimental to attempt to find one.

Again, as an Illinois citizen, I'd love to see something that says people can drive without a photo ID here.

Yes, the reasoning is silly. 9/11 isn't a reason that this ruling should be as it is. The fact that it never should have been otherwise is.

Devout, eh? So why is she driving if the sect she belongs to says she can't?

Like Atanverno, I too think that a signature is inadequate. Not only is my signature probably easy to forge, it's almost never the same, sometimes not even resembling past signatures.

Last I checked, "driving" is not protected by any amendments to the constitution. It is not a right, it is a priviledge.

It's not a matter of not respecting her religious beliefs. But religious beliefs can't just give a free ticket to do things differently. A line must be drawn somewhere. And they were willing to draw that line in such a way for this woman that she wouldn't have needed to violate ANY part of her religion (at least no part she wasn't already violating by driving in the first place) in order to be able to drive.

#1. I did not LAUGH at her being unable to make her yearly pilgrimage... I stated she WILL NOT be able to because if she refuses to be photographed for something as little as a driver's lisence, do you really think she'll let them photograph her for a passport? You do the math:

NO passport picture = NO passport
NO passport = NO International flights
NO International flights = NO pilgrimage to Mecca
(especially since the last time I looked, no one makes a yearly pilgrimage to Florida for religious reasons).

I didn't see a single "haha" in there anywhere, did you?

#2. I don't think it's people "caring so little about the religious beliefs of others". It's more about people caring about their safety and well being. Follow whatever religion you want.

Honestly, this is such an incredibly stupid arguement. Considering that driving is a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT, having a driver's license is a PRIVILEDGE. And if this woman does not want to abide by the laws dictated by the State she lives in, then I have two words for her: "Tough Shit." I could care less if she were Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran, Born Again, Buddist, Islamic, Hindu, Athiest, Confucianist, Yoruban, Santerian, Sikh, Baha'i, Shinto, Jain, Cao Dai, Tenrikyo, Scientologist, Unitarian, Rastafarian, Neo-Paganist, Zoroastrianist, Ch'ondogyo, Taoist, Falun Dafa, New Age, Vodoun, Wonbulgyo, Mandean, or any other religion, organized or not. The law is the law, and no one is above the law.

Jadz, the point is that at the time the law was passed little though was taken to problems certain minority religions might have with it.

Due to that, it should be posisble to make a reasonable effort to go around the problem, as has been done, IMO in this case.

For SecretMethod:

Illinois
Breaking the law?
This is pure semantics and we shouldn't get distracted by it.
She had a legal driving licence with a photo of her wearing a veil. And she had her beliefs. All was well in the world. THEN the judge changed the law on her. She is saying that this change in law contravenes her rights under the First Ammemendment and Florida state law. Her argument is that the change in law is itself breaking the law! So we can argue all we want about what is a change in the law, what is abreaking the law and what is ammending the law. It is all beside the point. All I ask is you don't slander her by implying she is trying to break the law here. She isn't. She is just exerting her constituonal right to question the validity of both new and existing laws.

ad hominem
This brings me to my second issue. For the sake of good debate and discerning the right legal principle, we should not raise issues personal to this lady. You can call her a criminal and a bad mother and a bad Muslim all you like. It is, again, irrelevant. Yes a persons belief should be genuine for them to be granted exemptions. So, lets imagine a different person. Lets call her Jane Doe. Now Jane Doe has a genuine religious belief that her photo should never be taken - with or without a veil - but her religion lets her drive. Now, should she be forced to choose between her religion and her car?

Another option - one of several
I do not suggest that Jane Doe should carry around nine forms of ID. I suggest:
- Jane Doe be required to visit her driving licence registry office.
- She must bring four forms of quality ID: birth certificate, national insurance card, wage slips, utility bills, passport (if she has one), bank statements. These are all accepted for other government purposes and can be accepted here.
- She will give her fingerprint, which is stored on a computer database with all the other fingerprints
- She registers the details of her cars.
- In return she is given an ID card that lists her name and details along with the details of her cars.
- In the unlikely event she is ever pulled over by the police (I know of noone who ever has been) she will show the card. They will ask to see a credit card or other form of ID (I think they do this in UK). They will check her car registration matches her ID card. They will, if they have any doubts, take her fingerprint and check it back at the station.
- Any cost for the registration process will be charged to Jane Doe in the form of a special registration fee.

Now, I ask you....
@ What terrorist in their right mind would go through this process instead of buying a fake ID?
@ What does the state lose by giving her this option? The cost is covered by Jane Doe herself and we have agreed that there is no new post 9-11 threat.
@ Would criminals use this rule to hide behind? Well, they would have to track down one of these rare Jane Does. Convince them to hand over their ID card, a credit card (or something else signifcant with their name on) and their car. Then they would have to give their fingerprint to the policeofficer who stopped them. Is any criminal in their right mind going to do this rather than use a normal fake photo ID and just drive on?
@ How many people will take up this option? Hardly any.
@ Will it benefit the people who do? Enormously. They will be allowed to drive (and remember how important that is in America) and they will be able to keep their religious beliefs.

Your other points
- This is not anarchy. It is a few Jane Does trying to lead a good religious life.
- Illinois driving ID. See above.
- Glad we agre on the 9/11 point. At least that's a start ;)
- Devout? Again ad hominem. Jane Doe is devout. Very.
- Driving: No driving is not a protected right. But Jane Doe does have the protected right to demand that her state respects her religious beliefs, unless it can show (in Florida) "compelling government interest".
- Drawing the line: I have made my suggestion. I don't think it is asking very much. Especially when you consider what the state is asking Jane Doe to give up. Neither the Judge nor anyone here has given me a "compelling government interest" that means they cannot enact my suggestions and must force Jane Doe to give up either her car or her religious convictions.

Jadzia

It was your tone that made it sound as if you were enjoying the fact that by following her religious beliefs she would be shooting herself in the foot.

If this wasn't the case, then I apologise.
However I do not apologise for maintaining my position or pointing out the inconsistencies in what people have been saying.

@ You say "Follow whatever religion you want" but then you would deny her reasonable procedures to let her do so.
@ People say '9/11 is not the issue, there is no new threat'. Then they talk about a threat to "safety and well being" or "security". I ask you: Show me that threat.
@ "No one is above the law". Very true. But some laws are wrong and should be changed. It is currently illegal in parts of America to have consensual sex with other men in your own home. There are threads about in TFP. But I don't see anyone in those thread saying "Tough Shit Homosexuals, no one is above the law". Instead people are saying "that's an abuse of state power, an invasion of privacy and denial of basic human rights". Why there and not here? [please don't come back to me saying that the gay sex issue is different. I *know* its different. But they have fundamental things in common which mean that I feel I must stand up and protest against government activity on both of these issues]. Laws can be unjust and a blind appeal to "its the law, so just shut up and accept it" isn't going to convince me and it isn't going to help society.

I just wanted to say to <b>4thTimeLucky:</b>

Damn! I dont agree with you, but i do admire the way your standing up to everyone.

my 2 cents.

Agree to the license requirements or start taking the bus.

It's ridiculous some of the double standards we allow in the name of religion.

well said... i couldn't agree more...
this isn't rocket science... but then again, the lawyers are really running the show here aren't they?

Agreed. If she won't follow the rules, she doesn't have to drive.

OTOH, if she drives with an invalid license, they get to arrest her and ... process... her into the klink. That seems to me to be likely MUCH MUCH worse than having to show her face. Unless I miss my guess, having yourself stripped and cavity searched is probably considered taboo, too. She should either not drive, or accept the lesser of two bad things.

If you're stopped while driving, you have to produce your license on the spot. If you don't match the license or don't have one, you can be arrested.

They offered a clean situation for her personal benefit: a room with only females who would take her picture with no men present. This twit turned them down. They didn't have to offer that.

Yes, and there are 50 states.

Whatever form of id she uses, ultimately it's going to become a photo id, which will require a bare face. There is no escape.


Not even close. They don't let Mormons marry multiple women. They won't let AmerIndians smoke peyote. Those are tolerance issues. This is just some twit who doesn't want to comply with simple rules.


It doesn't really have anything to do with terrorism. They shouldn't have mentioned that. What it has to do with is being able to positively identify a person. She not only has to allow her picture to be taken, but she also has to prove, during a traffic stop, that she's the person on the license. The only way she's ultimately going to do that is to show her face in public and on the spot. She can't escape AND drive. She can escape OR drive. Period.


You're not dealing with the same reality we are. The federal government is God, and can do anything to us serfs. Didn't you know that?

They can steal our property (drug raid! eminent domain!), they can stop us on the street and take us to jail w/o actually charging us, and they HAVE. Recently.

Because we're evil, isn't it? I think that's what I've heard. (snicker)



Nah, I think her sect requires her to drive on the left-hand side of the street. So we've got to "respect" that, right? RIGHT??

Also, what happens when normal traffic cameras take her picture?

I see. So the veil doesn't restrict her vision and hearing in traffic, right?

(edit) Maybe it's a one-way veil? :)



Or everyone has to leave a DNA sample with the government and, when the computer power gets good enough, they will give a sample during a traffic stop and have their sequence verified on the spot. What a happy idea that is!

Now you're begging the question. Try again?


The reality is that there is no "non-photo" system in use. For this one woman, we should recreate licenses for all people in the state? And meanwhile, what do they have to identify her with? And how does the liquor store on the corner quickly verify the ID presented by Joe Shmoe under your "non-photo" method, w/o having to buy equipment or take more time to validate a person's age? Sorry, but you're really off the wall here.


Uh, where'd you hear that? Do all the other states she's driven in not require a photo id license? Some how I kinda doubt that.


Ah yes, the keyword: seems. Is she actually what she says she is? Will you not allow us to think she might, God forbid, be lying?


That's right, the standards between what cops want and what bankers want are different. Amazing, innit?

Actually, I think you'll find that she didn't. If you want to speak of laziness, speak to the person who allowed that picture to be used in the first place. As soon as it was brought to Florida's attention that she'd done this, they fixed their error by requiring her to redo the picture.

You sound like you're her lawyer or something.

Seconded.

The DMV made special provisions to take her photo with no men present. She refused and demanded to not remove the veil, which in that state is unreasonable. That should really be the end of the issue. She doesn't want to remove it, so she gets no license. If she wants a license, she needs to remove the veil.

4thTime: I'm not Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish), so I'm not really sure how you got any sort of pro-Christian message from any post of mine.

denim: Nice avatar ~

i can't believe the ACLU would support something like this!

if she did wear it anyone that wore the same veil would look exactly like the photo, what would be the point then.

at least in america you can goto court for anything!

I understand her right to freedom of religion,but freedom of religion has nothing to do with driving a car. Futhermore her picture on her license is for her protection so that she can be identified.What if the picture was taken with her identity concealed, and then her license is lost or stolen and then turns up at a crime scene.Is the judge supposed to believe or disbelieve she had nothing to do with the crime.If eye witnesses say they saw a women concealed in her religious garb,will this women be convicted if innocent. If she is involved or killed in an accident,how do the police determine if she is who her license says she is.

I don't want to go overboard but what happens when people start demanding freedom of expression.Can I get my picture taken for my motorcycle license with my helmet on? What about sunglasses and a baseball hat?

Rules are rules,you don't follow them,you don't drive.

Wow, what a post so far. When I first read this article I really didn't expect it to grow into 3 pages.

What I'm about to say has already been said for the most part but just thought I would throw my words into the mix as reinforcement.

Driving is a not a right. If driving were a right then a license would not be required. If she cannot meet the requirements for a license in her state then she doesn't get the license, plain and simple. No one is forcing her to unveil herself at anytime so her religous beliefs are still being guarded. If her religous beliefs are more important to her than a license then so be it. She won't be driving. Plain and simple.

On the note about a photo not being required in some states, I think this needs some clarification. I think this is referring to the fact that you don't need a photo ID in order to obtain a license. That said though, I'm 97% positive that every state in the union has a picture on their respective driver's license. North Carolina does not require a photo ID to get a license. I show them my birth certificate and social security card (I think just one of those will do), pass the test, and they take my photo for my license. Simple as that. No photo ID required to get one but my license still has a photo ID on it.

I'm not sure if people were confused about that but that's the way I understood it from the article.

Or a wig, fake nose, and lens-less glasses to purposely disguise your identity?

I want to get my drivers license photo taken while wearing a carrot costume with orange face-paint. That would be great.

That pretty much was the end of that issue.

Then comes another issue, if the case a religion forbids it's members to be photographed at all, and there is an alternate form of identification that is as good, should the state allow the use of such a form of identification?

hey 4th i dont like your opinion or your attitude either this lawsuit is frivolous and the judge did the right thing you dont like george bush either i bet

Ha ha ha,..first belly laugh of the day,..Very funny :lol:

Go read the 8th Article of your Constitution. It quite clearly limits the powers oif the Federal Government.


May I ask people to please refrain from making comment such as these? They are only ruining the discussion.

I agree 100% (that makes twice i have agreed with sixate)

Is it in any way possible to open your eyes and see that the laws have been based on Christian values, and that as a result an effort could be made to make life a little easier for those of other religions?

I'm not attempting to "ruin" the discussion, merely questioning why any sort of disguise of your identity -- of religious basis or not -- would be allowed on a photo ID. It makes no sense to me at all.

A reasonable attempt was made to take the picture in accordance to her religion -- without men present -- and she refused. To compromise the rules any further would be stupid.

edit: I just realized that I and others have said the above response at least three times on this thread. Is it really that difficult to understand, or am I stating it unclearly?

There's a reason for her to veil her face, and a good one, other than disguising herself for illegal or humourus purposes. And I wasn't going only after you seretogis, I just used that as an example. I was a bit annoyed with 20ish posts of non-contribution.

And if you read up, you'll see that I too have, on several occasions, tried to explain my view that she has been given her opportunity and that the judges ruling was correct.
But like 4thTime I have been trying to take this discussion a little bit further and expanding it to a general issue. But for the most part this has been thwarted by people who have not (seemingly) read our full posts (or the thread for that matter) and only made comments to a small part of one of the last posts.

In general, a photo id of any kind should have a recognizable photo of the person represented. Wearing a veil which obscures all of your face but the eyes does not constitute a recognizable photo, and so should not be acceptable photo identification.

If you are a member of an African tribe that firmly believes that cameras steal a part of your soul (seriously - link) and you refuse to have one taken of you, fine, but you have no photo identification and are restricted because of it.

It is not the state's responsibility to determine the authenticity of other forms of identification, and so I would have to say no to this. As is, it is currently possible (in MN at least) to get a photo-less drivers license which is essentially just a piece of paper with your personal info on it and a stamp by the DMV to certify that you are able to legally drive. It is not a photo id, and doesn't pretend to be, but it allows you to drive.

Well I don't know.What is it that you have in mind? The only other proof of identity I'm thinking of other than a photo would be DNA testing or fingerprinting, and I think that opens up a new can of worms with many pending problems.

Hey, we're just gettin' warmed up! :D

Hey meester! Calm down and get literate.

For all you know, he might be playing devil's advocate. This is just a discussion.

Yes, now tell the DEA and John Ashkroft that. I'm talking about what they've done. Recently and not so recently.

And finger print reading is not so easy, either. Eventually, DNA checking might become reasonable, but meanwhile we've got visual verification.

Yes, it's not perfect: a person can be horribly disfigured in an auto accident (y'all know what I'm referring to) and still be "them", but not match their driver's license at all. Or the person processing the transaction or whatever it is could be blind, and there you are again.

It's not about the optimal solution yet, but only about one that's as good as we've yet found that's easy to use. That may change later.

Here's another thing: once we manage to use DNA-based checking, someone will figure out a way to get around it...

See my comment before this one. What it comes down to is (1) ease of use, (2) cost. We could check everyone NOW based on DNA, if we had a few years to blow on each check each time we needed one.

For gibber:

denim, try and place all comments in 1 post? ;)

Anyways, my opinion is that a licence should carry some form of identification, but that the form of identification need not be photo if this violates someone's beliefs in some way.

Perhaps an even better idea would be eye recognition( The correct name fails me).That would be very expensive especially for portable units.But it would be accessable to and for everyone, and much quicker to know exactly who the person is. But then again,people will complain that Big Brother has to much info on people.