The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles issued [Sultaana] Freeman, 38, a license in 2001 showing her veiled with only her eyes visible, but later suspended it.That's a rather strange way to word the problem. Her religion doesn't require her to have a driver's license, I assume. So even if her religion did forbid all photographs, the law wouldn't require her to engage in conduct that her religion forbids. But perhaps her religion requires her to veil most of her face? Then the law compels her to do something against her religion to the same extent that it would if her religion had forbidden all photographs. I don't think the ultimate answer should depend entirely on whether the law forbids what the religion requires, but it would be nice if the court could at least get it straight whether that is what is happening.
Freeman sued, claiming the suspension infringed upon her First Amendment rights.
In 2003, Circuit Judge Janet C. Thorpe agreed with authorities that letting people show only their eyes would undermine efforts to stop terrorists. That same year, Gov. Jeb Bush signed legislation requiring a picture of a driver's full face on a license.
The appeals court found enforcement of the law "did not compel Freeman to engage in conduct that her religion forbids -- her religion does not forbid all photographs."
I haven't read the case, only the news report. Maybe I'm being unfair to the judge.
Posts
25 comments:
Ann,
This is a Florida appellate court hearing a case of first impression. We should be damn glad the result came out the way it did. We are supremely lucky that the court didn't reinstate Lochner, and then inadvertantly declare Kweisi Mfume emperor of the United Kingdom of America and Canadia, subject to a recount of Enron's claimed profits in 1999.
FYI, Kevin, it's not a First Amendment Violation. Post Smith v. Employment Division of Oregon, facially neutral laws that incidentally burden the practice of religion, are permissible under the First Amendment unless they infringe on some other fundamental right - say the right to due process as well. This doesn't appear to be such a hybrid claim. The statutory analysis under the Florida statute, or for that matter if it occurred in the Federal context under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, would be tougher, is somewhat tougher. Miklos, the claim doesn't turn on the origins of her faith, but whether her faith is sincerely held. Otherwise, the state would be in the business of judging the sufficiency of religious doctrine, which *would* be in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Perhaps at this very moment I am just lacking patience with my profession -- but I find the plaintiff's assertion here ridiculous on its face and a waste of resources. If the case is forced upon an appellate court to write an opinion upholding a perfectly obvious lower court decision, I don't blame her-it-them for tossing something off that is less than elucidating. That the writer may lack a certain pride of authorship, or that the concurring members might not care how it reads, are questions about Florida jurisprudence that didn't begin with this case (or Bush v. Gore either).
The problem is that we are at war right now, and many of those on the opposite side are of the Moslem persuasion. Yes, mostly we have to worry about young men, in the 17-25 or so category, but not all. Israel, at least, has seen female suicide bombers, fully covered.
I don't think that it is too much to ask these Moslem women to conform to our norms when it comes to identification, if they want to travel here, in a time of war.
Bruce: Have I ever mentioned that I cannot stand you for the life of me?
For the love of God, how do you not know how to spell Muslim?
My Webster's Dictionary reads "Moslem n." see "Muslim", sounds like the words are used interchangeably in English.
Good thing I asked for anyone else's opinion...
"...I don't think that it is too much to ask these Moslem women to conform to our norms when it comes to identification..."
I agree. We have cultural standards in this country, and that includes showing your face in a Driver's license photo.
Good thing I asked for anyone else's opinion...
If you want to spout inanities and nitpicky criticisms about the usage of commonly accepted spellings without having to deal with others responding, I'd suggest creating your own blog and turning off the comments.
Not that you asked for my opinion....
ploopusgirl:
"Moslem NOUN: Variant of Muslim"
--The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, at bartleby.com
Two hundred years ago, "Mussulman" was a common variant.
If you don't want somebody else's opinion, don't join into a public discussion. And if you want a little respect, be more willing to show respect and courtesy to others.
SippicanCottage:
"So take me back to Constantinople.
No,you can't go back to Constantinople..."
ploopusgirl,
You aren't the first, and probably won't be the last. I have been told that I am getting worse with age. We shall see. Obviously, I didn't intend to offend you, so sorry.
As to the difference between "Muslim" and "Moslem", the later seems to be derived from the former. The dictionaries I looked in typically show Moslem used both as a noun and an adjective, whereas Muslim is apparently almost always used as an adjective.
My guess is that the basic problem here is the translation of words from a foreign language, notably Arabic here, into English. (How many different ways have you seen Al Qaeda spelled in the last couple of years?)
www.bartleby.com has a dictionary that includes .wav file pronounciations, and it is hard to distinguish between the two words as spoken. This appears to be because the "o" in "Moslem" has a little "u" in it, and visa versa for "Muslim". Thus, the root Arabic word is probably somewhere in between in pronounciation.
My guess is that the basic problem here is the translation of words from a foreign language, notably Arabic here, into English.
I'd say that's exactly right. I took 18 hours of Arabic in college. The o/u in Moslem/Muslim is a short vowel (if I remember correctly) that can transliterate to either an o or u in English. Same with the e/i (English alphabet) stand-ins for another short vowel).
Howard Friedman's blog, Religion Clause (Sep. 3, 2005), explained the case somewhat differently from the news report:
"In Freeman v. Dept. of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, the court held that the photo requirement did not place a substantial burden on Freeman’s religious exercise since the Department was willing to accommodate her beliefs by having her photographed by a female photographer with no one else present in the room."
I love irony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html
MAY 28--Turns out the Florida woman who is suing for the right to wear a Muslim headdress in a driver's license photograph has previously been subjected to an, um, unveiled government portrait.
Oh my. I guess her deep religious conviction does not extend to not beating foster children.
If the multiculturalists were truly serious then we would have veils at the DMV, babies left at landfills and bull fights in California.
Somewhat OT, but SippicanCottage's comments on Constantinople vs. Istanbul started me looking around. I had just assumed that it had been named the later by the Turks in 1453 when Constantinople fell to them (to the victors go the spoils). But I was surprised to find that the Germans still refer to Istanbul as 'Konstantinopel', the French and the British as 'Constantinople' and the Italians as 'Constantinopoli'. But, at least since the Republic, the Turks have called it Istanbul, and this is apparently somewhat of a hot button for them. My vote is that, since it is in their country. (And is why I prefer Beijing to Peking).
Slocum is worried about when someone (presumably, but not necessarily) in a burqa robs a gas station, etc. This is a worry, but I am just as worried about someone so dressed committing an act of terrorism.
In the London bombings, they were able to track down the perps fairly quickly from the videos of them apparently placing the bombs. But what if it had been Moslem women in full burqa doing such?
Sorry about that last post. The first sentence should have been:
Slocum is worried about when someone (presumably, but not necessarily a woman) in a burqa robs a gas station, etc.
As to Muslim/Moslem: I think you should use the current convention Muslim. I would use the spelling preference of the people you are naming, and I believe that is the current preference. Otherwise, it may appear to express hostility, whether you mean it to or not.
As to criminals using Muslim dress to disguise their identity: there are innumerable ways to disguise your identity if that's what you want to do. Wearing Muslim dress isn't the best way to escape attention in the U.S. The problem of covering your face in an important ID photo is entirely different. Everyone is required to have their full face photographed and the woman in question is seeking very unusual special treatment. The most compelling aspect of her case is that initially she was allowed to get her license that way and later government officials focused on her and seemed to target her because of a problem they associated with Muslims. If they had just had a flat, generally applicable rule all along and refused to make an exception, it would have been a lot easier to deny her claim.
Post a Comment