theist Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 Muslim cites beliefs as ID photo trial begins Florida requires unveiling for license BY PHIL LONG plong@herald.com ORLANDO -- Speaking softly from behind a black veil, only her eyes visible as they moved from the face of her questioner to the judge, Sultaana Freeman cited the religious beliefs that have brought her into conflict with the state over her driver's license photo. Freeman, 35, who became a Muslim in 1997 and started wearing a veil full time shortly after that, told Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe she is opposed to being photographed or being seen without her veil. It was a mistake that allowed Freeman to be photographed for her driver's license wearing a niqab, a religious veil that covers all of the face except the eyes, said Senior Assistant Attorney General Jay Vail. The state has revoked Freeman's license until she agrees to a new photograph showing her full face. Freeman is suing the state, charging that the demand violates her religious freedom. Thorpe, who is presiding over a nonjury trial expected to run through Thursday, must decide if the state's public safety and other interests in requiring the full-face photo outweigh Freeman's religious beliefs. Freeman, in a written statement, said her veiling is her practice of the Koran's insistence on modesty, ``the ultimate in self-respect and feminism, as this liberating act sent a message that I am not an object of sexual fulfillment, but a person of strong religious conviction.'' On the witness stand, Freeman said she has no photos in her house. When she buys an item like cereal that has a person's photograph on the box, she crosses off the face with a magic marker.* Freeman acknowledged she was photographed without a veil after her arrest in 1998 in Decatur, Ill., on a domestic battery charge involving one of the twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The Associated Press reported that the children were removed from her home. Child-welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their claims of religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to Decatur police records. Thorpe didn't allow many of the facts about Freeman's arrest into evidence. Florida's insistence on a full-face photo is a case of discrimination spurred by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, said Howard Marks, an attorney representing Freeman on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union. Until then, Marks said, the state ''had no problem accommodating the religious beliefs of Muslim women who required veiling,'' Marks said. Vail, arguing for the state, said the full-face photo law and policy have been in place for years. He said a state employee mistakenly allowed Freeman to be photographed wearing her niqab in early 2001. In December 2001, after a call from a Central Florida state attorney's office, the department wrote Freeman saying she would have to be photographed full-face or risk losing her license. She refused and her license was revoked in early 2002. Sandy Lambert, state driver's license director, said that only Freeman and one other woman, whom she did not identify, have had their licenses revoked in the past few years for refusing to be photographed. Lambert and Vail denied any post-Sept. 11 discrimination. ''We have had this law in place for many, many years, so there has been no change since 9/11,'' Lambert said. The picture is crucial for police officers who want to know who is driving a car, whether that person has been reported missing or is a criminal, officials say. A driver's license, ''is no longer just a driving permit,'' Lambert said. ``It has become the No. 1 identification document.'' Marks said 13 states allow exceptions for religious concerns. As a mother of children ages 6 months and 2, being unable to drive has caused a ''great deal of stress,'' Freeman testified. ''It has changed my life really,'' she said. ``I feel like a prisoner in my own home.'' *If she can't even tolerate the pictures on a cereal box one wonders how she can even allow herself to look into the face of other human beings. Afterall vision is a type of photography with the eyes acting as the lens and imprint being captured on the mind. Everytime she sees anything, including anothers face she is seeing a picture. Fanatics always seem to miss the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 Next they will say they don't want their mugshots taken showing their face. Maybe no finger prints either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mahak Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 Haribol. Rastafarians and their root religions also consider pictures against their beliefs. They say such photos capture their souls. Personally, I give a little credence here. My family members are photo hounds, and there are shots of everyone for decades, but what is the picture's purpose? Nostalgia (which is illusion that the good times weren't just as lousy as the present times)? I limit my beliefs here, and accept that pictures also capture the spirit, but not to the detriment of the one pictured. I took a few photos at a reggae show once, and one performer forbade me. And he was true to his word because I have never seen his photo on his albums. But what about his sound captured, is that also not binding him to the disc? Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krsnanatha Posted May 28, 2003 Report Share Posted May 28, 2003 It seems odd that this lady would be sueing the state for a license to drive as one of the general tenets in fanatical muslim religious tradition calls for women not to enjoy a vast number of mundane freedoms, one of which is the driving of cars. It is also interesting that she has no problem interacting with the "filthy infidel" lawyer who has popped up on a number of TV news shows promoting this case as a vicious example of religious intrusion and bigotry on the part of the state government. I for one doubt this women is a potential criminal threat (although, come to think of it, John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Dahmer seemed quite normal and benign to everyone except those they chose to slaughter) but what if she did or someone following in her footsteps if she wins the case, did? I can hear the dispatch call from the 911 operator, "Roger all units we have a totally unidentifed suspect loose in the area of....... good luck catching her". Or the police line up "Okay Mrs. Johnson take a good look at persons one through six, which of those people with their faces completely covered is the person who robbed your store? She wants to live her quiet humble religious life and she goes about it parading on TV with her "I'll do anything for a pay check" lawyer. Suggestion to the state: Buy this person a fistful of magic markers, a bus pass and tell her to go to......Mecca. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vsdprasad Posted May 29, 2003 Report Share Posted May 29, 2003 If lord Allah is made the arbiter, would he favor the plaintiff or would he give judgement against her to prevent chances of unscrupulous people trying to take laws to their advantage and endanger the life of the people? tough to answer. They've put up the video of the trial. http://www.courttv.com/trials/freeman/052803_ctv.html The judge is going to have a tough time giving the judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.