Article

2003-06-06 Home Front

Muslim Woman Cannot Wear Veil in Driverâs License Photo

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-06-06 01:40 pm|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 So is that ACLU scumbag attorney going to appeal and waste more of the public's purse, or is he going to probe around in another spon on society's soft underbelly for another opportunity to poke with a dagger?

Posted by Alaska Paul 2003-06-06 13:46:32|| 2003-06-06 13:46:32|| Front Page Top

#2 ON Fax news today....cant tell you how much this pisses me off...

During the hearing, 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.

Posted by Fed UP 2003-06-06 13:50:08|| 2003-06-06 13:50:08|| Front Page Top

#3 NO! you can't take my daughters veil off so you can look for the bruises I put on her! You imperialist dog! Respect my religion, it's the "Religion of peace"

Posted by Mike N. 2003-06-06 14:07:52|| 2003-06-06 14:07:52|| Front Page Top

#4 You can probably bet the house on an appeal. ACLU Boy and Burqa Girl continue their lonely quest for "justice". This is about "religious freedom" after all. HA!

Posted by tu3031 2003-06-06 15:02:35|| 2003-06-06 15:02:35|| Front Page Top

#5 Go to http://court.co.macon.il.us/caseinfo.htm and enter "freeman, sultaana" into the search box. It's fun!

Posted by JDB 2003-06-06 17:47:27|| 2003-06-06 17:47:27|| Front Page Top

#6 This might sound really bias but a case for beating your female children might be made on religious grounds as well. I'm sure the beatings are restricted to just wives and servants.

Posted by Anonymous Coward 2003-06-06 19:34:06|| 2003-06-06 19:34:06|| Front Page Top

argued that Islamic law has exceptions that allow women to expose their faces if it serves a public good

Did I miss something?
Since when does Islamic law have anything to do with state or federal laws?
Why are these assholes given any leg to stand on?
I know they hate it, but we don't live under their backward, stupid, cruel Shari'ah law.
Stop giving it legitimacy!

Posted by Celissa 2003-06-06 20:05:29|| [www.celissasblog.com/] 2003-06-06 20:05:29|| Front Page Top

#8 "arrangements could be made to have Freeman photographed with only women present to allay her concerns about modesty"

CRAP. These are the little throwaway concessions that are cited in the NEXT case as precedent.

YOU try telling your DMV or Secretary of State's office that you can only have your next driver's license photo taken by Anglican ministers, or stockbrokers, or dolphins, or whatever you fancy YOUR peers to be. You'll be walking to work the next day.

Yes, my DMV is always eager to hear about MY special arrangements. CRAP.

I'm delighted this nasty little faker didn't pull off her scam... but this is still an incremental victory for the enemy, and you bet it'll be cited soon in something equally ridiculous.

Posted by Mark IV 2003-06-06 23:14:25|| 2003-06-06 23:14:25|| Front Page Top

10:02 shahid
17:54 Ben
08:54 Raptor
08:14 Raptor
04:37 Anonymous
02:15 Mike Kozlowski
01:15 Rex Mundi
00:51 Anonymous
00:50 Malthusiast
23:14 Mark IV
22:10 Watcher
22:02 Cyber Sarge
21:19 Frank G
21:16 john
20:37 Celissa
20:05 Celissa
19:42 Yank
19:36 Yank
19:34 Anonymous Coward
19:30 Bulldog
19:26 Yank
19:23 Yank
19:17 Yank
18:23 Alaska Paul