THE STRUGGLE FOR RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM
Exclusive Coverage of a Landmark Case
| Home | Home >
News & Opinion
Muslim Woman Files Appeal to Reinstate her Driver's License July 8, 2003 (MP) DAYTONA BEACH For years, Sultaana Freeman drove with a niqab (Islamic face veil) covering a portion of her face in her driver's license photo. On the face of the license the words "Safe Driver" are displayed because she hasn't even had a single ticket since driving veiled. On June 6, 2003, Circuit Court Judge Janet Thorpe ruled that Mrs. Freeman's religious belief in remaining veiled is sincerely held, but concluded that unveiling for a "moment" for a permanent photo is not really a burden on her beliefs, because other women who veiled have removed it for the picture. Thorpe did, however, concede that existing law permits a person to appear in public or drive with a religious face veil. Thursday, Mrs. Freeman filed a court appeal addressing issues such as Florida statutes that do not allow a license to be revoked because of its photo and due process in which five additional days should have been added to the 20 day deadline for Freeman to comply. Although a rare belief and practice in the United States, other women have reportedly also had niqab pictures in their driver's license, proudly functioning as productive members of American society. Niqabis, as they call themselves, argue that a piece of cloth over the face is not what oppresses their sisters in Islam, but that it is the lack of human rights and "privileges" such as driving that cause oppression. Many see the removal of Freeman's license as an example of oppression, not the veil itself. Um Mouhamed of Michigan also obtained a niqab license prior to 9/11 and said, "I have to drive. Not to go to the mall, mind you, but because I have one son with cerebral palsy and another with speech problems." She and an uncounted small number of others, including Christians, are still driving freely with a niqab or non-photo license - even in the the state of Florida. This fact has puzzled many. "I think everyone should be required to have a photo, even if they don't drive," said Leanne Singleton of Daytona Beach. "What would we do if she was missing or there was a car accident and the family wanted to identify the body?" she asked. Some christian extremists remain ill-informed and think she and other Muslims should "go back to where they came from," or other similar sentiments. Meanwhile, there are those who are puzzled by the opposition to Freeman since she is willing to be identified by means more restrictive than a photo, such as fingerprints or additional documentation. Legal analyst John Peter Zenger says, "Freedom of movement and the right to drive a vehicle is a fundamental constitutional right. As such, it can only be tampered with on grounds of health and safety, neither of which apply to the issuance of a driver's license. Judge Thorpe's silly 'argument' that:
is ludicrous from a constitutional viewpoint. No doubt, following that reasoning, Judge Thorpe would rule that Amish parents have to send their kids to school in compliance with state attendance laws just the same as a 'Christian, Jew, Buddhist, atheist'. But the US Supreme Court has held otherwise, and so has the US Congress. When a state law infringes on a religious practice, it is the state that must give way with very narrow health and safety exceptions." He further criticizes the circuit court ruling as "shockingly poor caliber" and believes that the legal profession is "tainted by the likes of Judge Thorpe." "Many people are afraid to speak out against mainstream opinion on any matter these days," says a senior citizen who chose not to identify himself while walking in a busy Orlando mall. He added, "Times have changed and I have a terrible feeling about it. Hopefully things can get back to normal." |
--- |
|