Florida Muslim Woman Unveiled!

[Attalus]

After hearing three days of testimony last week, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that Sultaana Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

Freeman, 35, had obtained a license that showed her veiled with only her eyes visible through a slit. But the state revoked the license in 2001 when she refused to have her photo retaken with her face uncovered.

She sued the state of Florida, saying it would violate her Islamic beliefs to show her face publicly.

(Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) APTV 06-06-03 1314EDT

I found this on NRO

[Timber Loftis]

Saw this coming when I heard about the case last week. Can you imagine the boon for terrorism if everyone claiming a religious right to a driver's license non-photo ID got it? Talk about a notion begging for abuse.

Besides, thanks to Scalia's legal gymnastics, a free exercise claim is now only available if coupled with another constitutional claim. Sorry, that's probably too pointy-headed a point for such a simple thing.

Well I'm glad that common sense won out in this case at least.

[Arvon]

What other conclusion could be found? We are told that driving is a privilege not a right. She could maintain her religious beliefs but not drive...no big deal.

[Albromor]

Arvon, good point about driving being priviledge and not a right. And as long as she carrys her photo license in her purse (or whatever) there is no way her face is being exposed publicly. Now I am just waiting for the loony wolf pack (sorry wolves!) of the A.C.L.U. to start howling and gnashing their teeth over this ruling...

[ 06-06-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Albromor ]

[Attalus]

LOL, on the aol poll, 93% of respondents agreed with the court. I've never seen a response so one-sided.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Arvon: What other conclusion could be found? We are told that driving is a privilege not a right. She could maintain her religious beliefs but not drive...no big deal.

Very true.

[WillowIX]

Originally posted by Arvon: What other conclusion could be found? We are told that driving is a privilege not a right. She could maintain her religious beliefs but not drive...no big deal.

Exactly. Seems the American legal system has some common sense after all.

[Chewbacca]

Let me be the devil...

The irony here is the State had previously issued a valid license to this lady.
There was no problem with her face being covered before 9-11 and I highly doubt lettting her face being covered would have led to any terrorist attacks.

I bet that if 9-11 didn't happened this would be a non-issue and the integrity of this womans strict beliefs would be intact.

The state should focus spend its money pursuing legitimate threats. They may as well ban plastic surgury, wig wearing, beard growing, and sunglass wearing for all they have accomplished.

Also I saw no mention of a compromise like a sufficiently translucent veil covering the face that would allow for positive ID.

Driving is a priveledge that should only be denied for driving-related offenses or due to incompentancy.
Considering one's livelyhood can be effect in areas with-out public transportation, driving can be a neccessity for some.

I have too many questions and doubts to think this is a huge benifit to society, that I am any safer from terror because of it, or that my nation is any freer or more enlightened because of it.

The circumstances that brought this all about leads me to believe that the Gov. has nothing better to do than make sure all Arabs and Muslims had valid drivers license pictures.


Ultimately I think they never should of let her take a license picture with the veil in the first place.

[johnny]

Does anyone know if women in muslimcountries are allowed to cover their faces when they have their picture taken for a passport, or a driverslicense ?

Cause if they are, i can imagine there's a lot of fraude going on. It could be anyone underneath that veil, even a guy.