| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| Muslim Woman Sues to Wear Veil for License | |
| 2003-05-28 | |
| A Muslim woman suing to keep her veil on for her driver's license photo took the stand Tuesday, saying Florida's insistence on photographing her face violates her religious rights."I don't unveil ... because it would be disobeying my Lord," said Sultaana Freeman, 35. The Saudis seem to believe that the Prophet wouldn't allow women to drive. So they don't allow it. Since they seem to be the experts of all things Islam, why should this woman even need a drivers license if she's so concerned with "disobeying my lord"? If fear of disobeying her lord is her main concern, then she should not be driving. Ladies and gentleman, I rest my case... Both sides planned to call experts in Islamic law at the nonjury trial, which was to continue Wednesday. A copy of the Quran was entered into evidence. Experts in Islamic law. That should be good for a few laughs. A nonjury trial is a smart move. A jury would broom her in about five minutes. Best to go judge shopping for a good liberal who'll buy a sob story. Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001. Nine months later, she received a letter from the state warning that it would revoke her license unless she returned for a photo with her face uncovered. Freeman claims her religious beliefs require her to keep her head and face covered out of modesty and that her faith prohibits her face from being photographed. There's a picture of her at the link. If she drives with that thing on she might be dangerous because it looks like she'd have zero peripheral vision. Her attorneys argued that state officials didn't care that she wore a veil in the photo until after the Sept. 11 attacks, an allegation the state denies. "This is about religious liberty. It's about whether this country is going to have religious diversity," said Howard Marks, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE!!! Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail argued that having an easily identifiable photo on a driver's license is a matter of public safety. "It's the primary method of identification in Florida and the nation," Vail said. "I don't think there can be any doubt there is a public safety interest." If she wins this, the floodgates are open.
| |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #24 "a driver's license is the grant of privilege" Right on the money!I have been told that since I was 16.I would think the judge would issue a ruling saying"No un-obstructed photo,no driver's license". "A copy of the Quran was entered into evidence." This has a direct bearing on the murder trial,where(in the sentenceing faze)the judge through-out the juries decision because the jurer's had access to the Gideion Bible. Seems to me if this ditz can use the Quran to defy the law,then the Bible can be used to enforce the law. I have an idea:If she gets away with this,all of us should go down to DMV,wearing veils(Freedom of Religion).After all a precedent was set.I can see law enfocment officials haveing heart palpitations now. But I suppose ACLU,and other enablers will say that is intolerant! |
| Posted by: Raptor 2003-05-29 08:12:01 |
| #23 Thanks, mojo, my bad. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-05-28 23:04:39 |
| #22 This may burst some bubbles, but: "Freeman, a convert to Islam previously known as Sandra Kellar, wore her veil for the photo on the Florida driver's license she obtained after moving to the state in 2001." Further: "Freeman conceded that she has had her face photographed without a veil since she started wearing one in 1997. She had a mug shot taken after her arrest in 1998 on a domestic battery charge involving one of twin 3-year-old sisters who were in her foster care. The children were removed from her home, according to records from the Decatur (Ill.) Police Services. Child welfare workers told investigators in Decatur that Freeman and her husband had used their concerns about religious modesty to hinder them from looking for bruises on the girls, according to the Decatur Police records." al-Sandra is no more Islamic than we are, arguably less, just another honey workin' the System. And the System is doing its impression of Eddie Murphy doing his impression of Jackie Gleason... "Now Norton, I'm gonna bend over, and when I do..." |
| Posted by: Mark IV 2003-05-28 22:31:30 |
| #21 Update: My wife mentioned that she heard on CNN (yup) that the prosecution hit paydirt when they asked about prior convictions; now that they mentioned it, she recalled a felony conviction for falsifying 6 drivers licenses for her husband... |
| Posted by: Neophyte 2003-05-28 19:03:25 |
| #20 As others have noted, a driver's license is the grant of privilege. You can drive without one, just not on any government property. And under strict Muslim law, any "realistic" depiction is forbidden as an attempt to copy Allah's handiwork - photos, movies, TV, etc. are all forbidden. Related: ask a rug merchant - the rugs are supposed to have at least one deliberate "mistake" so as not to mock Allah by attempting perfection. |
| Posted by: John Anderson 2003-05-28 18:52:12 |
| #19 Hey, folks. Let's not forget one small item. This woman would not be here without support from the ACLU - and the ACLU also supported that (in)famous group, NAMBLA. Philanthropic dollars at work, costing us tax dollars in kind (or should that be "in spades?"). 'Nuff said. |
| Posted by: LVK 2003-05-28 17:20:36 |
| #18 So, if she wins, does it mean that I can marry as many women as I want? My religion says itâs OK... |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-28 14:59:14 |
| #17 People who flip/flop like this, one day extreme christian and the next extreme muslim. They have some underlying problems. Might want to check her Zoloff dosage. I would bet she probably has a web cam in her room. "Muslim Wench Uncovered" |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2003-05-28 14:57:20 |
| #16 Dunno about Magpies, but thet's the Cuckoo's trick... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-28 14:05:14 |
| #15 The Supremes have already visited this: The Supreme Court said in Oregon v. Smith that âIt is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended....To make an individualâs obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the lawâs coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the Stateâs interest is âcompellingâ-permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, âto become a law unto himself,â contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.â You lose, sister. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-05-28 14:00:55 |
| #14 If she wins its gonna do wonders for female, underage, drinkers in Florida. "Really Mr. Bouncer, that's me, I don't always wear the Burqa." If Allah will let you drive while in America certainly he'll allow the believers to drink. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-05-28 13:55:08 |
| #13 I agree with Portiers and Anonymous. IIRC, Bernard Lewis had developed a whole list of tactics that the Islamists would use to compromise Western governments and this was one of them. Isn't it the magpie that lays its eggs in others birds' nests? The magpie young then force the real chicks' out of the nest, killing them. The real parents don't notice the difference, feeding the magpie chicks until maturity. I propose that we call the Islamist strategy wrt the Western democracies the magpie strategy. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2003-05-28 13:54:12 |
| #12 Poiters summed it up. This is a probing of the institutions of our country to find and exploit every weakness, just like it is happening in France and other European countries. Battles start over seemingly insignificant issues, but like any war, they can erupt into major confrontations. The enemy picks and chooses his battles based upon his perceptions of our weaknesses. They are not going to go after pilot's privelages, for instance. The thing that is interesting about this case is the plaintiff's going into all the details of islamic law. This has nothing to do with details of the driver's licence, which are related to the safety of the general public. The intent is to drive a wedge into State institutions with Sharia law. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-05-28 12:49:13 |
| #11 I think this is where I go into my Effram Zimbalist Jr. impersonation and say: "Implied consent is NOT a ladies smile." |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-28 12:32:42 |
| #10 If I were the judge i'd look the silly girl in the eye and tell her that Islam is a lie, Muhammed (may his bones sting in hell) wasn't a prophet, the Koran was written for illiterate people to be fooled by clever men and then I'd fine here for driving without a proper picture on her goddamn license. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2003-05-28 11:33:24 |
| #9 The incredible irony is that this lady would not even be permitted to drive in Saudi Arabia and other Islamist countries. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-28 11:10:33 |
| #8 Mojo and BAR are correct that driving is a privilege extended by a governmental entity - in this case the state of Florida. Clearly, if Allah ordains through the Quran that this woman can not remove her veil for a driver's photo, or - as was reported on the radio this morning - she is not even permitted to be photographed (!), then clearly her religion must take precedence over her wish to obtain a driver's license. I agree with others that court costs and attorney fees should be sought on the grounds of a frivolous lawsuit - i.e., one not grounded in basic law. |
| Posted by: ColoradoConservative 2003-05-28 10:57:34 |
| #7 ok you can wear the veil, but how you gonna drive from the backseat? |
| Posted by: flash91 2003-05-28 10:53:23 |
| #6 I agree with tu3031: ' If she wins this, the floodgates are open'. What these people are doing is using the laws that protect freedom to conduct a guerrilla at every level of the society, guerrilla directed to create problems, mountains of problems. We must learn from the example that we have in Europe: the Muslim immigrants there arrived as poor people looking for help, today they dictate what the European States can do or not do. They have no intention to integrate, they just want to disintegrate (freedom). That judge can be the hole in the dam: millions of other cases will be presented in the courts if this goes through. We don't understand enough the risk: they actually are racist, they don't want to get mixed with anyone else, they do hate us and freedom. The next step will be something that the paleostinians have done: they were 400.000, now they are more than five millions. An Arab Muslim community of sixty or seventy million people in the USA. You will see it. They repeat the same steps in every Country in the world. Technically speaking, they invade other Countries. The left will do anything to help the growth of this big trouble. |
| Posted by: Poitiers 2003-05-28 10:50:37 |
| #5 This woman ever hear of separation of church and state? If the state had to abide by the customs of all the religions out there... then there would be no standards, no rules, no laws, but utter pandemonium. BTW, I think her Lord would be completely forgiving if she unveiled just once for the sake of the photo. Just a hunch. |
| Posted by: RW 2003-05-28 10:35:12 |
| #4 Both sides planned to call experts in Islamic law at the nonjury trial, which was to continue Wednesday. A copy of the Quran was entered into evidence. Why in hell is this even in court??? Driving is a privilege, not a right. If someone wants to drive, they have to meet the requirements set forth by the law, and that means a PHOTO with which the licensee can be I-D-E-N-T-I-F-I-E-D. Religion and freedom to exercise such is NOT a consideration here, PERIOD. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2003-05-28 10:01:29 |
| #3 Judge: Ok, look. The idea of the photo is identification. Kind of hard to ID a woman wearing a veil. So here's the deal - no picture, no license. Driving is a priviledge, not a right. Next case! |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-28 09:57:11 |
| #2 The judge had better use his head. She should be fined for all the court costs and be tossed out within hours. I'm Rastafarian, I demand the right to drive and toke! Help me ACLU. |
| Posted by: Craig 2003-05-28 09:50:24 |
| #1 Too much, too much. Let's nip it in the bud, right now. You wear the iqbal and the rest of the gear, you can't see well and are a hazard on the road. You get no license. This is not a religious issue. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-05-28 09:45:56 |