FLLawdog
06-26-2002, 08:04 AM
From www.orlandosentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com)
A Muslim woman from Winter Park is being "hypersensitive" because she refuses to show her full face for a drivers-license picture and should be required to remove her veil for the photograph, an attorney for the state said in a recent court brief.
The court filing outlines the state's arguments going into Thursday's showdown between the American Civil Liberties Union and the state's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in the case of Sultaana Freeman. In the document, the state also says driving is a privilege, not a right.
And law-enforcement concerns after Sept. 11 should override Freeman's contention that her constitutional rights are being violated, Assistant Attorney General Jason Veil wrote.
Howard Marks, Freeman's lawyer, argues that her religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal protection, right to privacy and due process were violated by the state's cancellation of her license in December.
Freeman's challenge rests on her deeply held beliefs that she should not show her face to strangers or men outside her family. Her veil, called a niqab, conceals all of her face except her eyes.
Veil, who represents Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth's office, said there are "legitimate public safety concerns" that limit Freeman's rights. The state must be able to identify drivers, criminals and accident victims, he argued.
"The reasonable person in Florida is not offended by having to sit for a driver license photo," Veil wrote. "This plaintiff is hypersensitive."
Orange County Circuit Judge Ted Coleman will hear these and other arguments Thursday in the civil suit filed by Freeman, whose license was canceled after the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles discovered her veiled face in a check of its drivers licenses database.
The case pits civil liberties against security concerns in the post-Sept. 11 era. Observers are closely monitoring the case for the precedent it might set.
Marks, who is backed by the ACLU, also argues that other states have accommodated devout Christians who did not want their pictures on licenses because of their interpretation of the Bible's second commandment against "graven" images.
In addition, Marks and the ACLU said the state is misinterpreting drivers-license statutes, and its arguments are misleading because the state has never banned veiled drivers.
"Nowhere in Florida statutes does it state that petitioner [Freeman] cannot be wearing a veil or in any way have her face covered," Marks wrote in a court filing. Whether state statutes mandate a "full-face" photograph is also a point of contention in the case. Marks said the law is vague. The state argues otherwise.
Marks also said the state acted hastily and arbitrarily to cancel Freeman's license. The state did not seek a hearing and violated its own procedures by giving Freeman less time than required by law to get a new license, Marks said.
Freeman's case in Orange Circuit Court has been divided into two civil suits. One asserts her constitutional rights were violated under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which protects religious practices against government interference. The other says the division of drivers licenses failed to follow procedure when it revoked her license.
The suits seek reinstatement of her license using the photo with the veil.
Randall Marshall, the ACLU's legal director in the Florida office, said the fact that only one other motorist was ordered to unveil for a picture shows there will not be a stampede of drivers demanding to conceal their faces if an exception is made for Freeman.
I don't know, maybe I'm being overly simplistic or as some would call it "intolerent" or "insensitive", but how can a D/L be a form of photo identification if you can't see the most readily identified part of the human body...THE FACE...because the subject in the photo has it covered!
Let's also not forget, as was mentioned in the article, that driving is a privilege, not a Right. The DMV pretty much set the precedence when they initially issued her a DL (prior to 9-11) with the viel. Now, in the eyes of the ACLU, it looks like they are discriminating against her.
One issue I don't subscribe to is the 9-11 link in this decision. This should be common sense. Anybody can put on a veil, display your DL and suddenly become you. It's a personal security issue instead of a National security issue. I don't like the implications made, which opened the door (like they needed an open door) for the ACLU to get involved, that because she is Muslim and this must be done because of terrorist threats. This makes it look the decision was made simply because she is Muslim. I think we are all adult enough to realize this isn't true, but that one suggestion makes it look bad.
A Muslim woman from Winter Park is being "hypersensitive" because she refuses to show her full face for a drivers-license picture and should be required to remove her veil for the photograph, an attorney for the state said in a recent court brief.
The court filing outlines the state's arguments going into Thursday's showdown between the American Civil Liberties Union and the state's Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in the case of Sultaana Freeman. In the document, the state also says driving is a privilege, not a right.
And law-enforcement concerns after Sept. 11 should override Freeman's contention that her constitutional rights are being violated, Assistant Attorney General Jason Veil wrote.
Howard Marks, Freeman's lawyer, argues that her religious freedom, freedom of speech, equal protection, right to privacy and due process were violated by the state's cancellation of her license in December.
Freeman's challenge rests on her deeply held beliefs that she should not show her face to strangers or men outside her family. Her veil, called a niqab, conceals all of her face except her eyes.
Veil, who represents Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth's office, said there are "legitimate public safety concerns" that limit Freeman's rights. The state must be able to identify drivers, criminals and accident victims, he argued.
"The reasonable person in Florida is not offended by having to sit for a driver license photo," Veil wrote. "This plaintiff is hypersensitive."
Orange County Circuit Judge Ted Coleman will hear these and other arguments Thursday in the civil suit filed by Freeman, whose license was canceled after the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles discovered her veiled face in a check of its drivers licenses database.
The case pits civil liberties against security concerns in the post-Sept. 11 era. Observers are closely monitoring the case for the precedent it might set.
Marks, who is backed by the ACLU, also argues that other states have accommodated devout Christians who did not want their pictures on licenses because of their interpretation of the Bible's second commandment against "graven" images.
In addition, Marks and the ACLU said the state is misinterpreting drivers-license statutes, and its arguments are misleading because the state has never banned veiled drivers.
"Nowhere in Florida statutes does it state that petitioner [Freeman] cannot be wearing a veil or in any way have her face covered," Marks wrote in a court filing. Whether state statutes mandate a "full-face" photograph is also a point of contention in the case. Marks said the law is vague. The state argues otherwise.
Marks also said the state acted hastily and arbitrarily to cancel Freeman's license. The state did not seek a hearing and violated its own procedures by giving Freeman less time than required by law to get a new license, Marks said.
Freeman's case in Orange Circuit Court has been divided into two civil suits. One asserts her constitutional rights were violated under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1998, which protects religious practices against government interference. The other says the division of drivers licenses failed to follow procedure when it revoked her license.
The suits seek reinstatement of her license using the photo with the veil.
Randall Marshall, the ACLU's legal director in the Florida office, said the fact that only one other motorist was ordered to unveil for a picture shows there will not be a stampede of drivers demanding to conceal their faces if an exception is made for Freeman.
I don't know, maybe I'm being overly simplistic or as some would call it "intolerent" or "insensitive", but how can a D/L be a form of photo identification if you can't see the most readily identified part of the human body...THE FACE...because the subject in the photo has it covered!
Let's also not forget, as was mentioned in the article, that driving is a privilege, not a Right. The DMV pretty much set the precedence when they initially issued her a DL (prior to 9-11) with the viel. Now, in the eyes of the ACLU, it looks like they are discriminating against her.
One issue I don't subscribe to is the 9-11 link in this decision. This should be common sense. Anybody can put on a veil, display your DL and suddenly become you. It's a personal security issue instead of a National security issue. I don't like the implications made, which opened the door (like they needed an open door) for the ACLU to get involved, that because she is Muslim and this must be done because of terrorist threats. This makes it look the decision was made simply because she is Muslim. I think we are all adult enough to realize this isn't true, but that one suggestion makes it look bad.