| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front | |
| Burqa Girl Update: Judge holds fate of veil | |
| 2003-05-30 | |
| EFL.I figure she's on about Minute 13... Sultaana Freeman, her face hidden behind a black veil, said Thursday that neither she nor her husband sought the national attention that her three-day civil trial generated. Of, course not. Have Oprah's people called yet? Springer? Jenny Jones? Attorneys finished their closing arguments Thursday, and Orange Circuit Judge Janet Thorpe said she would rule next week on the Muslim woman's quest to reinstate her drivers license — with a photo of her face covered by the veil. Do the right thing, judgey. Minutes after the end of the nonjury trial, Freeman, 35, reaffirmed that she is only following her faith by refusing to bare her face in a photograph. I think she only does that for mug shots. "It's a command from Allah. I veil to obey my Lord," said the Winter Park woman, whose soft voice could barely be heard. "I want there to be no confusion as to why I veil. It's an act of modesty."
When even the Muslims think you're nuts... Freeman's fight also belittles the struggles facing many American Muslims, who are combating very real civil-rights abuses, she said. "Muslims right now are seeing their civil rights eroded," she said. "Muslims are being detained without due process. Muslims are being visited by the FBI without warning and Muslims are losing their jobs and not getting hired." Sounds like she wants to work for CAIR. Too bad she could never be a "made member". Freeman, a former utilities-company engineer and Pentecostal churchgoer from Illinois, converted to Islam in 1997 and began wearing a veil shortly after that. Testifying Wednesday, she said she does not believe in graven images or photographs and goes as far as scratching faces from cereal boxes for her 2-year-old daughter and 6-month-old son. Lucky kids. Great life they've got to look forward to, huh? In closing arguments a day later, lawyers for the state repeated their public-safety arguments. Allowing Freeman to wear her veil for a drivers license photo, they asserted, would open the door to others who might disguise themselves or use veils as covers for terrorism. Oh, no... that could never happen. The ACLU said it couldn't. Howard Marks, Freeman's Winter Park lawyer, who is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, told Thorpe that his client's case is supported by Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act that protects the rights of religious minorities. "My client would not be sitting in a court of law for three days and would not subject herself to the ridicule around the country if she did not have a sincerely held religious belief," Marks said. 3 days for this bullshit? How much is this costing Florida? Marks also reminded Thorpe of at least three other civil cases decided in the 1970s and 1980s that allowed members of Christian sects to avoid having their photographs on drivers licenses because they said the Bible forbids graven images. "I'm pleading with you not to be the first one who infringes upon religious rights when it comes to drivers licenses, your honor," Marks said. Calm down, Clarence Darrow. This ain't exactly "Inherit The Wind". For much of the trial, Marks played down testimony by an Islamic expert that his client could remove her veil under certain circumstances. He contends that driving is a right or a government benefit that should not be taken away from his client simply because she is following her faith. "I'm sick of hearing that it's a privilege to drive in Florida, that it is a right," Marks said in closing arguments. State statutes say the operation of a motor vehicle is a privilege and that the drivers license bureau issues full-face digital images to license applicants. Looks like the statutes got you beat there, counselor. Freeman runs a Web site for Muslims of the conservative Salaffiyah group that follows the strict Wahabbi teachings of Sunni Islam, which dominates Saudi Arabia. She has written a brochure explaining her beliefs: "Why I Veil: Liberated by Islam." Told that women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, Freeman and her lawyer had no comment. Who? Where? What? Well what do THEY know about Islam??? Born in Washington, Freeman grew up as Sandra Keller in a Christian environment and was active in her church. "I was put on the pulpit actually quite often," she told reporters Thursday. She said she discovered Islam because she kept "an open mind" and began reading the Quran six months before converting in late 1997. She changed her name after marrying Mark Freeman, a 41-year-old Winter Park native who also is known as Abdul-Maalik Freeman. A representative for one national Muslim group said Freeman was fighting for her individual right, not for Islam. Ahmed Bedier, a Tampa resident and communications director for the Florida office of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations, also said Muslims should be treated the same as Christian minorities. There they are. I knew they'd be checking in. "If certain Christians are allowed not to have their faces photographed on drivers licenses, then the Muslims should have the right to wear the veil," he said. It might come in very handy for us in... certain circumstances. And it's a nice test to see what we can possiblity get away with by using the system. Since Sept. 11, civil-rights activists have been fighting government policies that they say single out Muslims, while combating ignorance and misunderstanding of their faith. Then there is the suspicion that American Muslims say they combat daily, from job discrimination and hate crimes to name calling on school playgrounds and bad mouthing on conservative airwaves. Yeah, come and see me after we start crashing planes into Medina and Mecca. Until then, deal with it. "I think someone like Sultana Freeman really hurts our cause," Dajani said, adding that even in the most conservative of Muslim countries, women are required to show their faces for photo identifications. Zufari added that the issue especially misrepresents the role of women in Muslim society. "The face veil is a cultural practice, not a religious one," she said. "Islam is a fluid and accommodating religion — it's not meant to be a burden." Could've fooled me... | |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #6 "Dajani said, adding that even in the most conservative of Muslim countries, women are required to show their faces for photo identifications" That's not true. As reported on Rantburg, Soddie women do not have any ID card of their own. They are put on the bottom of their husbands (or nearest male relative's) ID card. They are not real human beings, after all, are they? I mean they are only of slave-status in Soddie. All those people who cried out at the injustice of Apartheid between blacks and whites in South Africa couldn't give two f*ing hoots about the actual physical and social enslavement of an entire gender. At least under apartheid, south african blacks were allowed to drive and have their very own identity. So they were actually better off than Saudi women. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2003-05-31 06:58:30 |
#5 said the Winter Park woman, whose soft voice could barely be heard Yeah, she only raises her voice when screaming at the children she's beating... Skank hag... |
| Posted by: Celissa 2003-05-30 18:42:49 |
| #4 growler See here for a fairly spirited analysis of the issue. You will have to page down for several entries over a few days. http://volokh.com/ |
| Posted by: DORF 2003-05-30 16:57:27 |
| #3 "If certain Christians are allowed not to have their faces photographed on drivers licenses, then the Muslims should have the right to wear the veil," he said. Excuse me? I've never heard of such a thing. Is this CAIR guy talking out his ass even more than the usual CAIR spokesliar? |
| Posted by: growler 2003-05-30 14:28:47 |
| #2 She didn't seem to mind showing her face for the mugshot when she was convicted of assault.... for beating up a foster child. She seems the perfect candidate for the Religion of Peace™. BTW, Zufari is right....that kind of face covering is cultural so she should STFD and STFU. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2003-05-30 14:23:41 |
| #1 I'm sorry, but I really have to laugh. Guess who came up with the mendaciously named "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", and why. Now it occurs to them that other religous zealots can ALSO use the Act to cause problems. Whadda ya say we put FIVE bullets in the revolver this time, huh? |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-05-30 12:43:11 |