In this regard, Wexler (2002), points out that the "reliance by many deeply religious citizens on religious sources of authority raises important civic problems" (p. 1159). Among these problems is the ability of the state to "see your face" when it comes to providing official forms of identification that are routinely used by law enforcement authorities. Indeed, taken to its logical extreme, other religious adherents could present themselves for driver's license photographs wearing Halloween masks or nothing at all, claiming religious authority for such actions. It is a matter of dispute, however, whether the Koran demands that Muslim women cover themselves. Furthermore, the issue of whether the plaintiff's claims that religious imprecations prohibited her from having her face photographed were carefully considered by Judge Thorpe but were found to either be spurious in the instant case or otherwise open to interpretation. As Weiner (2004) points out, the requirement to wear the niqab remains open to interpretation even by Islamic religious authorities: "One frequently encounters a textual interpretation that is liberal: Modesty is required of Muslims of both sexes, and Koranic references to veiling apply (or, applied) literally only to the wives of the Prophet Muhammad" (p. 49). Therefore, the legal line concerning acceptable photographic content for legal identification purposes must be drawn somewhere and Judge Thorpe firmly - and rightly -- drew it in this case.
Conclusion
The research showed that in early 2001, Freeman received a valid driver's license issued by the State of Florida containing a photograph of her face covered by a niqab, a garment...
The research also showed that later in 2001, the plaintiff in this case received notice from the state that she must either submit to another photograph of her face with the niqab removed or surrender her driver's license. In response, Freeman brought suit against the State of Florida Department of Motor Vehicles but her lawsuit was rejected on grounds. The arguments presented by Judge Thorpe in the instant case were compelling and on-point, and the religious authority cited by the plaintiff was taken into account in formulating this decision. In sum, the judge in this case rightly determined that notwithstanding the plaintiff's fundamental constitutional right to appear in public and even drive a motor vehicle with her face covered by a niqab, the state had a right to see her face for driver's licenses purposes since this license also served as a form of official identification in the State of Florida and throughout the rest of the country and that law enforcement authorities had a legitimate right to be able to verify an individual's identity by using timely photographs contained in state-issued drivers' licenses.
References
Freeman v. Florida, No. 2002-CA-2828, 2003 WL 21338619, Fla. Cir. Ct. Jun. 6, 2003.
Kahn, R.A. (2007). The headscarf as threat: A comparison of German and U.S. legal discourses. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 40(2), 417.
Weiner, L. (2004). Islam and women: Choosing to veil and other paradoxes. Policy Review, 49.
Wexler, J.D. (2002). Preparing for the clothed public square: Teaching about religion, civic education, and…
