Making Faces

Thanks to reader Chris Howell for alerting us that the celebrated case of the veiled driver's license photo goes to trial in Florida today. I have no sympathy for Sultaana Freeman and would be comfortable with an "If you don't like it don't drive" response to her predicament. But it will be interesting to see the state try to prove that it has a compelling interest in taking mugshots of law-abiding citizens. (Which Freeman is not, by the way: She has a prior rap for child abuse.) "The photo is the primary biometric measure for determining identity," says Jason Vail, Florida's fortuitously named assistant attorney general.

Comments

[Cracker's boy.]

Let's see if we can't make everybody happy here.

What if, in order to be allowed to drive in Florida, Ms. Freeman was required to be photographed without her veil (like you and me and everybody else). Now, if she wishes to insist on being photographed by a female officer at the DMV, so be it. That's probably do-able without any further expense to the taxpayers of Florida. Then, the Driver's License photograph would reside in her wallet, free from the prying eyes of... whoever it is that she is trying to keep her face hidden from (sic?). I'll admit that I'm not really up on Muslim "rules and regulations", particularly as they pertain to photography, which was invented at least a few years after the Koran (Qur'an) was written, but it seems like it's okay to be unveiled in front of other women, and in the house, so... I think it'd work.

[Matt]

Religious convictions should outweigh the state's need to have a record of your identity. Why should this woman have to break with her beliefs to drive a car that she owns? The "if you don't like it..." response is simply not good enough. Have a problem with high taxes? Well, if you don't like it, go live in another country. Don't like that New York smoking ban? Don't complain, just move somewhere else. It's just a way of avoiding the debate.

Besides, drivers' licenses are nothing but a scam anyway. Screw the DMV.

[Russ]

Gotta agree with Matt on this one. It's not like driver's licenses are only given to competent drivers. I've seen people who can't hear, can't read, and basically can't see get complete assistance from employees at the state "driver's services" facilities.

I got hassled one time for not having my birth certificate. I go to the county building to get one, and then go back and have no problem. Its not like I had to actually prove anything to get a birth certificate, so what's the point? I don't even LIVE where I was born, so it isn't proof of anything. Perhaps they didn't believe that I was actually alive. I should have asked for a the BC of a deceased relative to see how closely they would have looked at it.

One time I saw a guy get hassled because he had his social security card laminated. "That's federal property!" the guy said. I leaned over and said, "Yeah, but you're not a federal employee." Besdies, there's something sort of illegal with it being a requirement to have a SSN to drive.

And what a mornonic rule that "no laminating" is. Those stupid cards get mangled pretty easily, I would think the rule should be that they HAVE to be laminated.

All the driver license proves is that you can stand in line and pay money. Once you've stood in line, they practically take the test for you so they don't weed out incompetence, only whistleblowers.

You can show up with dyed hair, facial piercings, bad makeup, colored contact lenses, etc. and then take them all off after you're done getting you're picture taken. But those veils are a no-no!

[SM]

"Religious convictions should outweigh the state's need to have a record of your identity"

My religious convictions, conveyed to me telepathically by Cthulu shortly after i read Matt's post, require me to travel masked on passenger airplanes. There was also something about a costume ... not .. clear .... yet

[Anonymous]

""Religious convictions should outweigh the state's need to have a record of your identity"

No, it would be unconstitutional to allow this result. Your religion does not allow you to opt out of laws that are generally applicable. Otherwise, you wind up with special treatment for people depending on their religion, or, in more classical terms, "laws respecting the establishment of religion."

[hayley ford]

But if she's so concerned about shari'a and Quranic living, what's she doing DRIVING A CAR? Has anyone passed this on to the Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Supression of Vice?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, havent you seen the Big Lebowski? That Jew couldnt drive on Sundays or something. Judaism and Islam are basically the same thing.

[DANEgerus]

It's called Identification because it's supposed to Identify.

Of course driving is a priviledge, thats why it's licensed.

Only the PC delusionary could allow driving to be elevated to a 'human-right'... what's next? My religion of the 'dont have to obey stop-lights'?

[Douglas Fletcher]

Come on, folks, she's probably just fuggly & doesn't want the picture that can prove it.

[Hank]

Driver's Licenses are a joke, its not about driving, its about identifying. That's what the hulabalu is all about. DL's are the defacto National ID system.

I once got pulled over by a cop while riding my bicycle for speeding. Yes speeding. On a good road bike you can easily get up to 45 on a good hill. Apparently I did this in a school zone.

The pig, er police officer, asked me for my driver's license which, of course, i didn't have on me. He said it was illegal not to have a form of identification on me. I questioned whether or not that was true then offered to allow him to follow me home (only 10 miles away). He said he could drive me there, but I'd have to leave me bike. I said i'd rather be arrested. After much ranting and grumbling, he drove away.

So I'm still left wondering, was I breaking the law by leaving my wallet at home?

[abe]

This problem does not exist in the Islamic state of Saudi Arabia!

[abe]

Hank
You broke the law by speeding in a school zone(15-20 MPH and you don't need a hill to do that). Please get a clue.

[Warren]

abe,
You dropped something... Oh look it's the clue Hank handed you.

He never questioned whether he was guilty of the traffic infraction. The cop told him he was required to carry identification.

The cop was lying (too bad that's not a crime). Here in the USofA one of the few remaining blessings of liberty we enjoy is not being required to produce our papers for every corrupt agent of the state who's path we may cross.

Of course I seriously doubt whether such extravagant freedoms will survive a second Bush term.

[Gerry]

A couple of points. In some jurisdictions it is illegal in public to be masked (some exceptions allowed, none of which apply to an American woman who has married a Muslim). Got to admire her chutzpah though. Also, The DMV offered to photo her with an all girly staff and setting. She refused. She'll lose. ACLU has better things to do.

[Sean]

I'm curious if a klansman who insisted wearing his hood for his photo, claiming adherence to some obscure religious aspect of his Christian Identity faith, would be evoking all the same responses from interested parties.

[Anonymous]

From the CourtTV article:

But to Marks, Freeman's lawyer, the courtesy is still not a compromise: It isn't the process, but the photograph itself that his client objects to. "She believes that would violate a tenet of her religion," he said.

Stupid question: If it's a photo that she objects to, could they get a sketch artist to draw her portrait?

[Frenk]

Warren, gotta disagree with you there. In some states, at least, you are required to carry an id., which can be demanded by a law enforcement official under certain circumstances--or at least we were told that back home. Violating traffic laws certainly would seem to give Mr. Po Lice cause to demand identification.

Any lawyers (not just sea-lawyers) got a view on this one?

[Anonymous]

Maybe they tried to take her picture and there was nothing there when it was developed. She's a witch!

[Anonymous]

You think your drivers license picture looks bad NOW! (No wonder she's veiled.)

[Anonymous]

"Religious convictions should outweigh the state's need ..."

Yeah, tell that to the American Indian who wants to do his peyote.

[Anonymous]

The don't have this little problem in Saudi Arabia because woman can't drive.

[Cas]

If this woman does not wish to obtain a Driver's License in Florida, she does not HAVE to get one. Nor does she need to drive; she can stay home in the "hareem." It is not prejudiced against her to insist that she comply with this law in order to drive on Florida's roads; that what Florida made me do... (talk about an ugly picture!)
Does anyone know if there are any states left that will issue non-picture driver's licenses?

[scott]

The case of the "walking man" went to the supreme court. you do not have to carry id to walk around. i am a former bicycle racer, and i hate to burst anyone's bubble, but most of the rules to do with driving apply to riding a bike on the road. you can't speed, ride drunk, run red lights, and you have to have id. plus, if you get run over, it would be nice if they could figure out who you are. as for the veil issue, it's a non-issue. no picture, no license, no driving. the take your license away for a lot less than that.

[fredH]

I had an experience similar to the one Russ described. About ten or twelve years ago, South Carolina switched to drivers licenses with pictures on them and announced that anyone renewing a license would need ID. When I went to renew my license, I brought my passport and a copy of my birth certificate. It turned out that neither was acceptable; they wanted a social security card. Having lost my social security card years before, I went to the SS office in Charlestion to get a new one. Guess what ID they wanted? Yup, my drivers licence. Neither the clerk in the SS office nor the one at the DMV found anything strange in this situation. Ah,the bureaucratic mind at work.

[Anonymous]

"Of course driving is a priviledge, thats why it's licensed."

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read this month.

[Dean]

On the SS card issue, I had lost my card for years and depended only on my passport for proof-of-citizenship for purposes of employment and getting a driver's license. I guess SC is just nutty.

And speaking of passports, there is nothing unusual about getting a passport picture while veiled... It is done with nuns all the time! There are accomodations that allow people to cover their head and hair, but not their actual face, for religious reasons. The court tv link makes clear that this does not even have to be done in the presence of men. I think Freeman is just being obstinate, or she has the naively extremist zeal of a convert that no muslim from abroad who moved to the USA would ever ascribe to.

[pd]

Yep - most of you in support of Freeman have missed the crucial element here; if Freeman's beliefs(religious or otherwise) preclude her from satisfying the requirements for ALL FLORIDA RESIDENTS prescibed by the State to drive a vehicle in that State - in this case namely holding a clearly identifying photographic licence - then she has a straightforward, simple situation. Incidentally, the issue has been clouded by making this a 'religious persecution' issue rather than what it really is - an issue of a selfish individual wanting her 'rights' (which they are not - driving is a priviledge with rules and direct community impact) to override an established community benefit.

Her situation is simple - Freeman can exercise fully her 'rights' by her refusal to compromise her beliefs BY CHOOSING NOT TO DRIVE!

It is an expanding North-American disease - the expectation that broader societal benefits be thrown out in favour of an individuals 'right' to selfish expression.

Freeman - be our guest and keep your veil on by all means - but don't then demand we all bend the rules, and suspend a community's need for the responsibility of it's people, simply to satisfy your whims.

[Anonymous]

This is ridiculous. Anyone could use her driver's license. I can't believe people think it is acceptable for her to be shrouded in her veil for the photo id. That is why it is photo id. Anyone who gets their hands on her ID can then purchase liquor and cigarettes. And we have no way to verify that a 35 year old woman is under that veil. Everyone would have a veiled drivers license.

[N.Plused]

Europe harbors millions of Muslims.

The drivers licenses of European female Muslims must all look the same.

(So why not make photo-copies of just one, and hand 'em out to millions of Muslim women?)

[heidi]

the smoking gun give a little more detail about this woman - who in her spare time, beats her kids for fun.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html

[Al Pettit]

Why is it OK for someone of the Christian Faith not to have a picture drivers licence and a muslim cannot

http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=12827&c=142

The ACLU of Florida filed a lawsuit on Freeman's behalf shortly after her license was revoked, citing three separate cases in Colorado, Indiana and Nebraska in which the courts ruled that individuals with certain clearly held religious beliefs have a right to obtain licenses without being photographed. Those cases involved Christians who believe that the Second Commandment prohibits them from having their photographs taken.

I guess there are two types of people in this country Christians who can defy the law with their religion and the rest of us that have to follow the law

[Damon]

I have an idea... Howzabout they just use her mugshot from the Illinois arrest in place of her drivers license photo?

[Berglin Deb]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 210.18.158.254
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/20/2004 10:01:52
Against boredom even the gods contend in vain.

[mel stratis]

The issue of a driver's license being rightly or wrongly a form of valid ID and as such needing to fulfill the criteriea of an ID is rather trite. This nation now has a vast population of economically disinfranchised citizens who have neither a home, functional transportaion, or means of support. all of these devastating social circumstanses are base primarilly in poverty and social injustice.

Most of these unfortunate individuals would be glad to have their picture taken by the DMV naked if they could only become full citizens again. Most American citizens who have lost their driving priviledges and thus any chance or equality in life have done so not because the are a danger to the lives of other citizens, but rather because they can't keep up with the vehicular and financial "Jones" of this country. In this social and political case "something" certainly is happening Mr. and Mrs. "Jones," and you do know exactly what it is!