A question of religious freedom ...

[merpk]

The story ...

I remember reading about this some months back. It's really a difficult question ... but it seems to me that driving is a privilege, and that certain parameters define the availability of the particular privilege, one of which is that drivers must be licensed, and now that pictures are standard on licenses, the pictures must be there.

There are many people of my ... religious persuasion who believe that you may not even be photographed at all. But the ones who drive will have their photograph taken for the license, because they need to drive and that's the law of the land.

Then again, on the other hand, there's that slippery-slope idea. You know, push one boundary, the rest fall fast & furious ... so it is important to fight for those boundaries.

When I was a court reporter, I recall taking the testimony of a witness who was veiled, and the defense attorney argued that his client couldn't confront the witness if he couldn't see her. The Judge ruled (and I agreed) that she could remain veiled, as she was there to be examined and cross-examined, and the defendant could see her well enough for the purposes of confronting his accuser, and the veil in no way limited the attorney's questioning and her answering.

Anyway, it's in the news & interesting ... & now that I've finally figured out how to do that "url" thingy on a link, I'm just looking for excuses to put links in my threads ... :LOL

[JessicaS]

Wow, that is a tough one. When I was bartending I saw a driver's license once without a pic and refused to serve them. Not that a muslim person would be in a bar but I have seen them without pics.

I think she should be able to get the pic without removing her veil.
Anyone trying to avoid a pic would have to show proof that it violates their religion and that wouldn't be easy IMO.

[kama'aina mama]

Driving is a privilege, not a right. It is not as though they are the only ones who must conform or lose this privilege. I recall that in the 80's hairstylist to the stars Jose Eber let his license lapse rather than be photographed sans the trademark cowboy hat that Farrah had given him. There are rules. Everyone follows them. That's what makes it fair.

[Deirdre]

Hmmm.

I understand the whole driving is privilege we should follow the rules answer....

but

up until 9/11 the State of NJ didn't even require pictures on drivers licenses. Of course if you were young and wanted to go to a bar you made sure you had a picture (or got some other form of photo i.d. like a passport or state i.d. card), but people like my Mom were more than happy to forgo the snapshot. So I guess I want to know why it is so important that a picture be on a license if this state managed for years without it? Is it because of terrorism? I mean if someone *wants* a photo i.d. then great, but what relation does it play in relation to the document that says you have passed all applicable tests which enable you to legally drive? I realize driver licenses have become the de facto form of photo i.d. (for check writing, I-9 forms, etc.) but that isn't their rudimentary purpose.

Or, from another angle...

If indeed this woman does get pulled over, and the police are trying to confirm whether she is said person identified on card won't she be wearing her veil? Won't a picture of her veiled be *what she looks like* on any random day? I looked at the picture of her veiled and you can see her eyes very clearly. Are the cops going to force her to remove veil so they can then match her up with the unveiled picture?? That sounds like when the slippery slope gets started.....

I don't know the answer and don't really have an opinion, just throwing some thoughts out there

[JessicaS]

Are the cops going to force her to remove veil so they can then match her up with the unveiled picture?? That sounds like when the slippery slope gets started

That would be my worry as well.

[sohj]

The last time I renewed my drivers' liscence (never can spell that word!) VT's standard was w/o a photo. For a photo, you paid extra. It is considered a driving permit, NOT an identification card. When I think I'm going to be "carded", I take my passport. It happens less and less lately. But the few times it has happened unexpectedly, the permit w/o the photo has worked...maybe because it says I'm older than those checking my ID!

[neveryoumindthere]

although we share similar beliefs, to be honest at first i was thinking ok come on this is for public safety and she could have the picture taken by a woman and just tuck it away in her wallet and never have to use it except in necessity (i'm against picture-taking as well, in general, but do so for exceptional circumstances like this for example)...

BUT then i read an article that was saying that ...

[

Many other states issue driver's licenses without photographs, and Florida issues thousands of driver's training permits annually that don't have photos, Marks said.

Other courts have ruled that fundamentalist Christians who also have religious prohibitions against having their photographs taken can get licenses without one.

here's the link

now, at first i was thinking she's gotta lose this case cuz 'everyone' gets their picture taken but HELLO!!! did those other ppl with NO pictures on their license have it taken away?

personally even though i'm so against pictures for religious i think everyone should have some type picture ID in case of crimes, or missing persons, going across the border etc, but if this is the case i'm on her side because the rule should apply to everyone, not just her

[3boys4us]

I saw this before and have the same questions as everyone else. While I sympathize with her, I wonder how other devout Muslim women get their liscenses (with pictures).

If she was able to get her liscence before while veiled then FL should go along with it. Otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

My original thought was - can't she wear a sheer veil to get around the whole issue?

[3boys4us]

I read saffiyya's article and it is bizarre how fundie Christians can go without a picture while this woman cannot. Also the timing is a little off too - she only received the warning after 3 mos. after 9/11.

But I did note that she moved from IL so she never did have her original lis. from FL.

[1jooj]

The biggest problem seems to me to be the definition of "veil."

It happened here is WI, with a woman wearing a simple headscarf, with her whole face exposed. The person at the DMV told her she had to take it off. She refused. The DMV employee refused to take the photo & issue the license. Muslim communities work hard here to maintain active relationships with our elected officials. The governor (I think at the time he was AG) got involved. She got a "valid without photo" license, and the DMV employee got some trouble.

Please. If I am wearing a scarf, and I always wear a scarf, why would I take it off for an ID photo? It would not look like I look. KWIM?

Personally, I disagree about covering the face--not that I think my understanding of Islam should make a difference here. I wonder about the safety of driving with a veil that close to the eyes. All that said, again, if this is how the woman goes out and appears normally, how would an ID photo with her full face be helpful in any way?

Also, if exemptions are made for other religion-based reasons, there it is.

I got a kick out of the "beard dyed red" note. I suppose he has henna in his beard.

[artemesia]

I am not sure that I entirely agree that driving is a privilege. At one time, yes, it was. Cars were only for the wealthy and they were really a recreational novelty. However, in many rural areas, there is no such thing as reliable mass transit, or even a taxi. Having a car and being able to drive is absolutely necessary in order to get to work so one can support their family. Personally, I wish this were not so, I would love to ditch my car. But for many people this is a reality. Without driving a car, they can not get to work so they can not provide the basics of food, clothing and shelter. Taking away this "privilege" would also take away the means to provide the basic needs of living. Does one not have a right to food, clothing and shelter?

[neveryoumindthere]

Another article to read...there are statements from the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida

ACLU Asks Florida Court to Reinstate Suspended Driver's License of Muslim Woman Forced to Remove Her Face Veil

At this week's trial, the ACLU also plans to argue the state is singling out Freeman based on her religious beliefs, while allowing others to obtain driving permits without photographs. According to Marks, Florida officials issued more than 800,000 temporary licenses and/or driving permits - without photographs - in the past five years to individuals in a variety of different categories. Convicted drunk drivers with revoked licenses are legally allowed to drive in Florida using only driving permits without photographs, as are foreign nationals, those who failed their eye or written exams and military personnel.

State officials filed a motion to dismiss Freeman's lawsuit, claiming she is being "hypersensitive" and that public safety concerns outweigh her religious beliefs

that's rude...

"Florida issues driver's licenses when it is satisfied that people are capable of driving on the roads of our state," added Marshall. "State officials should not be permitted to convert driver's licenses into mandatory universal identification cards."

hurray for Marshall

[mahdokht]

*

[Deirdre]

Artemesia ~ I can totally see your point re: driving=privilege. However, the government certainly views it as a privilege. If I remember correctly the 1st page of the NJ drivers manual says something to like "driving is a privilege, not a right". I remember as a teen thinking it sounded very "big brother" to me But you have made excellent points about the necessity of driving in most areas.

Back to the issue at hand, I think everyone makes great points. I guess I am still "stuck" on the fact that the *purpose* of a drivers license is not photo identification. A person can get a photo i.d. through other methods. A DL is to verify someone has passed all requirements to drive. So I am not sure why a picture is essential at all. If it is not essential why can't this person skip the picture altogether?

~Deirdre

[Els' 3 Ones]

I hate my dl picture. Every one I ever took. Next time I'll try to get a dl w/o one. Never even knew it was an option.

ITA with Deirdre.


El

[kama'aina mama]

Hhmm....

After reading that second article I am actually more on her side than I was before. But I am still torn. Yes, a DL need not actually be an ID but it does seem to me that it is useful to have a picture on it to verify that the person waving it around claiming they are legal to drive is actually the person who passed the tests and earned the license. But that's not what the state of Florida is saying. In fact, what they do say indicates that it is virtually guaranteed that the photo, should she permit it being taken, would almost certainly be used in a way she would find offensive. It will be a digital photo and it will be stored in a database where many people will have access to it. It's all well and good to arrange for her to have privacy from men while the photo is taken but if the photo is then used in such a way that guarantees that any number of men will view it the gesture is rendered moot.

Also, note that the fundie Christians who have successfully challenged similar laws were in different states so while that may help her it also may not since licenses are issued by each state and each has it's own laws regarding them.

[Meiri]

If FL is selectively prosecuting this, then I am going to change over to her side.

I think it's a public safety and identification issue as well as a consistancy issue on her part. She wants the veil as if it's required (as in Saudi Arabia) but also wants the license (as forbidden in SA). The Arab countries that allow women to drive also require photo identification that shows the face.

You cannot have it both ways IMO. But then neither can FL or any other state: if a photo is required then it should be required of ALL. If a photo is not required then it shouldn't be selectively enforced on Muslims only.

[frogertgrl]

A FL circuit judge ruled this morning that she cannot wear her veil for her DL photo.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s/license_veil

After hearing three days of testimony last week, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public, and that having photo identification was essential to that interest.

Thorpe also said Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

[neveryoumindthere]

ya..i just read it too...

i feel bad for her...

whether or not i agree that the veil is obligatory aside, why did they have to show a picture of her unveiled and unscarved and have it posted on the net and used in the courtroom?... wasnt her whole point that she has reservations about showing her face...never mind her hair and neck and part of her chest...

i wear the scarf, i dont cover my face, but i would be MORTIFIED if my picture was posted on the net or in newspapers even WITH my scarf on...

[frogertgrl]

I completely disagree with the Judge's ruling and am disheartened by this outcome. After reading your post, saffiyya, I'm horrified.

I so wish this ruling had gone the other way. The prosecutors reasoning makes no logical sense to me.