BUSTED!!! Just take her mug shot and put that on her driver's license!

More here:

[Link: www.wftv.com...]

Says her husband has a bit of a background also

Justice is truly blind - at least that is the way the Islamists want it to be shrouded in a Burka.

OT- This is the first post from my wifi palm -ain't technology great? Don't see any Muslims developing anything like this!

No pic - no license - take a cab

If it weren't dangerous, I'd say let her wear it. But for Christ sake, cover up woman!

I said it on the other thread and I'll say it again here. She looks better with the veil. Can they change the rules a little to require the wearing of veils in cases like these?

Also, CNN's rundown of whether Muslim countries allow women to cover their faces in drivers' license photos (short answer: no) is revealing.

Ah... so that's why the 9/11 hijackers were all men... they didn't want to create undue publicity by a woman fundamentalist screaming that she must have her face covered for her pilot's license photo.

Sultana?

She's named after a Raisin?

The real debate is: Would this woman even be allowed a driver's license in a Muslim country?

Only cowards cover their faces,... and beat children.

Sandra Keller is a shining example of the Religion of Peace ain't she?

#6 ZBeeblebrox

Also, CNN's rundown of whether Muslim countries allow women to cover their faces in drivers' license photos (short answer: no) is revealing.

Pun intended?

So, no ph34r about Pandora's Box unless the judge is a moonbat.

Civil law trumps religious law in America - if you don't believe (politely) ask a Mormon.

There is justice. Think of all the time she's spending in the Florida Dept. of Motor Vehicles. Motto "We can stop light"

I wonder if she’ll be using this part of the Koran in her argument:

“And stay in your houses, and do not display yourselves like that of the times of [pre-Islamic] ignorance” – al-Ahzaab 33:33

Yes, it says she should hide herself. But it also says that she should stay in the home, so why would she want to drive anywhere?

I’d like to see Disaffected’s view on this.

Predictably, the ACLU has jumped to her defense.

Feh.

They've been a bullshit organization ever since they defended the "right" of a Nazi group to hold a parade in Skokee - the Jewish suburb of Chicago (it ended up raining the day of the parade).

Feh x 2.

...battering 2 foster children...sounds like she is in the EIC (earned income credit) industry, sponsored by the US Congress and administered by the irs

From Tal G's linked article:

Sultaana Freeman, a convert to Islam who previously was known as Sandra Kellar, and her husband say, as Muslims they believe if a woman shows her face in public, she's tempting men to sin.

Riiighhht! Believe me, we men are not tempted in the least. So I guess that kills her argument, right?

Besides, what does having her picture on her license have to do with anything? It's not like these things are worn on our lapels or anything. Having a bad face day, keep that sucker in your purse!

Driving is a privilege, not a right.
So to you, Ms. Child Batterer, walk, take the bus or a cab or get yer picture taken. Better yet, STFU. Even better than that, go live in a Muslim country and see what they do to you for opening your mouth and questioning authority.

#8

Delicious!!!

Don't need to remind anyone here how repulsive child abuse is.

But if you really want to get enraged this early in the day, check out this gut-wrenching commercial from England:

[Link: www.boardsmag.com...]

Maybe we should be required to have licenses in order to have kids.

Hey, Islam says it's perfectly OK to hit your child if he's committed the depraved act of not praying by age ten.

And by the way, my money says this **** (sorry mommydoc) is being advised, encouraged, and financed in her crusade against Florida by CAIR et al. Follow the money trail.

Wonder when the nude pictures of her will turn up?
If the face is any indication, she has much to be modest about.

I agree with Colt. Damn she's one fugly biatch.

...she's so ugly she'd make a freight train jump tracks and take a dirt road.

And let's not forget the Saudi "princess" who was arrested for kicking the shit out of her maid. It sure is uncanny how many practitioners of the religion of peace resort to violence.

I'm just roaming around the web and am a newbie here, so please bear with me...

My initial reactions were (1) Sultana is an opportunist bonehead and (2) is she was a good Muslin woman she wouldn't be driving.

Then I followed the link...first to Smoking Gun and then to the Court TV background article. It seems that she already had driver's licenses issued (in FL and IL) with her picture in "traditional garb". If that means a veil, then it would seem that the State of FL's case is a little weaker.

Her lawyer also claims that "hundreds of thousands" of FL drivers are issued licenses without photos. While I suspect he's exaggerating the numbers, I am a little curious why these exemptions are permitted. Again, if true this seems to weaken the case against her.

In the meantime, the case against her seems to be summed up as: September 11th. While I agree that it sure is a different world with some different rules, I think that the other photo-free license exemptions make the post-9/11 argument a lot weaker.

Personally, I think all driver's licenses should have pictures but we'll see, I guess. Let me know if I've overlooked some crucial info.
- Gregg

ps: It'd be interesting to see what would happen if she was stopped for speeding. Would she have to raise the veil for ID purposes?

Civil law trumps religious law in America - if you don't believe (politely) ask a Mormon.

Fucking A! This child beating twat doesn't want to comply with the state laws of Florida, tough. If Sultaana and her children want to travel they can use public transportation. Let the Florida heat and humidity boil her in her body bag as she waits for the #7 bus.

Gregg #25,

In the meantime, the case against her seems to be summed up as: September 11th.

That's one DAMN good reason. If you allow pictures in burqas, who knows who's behind the burqa? Could be a terrorist, a man, another person entirely, right? Since the Driver's License is meant to allow a cop to identify the driver of a vehicle, how much use would a Driver's License with a burqa on it be to a cop?

Given that Muslim countries (those that allow women to drive) don't allow women to wear a veil for their photos, this isn't an issue of religious freedom. Given that Islam only requires a chador (hair covering) and the burqa is more of tradition, there is no religious basis for her argument.

It is interesting to note that the ACLU is defending religion... This child abuser, they say has a right to her religion and its trappings, and that due to separation of church and state, her religious rights trump state law. In other cases where the ACLU is involved in religion, they use the church/state separation as a tool to deprive Christians of their expression, prayer. There is a teacher in the south (I apologise, I don't remember where I read it) who was threatened with losing her teaching position because she wore a cross necklace to work. So, the ACLU is on the side of religion where Islam is involved, but strangely, is on the side of the state in all cases where Christianity is involved. The real problem is not this twit with the burkha, any idiot can dream up a reason to sue/contest the state-- the problem is the lawyers and judges who take up cases on my taxpayer dollars that are ridiculous and frivolous. Stupid legal system needs reining in.

That was awesome.
An absolute Nelson Munts moment.

#11 -

Yes, pun intended, though I'm not proud of it. Is ph34r blog-ese for "fear"?

Whether or not the judge is a moonbat, the CourtTV article identifies her as a woman. Not something you're likely to see in your typical ideal Islamic state. Nor would you be defended by a Jewish lawyer, as it seems like she might be ("Marks" is a common respelling of Marx, esp in the UK).

In any case, the constitution protects the "free exercise" of religion. Am I missing something here? Does she need to drive to exercise her religion? Or just to pick up more foster children to abuse?

tempting men? shit... I remember discussions with friends some years ago where one confessed that he occassionaly got so randy that if you put a woman in a box and labeled it "woman" he'd get aroused.

There's a reason why child abusers/murderers find themselves relegated to the very bottom rung on the prison inmate's hierarchy.

To abuse a child ... well, it's a good thing I don't rule the world. 'Cos I'd have these people shot on the spot.

Considering it was a mug shot, and she wasn't wearing makeup, she doesn't look that bad.

BTW, another convert to the ROP, Mike Tyson, noted cannibal and former heavy weight champion, says he would "really rape" Desiree Washington if he got another chance.

#25 Greg

Good lord, can you say "no peripheral vision"? It is not a good idea to allow someone to drive with a hijab on. The numbers of women pedestrians killed each year in Saudi because they can't see well enough to cross the street is one thing, but having one driving is quite another. What is the Florida precedent for people who have a limited field of vision?

#2

Facinating article. Sounds like Sultaana is a garden-variety shitbag well-known to law enforcement who wants to hide her face for reasons other than religion. Like felonies, maybe.

Hubby used Islam to keep the cops out of his house, too. How convenient.

From #2 Tal G. link

In another disturbing twist in this story, four years ago Freeman's husband Mark (photo right) was caught with fake IDs bearing his photograph and other people's names. When asked about that, Freeman tried to hide behind a veil of secrecy. Illinois Police found the fake ID's after they arrested Freeman for recklessly firing a gun while he was wearing his Muslim garb.

Police had to get a search warrant to enter his home for their investigation. He told them he could not let them in because they were not of the Muslim faith.

And this from here

She was convicted of aggravated battery after she "caused bodily harm" to twin 3-year-old girls, according to court documents. She was sentenced to 18 months' probation and court costs, completing her probation in January 2001.

In June 1997, Freeman requested an order of protection against a man she said had beaten her with a baseball bat. The man, an ex-convict from Chicago who had "Latin Kings" tattooed on his forearm, claimed that he had married her in an Islamic

Why is it that so many ex cons are attracted to the "Religion o fPeace"? Actually I know the answer.

With a moronic looking mug like she has, better she should wear a veil.

Sandra's mugshot = Viagra in reverse.

Yesterday I watched as much of the court proceedings on Court TV as I could bear. Professor Khaled Abou El Fadl, who has been discussed here at LFG, was the witness. In answer to simple yes/no questions he stammered and rambled on incoherently, interminably, embarrasingly. I can't imagine him as a university lecturer. But the horror of it was he was invoking Shariah as precedent. In an American courtroom. And he wasn't stopped. If there is a transcript, read it at the cost of your sanity.

Wild Justice

To abuse a child ... well, it's a good thing I don't rule the world. 'Cos I'd have these people shot on the spot.

I know what you mean. There are lines that, once crossed, should result in death. IMHO.

Gregg (#25),

Here is an earlier thread about The Right to Drive While Masked

According to the Florida DMV they have issued two licenses to masked women. Both were issued by mistake as Florida has no religious exception law, and each were asked to retake their pictures, Sultaana decries religious intolerance, the other failed to show, and her license was canceled.

So yes her Lawyer is exaggerating just a little.

Look who else is standing in line at the DMV in Florida

#40   Colt

It gives me grim satisfaction to know they get theirs in prison.

Even hardened female prisoners, I believe, dish out some pretty wild justice to child abusers. That tells you something, doesn't it?

Gregg #25 sez:
"Her lawyer also claims that "hundreds of thousands" of FL drivers are issued licenses without photos. While I suspect he's exaggerating the numbers, I am a little curious why these exemptions are permitted. Again, if true this seems to weaken the case against her."

The one "no-photo" exception I know of is for military personnel stationed outside their home of record state. When I was active duty (home of record: PA), Pennsylvania allowed me to renew my license with no photo while I was stationed in a variety of other states (CA, MD, FL). Of course, documentation verifying this is required. Florida does the same thing. So if this is what her lawyer is referring to...it's a fairly weak argument.

Wild Justice

Some shitty little kiddy fiddler sharing a cell with a 300 pound guy named Marvin who's dad gave him a rough time. Lights out...

Yeah, grim satisfaction.

#25

Her lawyer also claims that "hundreds of thousands" of FL drivers are issued licenses without photos. While I suspect he's exaggerating the numbers, I am a little curious why these exemptions are permitted. Again, if true this seems to weaken the case against her.

Active duty military members while out of state or outside the US who lose or renew thier license from most states get a no pic license... bet that's what her lawyer is using... without saying why they get 'em.

Mike

In a court, precedence trumps almost everything. I expect the prosecutor to cite the precedents set in other muslim countries (especially Saudi Arabia, the Keeper of Holy Mecca and Medina) as being normative Muslim behavior. Not necessarily American behavior, but Muslim behavior.

Sorry, but what you do is so loud, it's drowning out what you're saying. Case closed.

billhedrick #31

He went to an all boys school, right?

#44

Stop channeling my brain waves... it's hard enough for me to think...

Mike

PS: so i'm a way slow typer..

#44, #46 -

Actually, Pennsylvania allows anyone living overseas whose previous residence was in Pa. to have a license without a photo, as long as they get a photo taken within 60 days of moving back to the US. Not sure what the rules are in other states.

Let her stay vieled...PLEASE. But sorry, no license. Holy shit,that may be the ugliest woman I've ever seen. Okay, besides Sondra Bernhardt.

#28 andreaSF,

The ACLU also defended the University of North Carolina in their decision to require all incoming Freshmen to read a sanitized version of the Qu'ran.

That incident terminated any remaining respect I had for the ACLU and led me to realize how American Muslims, enabled by leftists, were going to use our system of freedoms to try to destroy us.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. The privilege is routinely taken away if you are found to violate certain laws. It is a privilege because the state can set certain minimum requirements to certify you for a driver's license - like being over 18, passing a test, and such.

State laws that do not inherently discriminate against a religion are perfectly legal, even if they condemn or otherwise outlaw a religious practice. There are laws against animal sacrifice, and I'm sure that there are "religions" out there who might feel discriminated by that. But the law is neutral in purpose and effect, and that's the case with the requirement that one be clearly identified in a picture for a driver's license.

There is no first amendment issue here because the requirement for the removal of the veil is applied across the board to anyone wearing a face-obstructing garment. If I wore a fake nose and mustache, they'd ask me to take it off even if I claimed to be an adherent to the Religion of Comedy. The key test is that it is CONTENT-NEUTRAL. Thus, this case is different than those situations where principals ask their teachers to remove crosses around their necks, because the reason principals ask for such removal usually has to do with the desire to avoid "offending" another student, so it is directly based on the content of the religion, hence - it's classic discrimination. Here, no one gives a crap what anyone believes. But if you want a driver's license, you must have a clear picture.

This claim is totally bogus, and any real judge would've dismissed it immediately.

Florida has probably issued over a million licenses without photos. Drivers licenses didn't always HAVE photos, you know.

As for me, I say let the bitch wear the veil. And then any time a masked criminal is reported, haul her in for questioning. Make her sit there for three hours and explain why it is that her drivers license picture is a dead ringer for the suspect's description. That'll teach her.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Comply with the freaking rules or learn to stick out your thumb.
Somehow, I don't think many people would pick your sorry asses up.

Hateful, hateful, morons.

#12 ...ask a Mormon.

Yep, civil law does trump religious law. Its stated in our 13 Articles of Faith. We believe the wrath of God will be rained down upon those who create laws that are in violation to God's law, not those who obey them.

#28 ACLU is short for AntiChristian Liberal Union in some circles.

They've been very anti-Semitic too.

You can pick up the phone right now and call ACLU offices, say "I want to report the distribution of religious material by a religious representative in a public school."

They wil get their dander up, take out a pen to get the details. If it's a Rabbi with Torah passages, they'll react. If it's a Christian with scripture, they'll react.

If it's a Wiccan with crystals, they'll hang up.

And if it's an atheist with the Communist Manifesto, they'll laugh before they hang up.

And if it's a Muslim with Koranic material, spread out over three weeks for a California cultural immersion course in a middle school, as has already happened, they'll hem and haw and then hang up.

From the Smoking Gun:

"Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed."

Although the phrase probably refers to being recognised as pious Muslim women and therefore off-limits, it can also be interpreted as meaning that they should be recognizable, thus negating her lawsuit.

As I have said on the other two threads, my initial intuition when hearing only that she had been convicted of battery was that this was not really about religious freedom and more about some kind of antisocial behavior. The more that comes out about her and her charming husband, the more I am convinced that they are hiding behind Islam to conceal bad behavior (so what else is new?)

I've seen this pattern before, sadly. I have women who leave their original state of residence during their pregnancies and show up elsewhere with minimal prenatal care and who refuse to sign medical record release forms for their prior care, but say that they will get us the records themselves. It's usually a tip-off that there is something they're hiding, because they're afraid CPS (child protective services) will get involved.

Happened just last month. If they already have kids, it's usually a sign that they already have an open CPS file elsewhere. Happened just last month. The woman seemed otherwise fairly normal and educated, but she was so weird about prior records that I knew something was off. Usually, it's the opposite: patients make up hospitals and doctors and sign all the releases, and we find out that they had one emergency room visit and a pregnancy test.

Sure enough, turned out that she had lost custody of her other kids in another state because of neglect. Fortunately, our social workers are nothing short of miracle workers: they figured it out, CPS came, and the sheriff escorted the baby to foster care. Sigh...

Wild Justice (#20) You are so right. Even though reproduction is a basic right, I often think it should be a privilege, or at least, somewhat regulated, even though that's a scary idea as well. BTW--which commercial? I couldn't figure it out and was too lazy to search the site extensively.

Henry S. (#21) No apologies necessary. In this case, the shoe fits.

Bubbaman: Is it a Tugsten C? I'm getting very tempted. Of course, it could be a real curse for me; I'd be distracted by LGF even while at work, LOL!

Precedents, you say? What moron could possibly believe that rules should NEVER change based on precedent.

Life changes. (911)
The world changes. (Religion of Hypochrisy terrorists)

Rules and laws must change, for our own protection.

Figured I'd toss a shot at the ACLU before I head to lunch. I got in a discussion one time over whether the ACLU is more Anti-Christian than Anti-Semitic. Discussion never quite ended, although, publicly they are much more Anti-Christian, since being Anti-semitic isn't good PR.

Some odd shit is going with Slate. The past two days I have been reading it I have found a travel blog from a teen who is traveling with his father around Tel Aviv looking for hookers. His father is doing research about STDs and sex workers. This is kid is describing in great detail all the negative aspects of Israel.

You can read it at:
Day 1: [Link: slate.msn.com...]
Day 2: [Link: slate.msn.com...]

What I find offensive is there has never been a similar negitive blog on Slate for other countries.

#41 Geepers

According to the Florida DMV they have issued two licenses to masked women. So yes her Lawyer is exaggerating just a little.

Actually, he is NOT exaggerating. In fact there are at least 100,000 licensed drivers in Fla. without picture ID's. I think most of them are temp licenses, and there were some other classes of non-picture ID's as well. There was an attorney on Fox's Hannity & Combs last night discussing that very point. I'm not sure about all of the specifics, but you can check Fox's website for clarification.

For the record, however, I believe that veils, burkas etc. should NOT be permitted in either the driver license picture, NOR in the car. It blocks vision and may lead to accidents. ALL FLA driver's licenses should require removal of the veils, and nobody should be allowed to drive with one. This bullshit has absolutely got to stop!

Extending this topic a little bit, what is the policy of Islamic nations and passports. Are those pictures with or without the veil? Does anybody know.

#12 Joe,

Funny how we don't see the ACLU defending the religious rights of polygamists (who are NOT Mormons BTW). It's true that until 1890, polygamy was practiced by Mormons. However, the matter was taken to the U.S. Supreme court and the court ruled that the law making polygamy illegal was constitutional. If (and that's a big if) Sultaana was-her-face wins her case, then logically almost any religious practice could be defended as one's constitutional right. I hope she loses. The last thing we need is a bunch of terrorists coming over here dressed as women getting driver's licenses in their burqas.

mommydoc,

Try this:

[Link: www.boardsmag.com...]

If that doesn't take you straight to the commercial, scroll down the page until you reach NSPCC – Cartoon.

Powerful stuff.

sigh. i love blogs. they dig out the dirt on everything.

#64 WJ

wow

#66   ak 

wow

You said it.

I've seen a lot of commercials from all over the world (I'm a copywriter) but this ranks as one of the finest.

And it's NOT about selling sneakers or sunglasses or some such crap, for once. It's about saving kids' lives.

Why is the issue her license? Why isn't the issue her apparent plan to drive wearing a veil that covers her entire face??

why don't they just give her a driver license with that other photo from the child abuse case on it. That would piss her off nice and royal.

Why hasn't the judge used his brain and thrown this out within minutes? Why the heck should she not be fined all of the court costs for bringing such frivolous nonsense into our courts? I'm gonna claim to be Rastafarian and demand the right to toke while driving!

Wild Justice: I'm numb. That was one of the most powerful things I have ever seen in my life. Thank you.

(and sorry I was too dim the first time to realize that I had to "sign in," so to speak.)

#28 So, the ACLU is on the side of religion where Islam is involved, but strangely, is on the side of the state in all cases where Christianity is involved.

Yeah you can pretty much say that about the whole liberal movement. There's just something about the Christian God that gets their panties up in a knot... must be their (lack of) moral conscience...

Because remember it takes a VILLAGE not a family... Yes a village of criminal child abusers, pedophiles, adulterers and you name it they'll defend it.

Imagine her driving with a burqa and dark sunglasses on!!!

63 iagofest

The individuals that are practicing bigamy are mormans (living mostly in southern utah and northern arizona).

They are practicing a form of mormanism that did not evolve when the US federial government made it illegal.

#73 Mie

Imagine her driving with a burqa and dark sunglasses on!!!

It would be like Cousin It from the Addams Family! =)

If it were my mugshot I'd black it out too.

#15 Steve:

They've been a bullshit organization ever since they defended the "right" of a Nazi group to hold a parade in Skokee - the Jewish suburb of Chicago (it ended up raining the day of the parade).

Actually, as I have written here before, I grew up in Skokie, Illinois and was a youngster when the Neo-Nazis decided to march in Skokie. It may have rained the day the Nazis had originally proposed to march, but Skokie was saved from having to hold the 'event' when the then Mayor of Evanston, Jay Lyttle, offered the group the use of Evanston's Lovelace Park, which borders Skokie's northeast boundary. Kind of took the wind out of their sails, not being able to harass the largest post-WWII jewish immigrant population, but they were counter-protested very strongly by anti-hate groups and indivduals.

With regards to the "raisin that is better kept under wraps", I hope her little vanity exercise backfires, making her whereabouts known to Illinois authorities. Chances are that she is not completely in the clear on leaving Illinois when she is a convicted felon.

If I were muslim I'd be worrying about a backlash. I'm still surprised that they think we'll take this crap.

Oh and...shove that Koran sideways! We don't use religious law in court here.

ACLU is also defending the NAMBLA folks (North American Man-Boy Love Assoc). If it is scummy, scrungy, obscene or anti-american, ACLU will support it.

Is she going to claim religious discrimination when she tries to cash a check and the store won't because she isn't ID'd? When she's in an auto accident caused by her limited field of vision, who will the victum sue -- this jerk, the ACLU, or the State of FL for allowing a vision impared individual to drive?

kelly: It is my understanding that the official Mormon Church has disavowed them.

sharona: my sense is that she moved and went under the veil so that when she had her kids, Illinois CPS wouldn't get involved. Florida was a good choice, since Florida CPS can't manage to keep track of the kids in its system, which was brought to light in national news within the last year or so. Without photo ID and with a name change, it made it even more possible to fly under the radar, so to speak.

#34

What is the Florida precedent for people who have a limited field of vision?

Florida is way too lienent when it comes to drivers with bad vision. Every so often there will be a news story about a 1,000 year old person who ran a pedestrian over "because they just didn't see them".

Once, a older lady got confused and drove into the community pool at my grandparents complex. She killed 2 sunbathers.

Freeman...
Is that a Jewish name ?!

Kinda OT-

Do you ever wonder if we've got deep cover people in the ME in drag? Short guys with electronics & such...

A burkha can be to our advantage!

Kelly there are no true mormons practicing polygamy. Any member of the church who has a plural marrige is excommunicated. There are a few splinter groups that call themselves mormons but they are not.

Just talked to the local Police Dept. Fla does not have a specific law that prohibits driving with a face mask on, UNLESS it interferrs with vision. (Boy here is an area open to contention) But what is more interesting, in our local, at least, an individual MAY NOT walk around masked!!! (Unless at a costume party). May not walk around in public in a mask. The reasons are faily obvious but I wonder what would happen if this bumped up against an exercise of religion issue like the driver's license. I suspect that the results of this trial are even more important than just about the license. WOW, what a camel's head under the tent this could be.

Lisa: Here in SoCal, we have about 1 a year who sundowns and gets on the freeway via the off-ramp. About 15 years ago, there was a notorious case with an elderly wrong-way driver on the freeeway. The guy's son paid to get his car out of impound, a few nights later the guy did it again, and took out a van. I believe the mother and her children were killed.

Preview...preview... "In our local AREA..." sorry about that

Collins #54:

let [her] wear the veil. And then any time a masked criminal is reported, haul her in for questioning. Make her sit there for three hours and explain why it is that her drivers license picture is a dead ringer for the suspect's description

That's great! "Sorry ma'am, but the witnesses said the robber had a mask, and you're the only masked person in town. You'll have to come with us."

Those of us with "photo not required" lisences are mostly residents who don't live there curretly. This means a lot of military who are stationed elsewhere. We are also required by law to carry another valid photo ID.

Great news!

One more classic example when psychologically unstable, pshycopatical person tries to gain everyone's attention or explain it's own antisocial behavior with Religous believes!!! Da-h-h! May be the reason of her anti-FDMV crusade isn't religion at all, may be she is just a violent, hysterical exentric misfit ? To bad she decided to be a Mouslim--I bet she would find a lot of real friends among Pagans, satanists and all those "misunderstood" pieced weirdos, --they like to kill cats somewhere in October, I bet she would love that!

#79 rabidfox

It's been too long since I worked retail to remember all the policies for checks, although I seem to recall that back then New Jersey licenses often didn't have pictures. In that case you check the signature very carefully, and make sure that someone whose license says that they have blue eyes and stand 5'2" isn't a brown-eyed six-footer.

In fact for ID purposes this would fit my state's (PA) notary law, which requires a government-issued serialized ID with a picture or signature or physical description, not all three. In that vein Pennsylvania issues state ID's to non-drivers with the option of no picture; according to an old Wired article, the Amish use this for ID to buy cell phones.

But there is no reason a state can't be more rigid about driver's licenses than about convenience ID's. If this woman weren't a native-born convert, she would not get citizenship without a photo showing her entire face and right ear. I'd like to see her try to get through an airport like this, whether in Riyadh or Miami.

#68 James

Why is the issue her license? Why isn't the issue her apparent plan to drive wearing a veil that covers her entire face??

Well, a license is a form of ID. She & her husband obviously would prefer anonimity.

#82 Lisa

Freeman...
Is that a Jewish name ?!

It often is, as is Freedman, Freidman, Manfredi

C.

#62

Actually, he is NOT exaggerating. In fact there are at least 100,000 licensed drivers in Fla. without picture ID's. I think most of them are temp licenses, and there were some other classes of non-picture ID's as well. There was an attorney on Fox's Hannity & Combs last night discussing that very point. I'm not sure about all of the specifics, but you can check Fox's website for clarification.

A couple of people have posted that the majortity of non-photo licenses/ID's are issued to people on a temporary basis that have mitigating curcumstances where they are not available for photos and other categories like that. For example, My lL learners permit (way back when) did not have a photo because it was issued through my High School. I fail to see how any of these waivers would apply to our Islamic girlfriend here since she only being asked to retake a photo that she already submitted to.

#83 Sean, I'm sure it's not unknown.

#71   mommydoc 

You're welcome.

kayawanee (#62),

I was remembering this post from Yehudit from Nexis.

The government, which first issued Freeman a license with her veil and then revoked it in a post-Sept. 11 security review, says Freeman should not be not be exempt from what it says is a full-face requirement for drivers licenses.

I believe her lawyer is arguing apples and oranges.

Marks [her lawyer] said the state admits it has issued thousands of licenses, including temporary and learners' permits, without photographs in the past.

Not the same thing as refusing to unveil for religious reasons.

I just realized that my religion prohibits me from paying parking or speeding tickets.

I demand a full refund for offenses committed while I was unaware of this fact!

#97 Ted Engel

Does your religion allow you to pay taxes?

#82 Lisa

Nah. "Freeman" is an African-American name - as in "I'm a free man now!" I believe it's her husband's name.

In the present age of terrorism, I don't think it is a great idea to have people going about in public wearing masks. If they commit a crime, or if they are involved in an act of terrorism, it would be more difficult to identify them.

In this case, the picture of the woman is available, so it should be put on her driver's license. But I don't think anyone should be permitted to drive wearing such a mask that blocks identification -- whether the person is a man or a woman, a Klansman or for religious reasons.

#99

And "Freeman" is an ironic name for a slave of Allah.

Caton:

I suspect not!

I'll check with the Board of Directors, er, Most High Ones and let you know.

;-)

This makes me so angry. There is no right to wear a disguise in society, much less in identification pictures. What's the use of an ID picture without a picture? Why not just give all Muslim women an unlimited right to drive without ANY license?

Muslims have been putting female and male terrorists in chadors with veils, running around Afghanistan, Iraq, Judea, Samaria, and other fields of battle. You can hide a lot of explosives under those robes. They can move around without the authorities questioning them. This allows them to carry out their murderous plans in secret. And now the Muslims want to force America to allow anyone to not only run around in this get up, but also to actually have totally unverifiable pictures on their drivers licenses. I am outraged.

I was watching this on Court TV. The lawyer for the State of Florida was a moron. He was a bumbler. Papers were spilling everywhere. He stammered and stuttered. He seemed to have a good argument, but he was just awful in closing argument. So disappointing. The lawyer advocating for Islam was skillful. What a dreadful situation.

The female judge seemed to me heavily biased toward the female slave plaintiff. She just looked with so much affection toward the slave girl. Like she esteemed her, even looked up to her. You are a judge! Your judicial robes are there for tradition and dignity, and have no relation to Islam.

Our forefathers did not die on the beaches of Normandy for the right to enslave women. This whole thing is such a total outrage.

Then Court TV brought on somebody from CAIR. To give his "analysis." Read: "agitprop." Can you believe it? Those terr-symps.

Sedition in our society is ongoing. The cult of evil is on the march. We have to stop them.

Florida recently passed legislation, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that was relevant to this case. If the State of Florida loses, they may have to change that legislation, and so might the 30 other states that have passed it.

This makes me so angry!

Not that it's a truly representative survey, but it's funny as all get-out that the survey asking if she should be allowed to wear her veil in the license picture is running at 98% "No."

kayawanee (#75),

It would be like Cousin It from the Addams Family! =)

GMTA?

The state should absolutely insist that woman wears a mask. Perhaps Arafat has another Abu Mazen mask she can borrow.

Even though I'm from Canuckistan, I'm fairly well versed in your magnificent constitution. I do not see how having a license photo even merits the religious freedom argument. Your Congress, ie. government, is not making a law respecting the establishment of a religion nor the free exercise thereof. All your freedoms have common sence restrictions such as the famous 'yelling fire in a crowded theatre', inciting to riot or councelling to commit a crime. These are not speech issues but public and private security ones. This photo issue is the same.
If, hypothetically, a religion required human sacrifice I do not think it would be allowed. Similarly, Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke rope in the US (they'll be pouring over the border soon to take advantage of our laws).
I hope your judge and courts make the right decision. Good luck!

Halflife is right. Freeman and Freedman are often African-American names, dating back to emancipation, when they supstituted these names for the former master's surname. They always have two e's; the Jewish version usually has an "ie" or "ei," but occasionally has two e's.

And, while New Jersey didn't always require a photo (at least through 1984, the last year I held an NJDL), they have for many years. Also, credit cards were once checked against a little newsprint book; they are now verified immediately by computer. Times change, needs change and technology changes.

A perfect example:

according to an old Wired article, the Amish use this for ID to buy cell phones.

WTF? These are people who won't use zippers because they are "too fancy," who don't drive cars but still use horses and buggies because they are too modern, but they use cell phones?

Every time I think I've heard it all...

Freeman...
Is that a Jewish name ?!

No, it's an Anglo name, although doubtlessly there are Jews named Freeman too. I'm also thinking of Morgan Freeman, neither a Jew nor Anglo.

Court TV - in interviews with Muslim law professors - The professors mention that women who wear the veil do NOT WEAR MAKE UP OR LOOK INTO a mirror (which she did/was during court proceedings. they also wear gloves.

This isn't going to win me many points but I just have to disagree with the statements being made that the ACLU is antisemitic. I also grew up in Skokie and well remember the neo-nazis with child abuser Frank Collins as Fuehrer.
Many the cases the ACLU takes on I too disagree with. However, the ACLU is not an antisemitic organization. Lets not engage in the same type of hyperbole that makes Indymedia a posting board for morons.

#61 Kelly

I read the Slate pieces. What a piece of shit this kid sounds like and typical of a magazine run by a liberal such as Michael Kinsley. If someone did a piece about the tremendous numbers of rapes that occur in South Africa, you would be denounced as a racist.

#108 mommydoc

Amish cell phones are another example of silly religious thinking, although one that does society little damage to allow. Being physically connected to a power or landline telephone grid would be too much connection to the larger, corrupt society. But keeping a cell phone in a shack outside the residence so you can get calls ordering the trinkets you advertise on the Internet - assuming you had some "English" fellow set up the web site - is perfectly fine.

Also, the Amish have not made a habit of knocking down our office towers.

mommydoc (#108),

I regularly have some interaction with Amish and Mennonites. There are a great many different “sects.” Some arguing that curtains on your horse carriage are too fancy, some driving to work in minivans smoking cigars.

Their kids can be rather wild (“Who me? I’m Amish”), and they have a habit of being snotty to “English” and tend to talk German behind your back, (or to your face), like no one else in the whole world speaks it but them.

That being said, their farm fields are nicer than my lawn, so I guess they have a right to be a little bit snotty.

#108 Misuse of word "Amish"--author probably mean "mennonites" , whom uses some electric and electronical equpment.

#33 Ed Moran

Heh. I didn't realize Mike Tyson was a Muslim. But he converted while in prison.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Figures. Barbarian. He wants to rape some poor woman.

[Link: sports.yahoo.com...]

Go to Hell, Mike.

#115

I meant Amish. Of course there are many divisions, but I don't think of the ones we have over in the Lancaster area as liberal.

[Link: www.udel.edu...]

UH-OH, looks like Queen Noor got busted!

An interesting addition to the ID's in Muslim countries bit: I served in Afghanistan last year (20th Special Forces Group, Airborne) and we detained a few muslim woman with TALIBAN IDENTIFICATION CARDS and THEY made the woman show their faces

#107 Anthony
Unfortunately common sense and modern day lawyers go about as well together as Jews and Palis.

Wild Justice
Thanks for the link, excellent ad.

#118 Tim
Thank you for serving this country.

Islam: the religion of deceit.

#118 tim

Guards SF, huh? A thank you is not enough, you guys did an awesome job with limited equipment, limited budget and not as much training as you wanted.

Bill Jefferson: Great article. Interesting perspective. I'm not sure I arrive at the same conclusions as the author, since "community" can have many definitions and for those of us who are geographically distant from our families and close ones, technology permits the maintenance of community.

Or allows the creation of new ones, such as this blog.

Tim--thank you for your hard work and sacrifice. BTW--that's great info. Too bad the state attorney didn't come up with that fact. Pretty much sums up the worthlessness of her case.

Tim,

I served in Afghanistan last year (20th Special Forces Group, Airborne) and we detained a few muslim woman with TALIBAN IDENTIFICATION CARDS and THEY made the woman show their faces

I know this is totally OT but I have to ask since I am skeptical of what I see or hear these days. Is Afghanistan coming apart at the seems or is the situation over there stabilizing? What were your impressions of the situation as someone (I'm assuming) who was there.

How she can stand wearing that heavy black sack in the Florida heat and humidity? I guess that's the price she must pay to avoid being recognized by the police and child welfare workers.

She does have nice eyes, I think I'm being turned on---she better start wearing sun glasses.

#124 Paul -

Good point. I hate wearing jeans when I'm down there, its too hot.

#111 - Lumiere

This isn't going to win me many points but I just have to disagree with the statements being made that the ACLU is antisemitic. I also grew up in Skokie and well remember the neo-nazis with child abuser Frank Collins as Fuehrer.
Many the cases the ACLU takes on I too disagree with. However, the ACLU is not an antisemitic organization.

I happen to agree. Occasionally, the ACLU will do things like neo-nazi parade support...but don't generally go after Jews, since the membership is heavily Jewish and they lost upwards of 20% of their members on the Skokie flap. The ACLU is not anti-Semitic. The ACLU though, is always reliably anti-Christian. Christmas is their traditional Christ-bashing time...and the ACLU is good cover for atheists wishing to purge Christian values from the public sphere, liberals who see Christian values as a hindrence to social progress, as well as litigious Jews who wish to roll back the influence of the majority religion - from a position of safe anonymity within the ACLU.

The mystery is why the people running the ACLU are so pro-Muslim. Matched only by the mystery of why so many Islamists suing in court or accused of terror crimes are matched up with willing Jewish lawyers.

Boy, go away from the computer and all kinds of interesting stuff happens.

Wild Justice, thanks for the commercial link - powerful.
Child abuse is something which I cannot forgive.

I've been to Florida a time or two, I hear you about the heat and humidity. Not that I'd wish anything bad on anyone (picture my fingers crossed) but I wouldn't feel sorry if she came down with heat exhaustion. There is a very nice Indonesian Muslim student here in Kentucky where I work who wears a veil over her head (not her face). I can't help but think she gets awfully hot and uncomfortable.

Way back when Catholic nuns wore habits, the veils could get a bit elaborate. My mother told me about when the Dominican sisters in Nashville, TN started to drive. The habits had veils that were starched and
projected forward effectively cutting off peripheral vision.
The DMV said they could not get licenses since the veils were a driving hazard. The nuns changed the veils.

I have a feeling Freeman will lose this case, but I'll be willing to bet that some grandstanding lawyer will appeal.

I agree with Ed Moran. Sultaana is a fine broad. There
was a picture in the Times today of her reading a
Koran in the courtroom. The thing that caught my eye
was that she was reading a Penguin paperback
translation. For christs sake, woman! If you're going
to be a fanatic islamozoid and start suing people left
and right then at least learn freakin' arabic

The question for me isn't if Freeman is a Jewish name. The question is if Sandra Keller is a Jewish name.

I know the issue of so-called "Jewish looks" is a problematic one, all too often abused by antisemities and ignoramuses. If you think of all the Jews you know, it's clear that, as a religion, there's hardly a clear racial or national type. (Let alone when you go to Israel and hang with Ethiopian Jews, Russian Jews, French Jews, Uzbekistani Jews, etc.)

However, I couldn't help wondering, as I looked at the photo of Sultana nee Sandra, with her rather pretty Slavic features and long nose, was she born Jewish? Ethnic pride makes me hope not, but I am curious. A sort of Adam Shapiro (or whatever the name of Arafat's dimwit boytoy is) type, self-hating in the extreme.

Sorry to speculate so unpleasantly.

#120 Aaron:

Actually, your assertion that Islam is the religion of deceit may not be far off the mark, especially during times of war. Christian convert Abdullah Al Araby writes about the Koranic sanctions for the use of deception during war and about lying in general.

All of this, and more, is at www.islamreview.com.

Someone needs to send the State of Florida lawyer some of this info, especially if he is as inept as RF thinks him to be. The Taliban requiring the women to show their faces and the story of the Catholic nuns who changed their habits would be two great ones. We assume those people can google, but all too often we are shocked and disappointed. Heck, send 'em the list from CNN too. They may be completely helpless (or over worked. Yeah, that's it)

This woman is obviously mentally unbalanced. I knew a few women like her back in the 70's. But back then those women shed their parent's tradition and embraced an Eastern Indian religion and changed their names to Vishnada or something like that.

Actually, it's quite appropriate that this criminal had chosen Islam as her religion of choice. "You abuse children? Here is your face mask. Welcome to the religion of peace. Wink, wink."

AmericaninUK, I had the same thought. Thanks for the sanity check. I understand that she was an evangelical Christian before her conversion, but who knows where she started?

Alf: Amazingly consistent, isn't it? Mike Tyson, so many of the incarcerated, and this wench. ROP my ass.

Well the case was rested today and the judge will return a decision within the week. The local tv news had on muslim women saying that is islam is peace and the koran says nothing about hiding your face.
There was a gas station in Orlando that pre-9-11 flew a Pali flag along with a US flag and a Florida state flag. Post 9-11 there were three US flags flying. So I wouldn't consider many local islamic people to be this much in your face.
Since we are getting into our lovely summer weather with 90% humidity 90% chance of rain and temperature in the 90's I always wonder how anyone in Indonesia would want to dress in such a fashion.

first time commenter

I saw her on CourtTV and if she was such a devout muslim she would not be sitting at the table with 2 males without her husband in-between.

I think she is running free and loose with her interpretation of Islamic law. She will adhere to what she feels like at the time, she was putting on make up- strictly verboten.
I wonder if CAIR put her up to bring the law suit, because I don't see why someone of such obvious dubious character would want to bring national attention to her felon self or her felon husband.

Welcome, Lesman. Good points.

Actually, if anyone can stand to wade through some of the ignorant and illiiterate posts, there are some good points in the forum.

Apparently, this is a real nut job. She stated under oath that all of her children's dolls are faceless, and that they block out faces on cereal boxes with magic markers.

Can you imagine what they're in for when these kids hit school age? Unless they go to a Muslim school, she's going to be the parent from hell for the teachers and administration.

Oh, and I'm off to Florida tomorrow. I'm packing the lightest, coolest clothes I have. Just the thought of wearing a burqa there, let alone hijab, is making me sweat perspire glow.

#8

Re: Sultana

Umm... I think Sultana is a prune. That seems more appropriate, anyway!

mommydoc: That's right! Ladies glow. And, if they're like my blonde, fair-skinned mother, they don't turn brick red after 10 minutes in the sun or 2 glasses of wine, they "begin to feel flushed" (Like wet toliet paper?)

On a serious note, I wanted to comment on earlier posts about licensing people to have children. Well, who hasn't thought about it when they watch another story on the nightly news about a 1 year old beaten into a coma by their mother's boyfriend, or when they see a pregnant 14 year old smoking. But Lord Almighty, imagine government bureaucrats deciding whether you're parent material or not. Is it too much of a stretch to see them vetoing applications because they don't like how you vote, or where you worship, or because they don't think you're pretty enough to procreate? Or maybe they'll turn you down just because they had a fight with their spouse the night before. The enormous bureaucracy which would be needed, the mountains of paperwork, the prying into personal lives, the vast possibilities for abuse are staggering. I would hate to see the state invested with that sort of power.

Yes, too many innocent children have to suffer at the hands of stupid, sadistic, immature, and irresponsible parents. It has always been so, and unhappily, since I don't see any massive shift in human nature occurring any time soon, it will always be so. The only thing we as a society can do is try our best to protect and shield children from terrible parents, and while we're doing a far from perfect job, we've made progress in the past century.

I hope you enjoy your trip, mommydoc. Now, please excuse me, after my second glass of Merlot, I find I'm getting quite flushed. (Jeez, I really am turning into my mom!)

Donna V.: Right as always. It just seems like there should be some minimum qualifications, like not beating the shit out of them, and feeding them. Maybe making it to 3 prenatal visits.

Oh, well, enjoy your merlot (domestic, I assume?;-))

mommydoc: Well, it's already against the law to beat the shit out of kids - enforcement is always the problem. I know where you're coming from though - just today, I was sitting outside on my lunch break and I saw a new mother, who looked all of 13, get wheeled out of the hospital with her newborn girl. The dad (I presume) who looked all of 17, loaded mom and baby into his car and drove off like a total madman, screeching tires and blasting rap music you could probably hear 3 blocks away. (Constant loud pounding music - I can only imagine what that does to a newborn's hearing.) We have a large OB Department and we do charity care all the time, so I see stuff like that everyday. You must see it 5 times a day. Sometimes I think the hardest thing about being an OB physican must be not the rather disgusting physical aspects, which one must become inured to, but controlling the desire to scream at clueless teens, "Take the f*ckin' pill! Have the guy wear the f*ckin' condom! Or else keep your legs together! Do you know how bad your life is screwed!" Hell, I want to scream at them and I just see them in the hallways!

Domestic wine? But of course:Bogle Vineyards, California. Tasty and inexpensive:-)

And I saw Houdini the Wonder Cat! His Internet fame may go to his head! He's adorable:-)

She may be odd, but the vast majority of people posting here are rather crass and crude bigots that feels like a threat to this country. The anti-Muslim crap that flies through here is frighteningly similar to the anti-Jewish crap that pollute 1930s Germany.

Donna V.--Exactly. And Houdini says thank you.

#142, "Oded" wrote:

She may be odd, but the vast majority of people posting here are rather crass and crude bigots that feels like a threat to this country. The anti-Muslim crap that flies through here is frighteningly similar to the anti-Jewish crap that pollute 1930s Germany.

A threat to "this country?" That's an odd thing to say, for someone posting from the University of Cambridge in Great Britain.

OT, but "Girls Gone Wild" won't be filming Sultaana / Sandra anytime soon. This is Florida justice as I know and love it:

"Joe Francis, 30, producer of the "Girls Gone Wild" videos, is facing charges ranging from drug trafficking to the sexual exploitation of underage girls... Charges against him include:

Racketeering (first-degree felony)
Promoting the sexual performance of children (3 counts)
Conspiracy to promote the sexual performance of children (4 counts)
Using children in sexual performances (2 counts)
Procuring persons younger than 18 for prostitution (4 counts)
Conspiring to procure persons under 18 for prostitution (2 counts)
Selling, distributing or offering to distribute or possessing with intent to distribute obscene material (2 counts)
Prostitution (1 count)
Trafficking in hydrocodone (1 count)"

[Link: www.click10.com...]

#139 Donna V.

One of my high school English teachers had a system in mind where, while one was walking up to get one's diploma, one's teachers would vote thumbs up or thumbs down. Thumbs down majorities would result in immediate sterilization.

Though not a significantly larger problem than elsewhere, in a few cases at that school, graduation day would be too late.

Oded wrote:

She may be odd, but the vast majority of people posting here are rather crass and crude bigots that feels like a threat to this country.

A Cambridge University student who writes a clunker like that is certainly a threat to the British system of higher education. If Oded is a Cambridge instructor, well, farewell, merry England.

Not only is Oded's grammar godawful but he commits the usual troll's drive-by smearing. He rolls in, screams "You're all bigots!" and runs off. What posts offended you, Oded? Do you not think it strange that Ms Burka is asking for a privilege that is not granted in most Muslim countries? And, finally, "odd" is a, well, odd word to use to describe a child abuser. And Malvo is just sort of "eccentric," I suppose.

Bill 146:

Well, I went to a Catholic girl's school so I can't really relate to your solution. The nuns would have had 85% of us ("Bad girls! Bad, bad girls!") banned not only from procreation, but condemned to everlasting chastity. And the remaining 15% would have had to have gotten married immediately and bear 18 kids apiece to make up for the rest of us:-)

a typical white meeskite looking for self hating salvation from a foreign religion and some black schlong--these two--with their criminal background and absurd delusional sense of selves are one step away from rekidnapping elizabeth smart--the only right she should have is the right to remain silent after being arrested for her next crime against nature--i think these two are what "minority report" was all about--you can assuredly predict another crime coming as you can predict a wave of pre summit suicide bombings in the next ten days

This case reminds me of the constant complaints by Muslim organizations and pious Muslims about how evil and terrible Turkey is for banning the headscarf in schools, universities, government buildings, and the like, how Turkey has no respect for freedom of religion or freedom to wear what one wants. I might take this more seriously if the protesters weren't so cynically using Western complaints; I know darn well that if they were in power, the veil would be mandatory (so much for freedom to wear what one wants!) and the country would be turned into an Islamic state, with all the "tolerance" that implies. In both cases, I see a great deal of cynical use of Western concepts of freedom of religion and expression to defend Islam by people who don't really subscribe to those notions, at least not as most people would define them ("true women's liberation through Islam" BS an example of such "creative redefinition"). I don't doubt that our Sultaana wouldn't mind the whole America-under-Shari'ah idea. (Not to mention she's seemingly a total nutcase, which adds another confirming instance to my observations that it's often the Western converts who out-fanaticize the fanatics, as well as often being mentally unstable!)

Also, if the veil was really just a piece of cloth, it wouldn't arouse such passions, but of course it's not just a "fashion accessory" but also frequently a political statement, both in favor of the Shari'ah's rather shabby treatment of women, and often in favor of the establishment of an Islamic State under Islamic law, and this is especially the case with a woman voluntarily wearing the whole black-abayah-and-face-veil shebang. This is what people react to. Turkey does know what they're doing in this regard, I have to say, since they want to preserve their secular government (witness the demonstrations organized by Islamist parties against the ban). It was said that if the veil was allowed, eventually enough girls and women would wear it and it would be made mandatory. Unfortunately the concept of "live and let live" is usually totally missing from Islamists; it's always either forcing one to do something or not to do something. Letting people do what they want is completely beyond them!

BTW, one thing that should've happened (but didn't) would have been for the State Attorney to say ''Your Honor, in order to satisfy to the court that this IS the actual plaintiff and not someone here in her stead, the State requests that the plaintiff meet with Your Honor, in chambers, to remove the head cover in private, in front of another woman, so Your Honor can determine for herself if the plaintiff IS the actual person and not an impostor''. If the Judge goes for it, she could then order the woman to do just that. And if ''sultana'' says no to THAT, that's ''contempt of court''! And in Booking they will take that veil off for her mug shot. Again...
Dan W

Her husband's name changes depending on the time or state: Mark (WFTV) or Abdul Maalik (HR).

And I wonder about the connection between Sultaana / Sandra, the foster children, and Taqiyyah Abdullah-Shakur (her good friend and a child services supervisor). Sultaana's conversion was in 1997 and her conviction of child battery in 1999. What angers me most is having a child services person praise a convicted child abuser as a "very nice person" in the 2001 article.

God help children in foster care.

"Taqiyyah Abdullah-Shakur, a friend of Freeman's, met her shortly after her conversion."
"When she converted, she didn't veil, but soon after she did," said Abdullah-Shakur, a children services supervisor at a Decatur social services agency. "Almost every time I saw her she was wearing a veil."
"Abdullah-Shakur said Freeman, a good friend and "very nice person" who worked at Illinois Power Co. for many years, wears a veil as an indication of her deep faith."
"In June 1997, Freeman requested an order of protection against a man she said had beaten her with a baseball bat. The man, an ex-convict from Chicago who had "Latin Kings" tattooed on his forearm, claimed that he had married her in an Islamic wedding, although it was not recognized by the state."
"It was also in 1997 that she legally changed her name from Sandra M. Keller to Sultaana LaKiana Myke...
She is married to Abdul Maalik Freeman, a Florida man who visited her in Decatur in the months before they were wed. They have a 14-month-old daughter."

[Link: www.herald-review.com...]

"As an American citizen, Taqiyyah Abdullah-Shakur once felt free to wear Muslim headdress and robes on the streets of Decatur."
"She is not so confident after a recent experience at a gas station, where fellow citizens told her Muslims are no longer welcome in America after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
"Keeping her head covered is a strong tenet of her faith. She now wears the headdress in a more Afro-centric style, allowing her hair to show, and has modified her street clothing."
"Abdullah-Shakur is a children's services supervisor for a local social service agency."

[Link: www.herald-review.com...]

Quick Comment:

In most of the UAE and Oman Women can drive,own cars, houses, businesses and so forth. The "rules" tend to be seen as only being used by people who have something to hide, esp by the police, who will often stop women in the penguin suits to find out what they are doing driving in one...

Mind you with a face like hers one can see why she might ewant to cover it!

#144
There are magical (to you, it seems) devices called 'airplanes' that allow Americans to actually fly to other countries. They're not just for bombs, y'know. You'd be surprised by the number of Americans here.

#147
According to what I know about Islamic law (which is not much), she isn't required to cover her *face* at any time. There are extremists who believe so, but most mainstream interpretations would see her behavior as being overzealous. The court is therefore not forced to take a pro- or anti-Muslim stance. The legal issue is thus not really about Islam; it's a generic question about personal beliefs. In this forum, however, it's just become another excuse for gleeful anti-Muslim bigotry.

As for the bigotry, it's all-pervasive on this weblog. Having studied antisemitism in some depth, it is blindingly obvious that many of you are attacking Muslims in the very same ways that Jews were attacked in discourse prior to WWII. If you can't see that for yourself already, then you're unlikely to be open to rational discourse.

As for the grammar, I apologize. It was written late in the night, and this is not exactly an important audience to me. And was Mavlo a Muslim? I think it was only his partner in crime that was...

The broader issue here is: to what extent is society required to take risks that could pose risks to innocent individuals, in order to satisfy a person's beliefs (whether they are common religious beliefs, or less common beliefs, or eccentric ones peculiar to that individual).

The age when we were not aware of the risks of terrorism are gone. And crime is still prevalent.

If people were allowed to be in public wearing an identity-blocking mask, then terrorists would have an easier time to do their mass killing work. What would prevent a terrorist man from wearing such a mask and pretending to be a Muslim woman who demands not to be forced to go around with a naked face?

I would also be opposed to having Ku Klux Klansmen driving cars completely hooded, or refusing to pose for identification pictures without their hoods.

Same for bank robbers, and other criminals who would prefer not to be identified.

Individual rights are not unimportant. But I think that society has some rights also, especially the right to protect itself, and the right to protect other individuals from crime and terrorism.

Oded #154,

According to what I know about Islamic law (which is not much), she isn't required to cover her *face* at any time.

Well, that's what some here have argued. But her argument is that she is required to cover her *face* because of her religion, as inaccurate as that may be. Since her argument relies on her religion, and her religion-du-moment is Islam, it appears that Islam enters into this discussion.

Having studied antisemitism in some depth, it is blindingly obvious that many of you are attacking Muslims in the very same ways that Jews were attacked in discourse prior to WWII.

Godwin's Law - you lose. Most of what happens on the front page of the weblog is simply qouting the words of Muslims. The comments section is sometimes extreme, but that's what happens when you have a largely unmoderated forum. Try spending some time on the Yahoo! Message boards and see how pleasant that is.

In any case, the 1930s has nothing to do with the anti-Muslim discourse here. Germans didn't quote the words of the Jews in the 1930s, they just made up whatever they had to say. German anti-Jewish riots, well prior to WWII, were fairly commonplace. American anti-Muslim riots, LGF notwithstanding, don't exist.

Since her argument relies on her religion, and her religion-du-moment is Islam, it appears that Islam enters into this discussion.

At some level, yeah. But the right wingers are picking up on this case because it confirms their view of Muslims as bad citizens, not because they have any thoughtful concerns about legal philosophy. Since this isn't about mainstream Muslim belief, but simply the idiosyncratic beliefs of a woman nonrepresentative of American Muslims generally, Islam is really beside the point here. David Koresh had some odd ideas about Christianity, but no one was trying to trash Christianity (or even Seventh-Day Adventists) on the basis of his idiosyncratic personal beliefs.

Most of what happens on the front page of the weblog is simply qouting the words of Muslims.

No, it's not that simple. There's a fantastic amount of selection bias, and everything is cast in a negative light. Items are chosen mostly to support and confirm the weblog author's rather petty and rabid political views-- they are hardly a representative sample of Muslim thought. Often these quotes (especially relating to Islamic law) are (intentionally but often unintentionally) highly distorted. And there are plenty of Israeli and right-wing American extremists who say and do things which are just as awful, but they are curiously overlooked here, as are any rational explanations of why 'they' hate 'us'.

As for antisemitism in the 1930s, there are deep parallels, especially with regards to religious belief and ethnic character. The anti-semites of the day looked at Jewish religious law as letter-driven and unchanging, and Jewish ethnics as being essentially untrustworthy and mean-spirited. That's exactly what's happening here.

oded wrote:As for antisemitism in the 1930s, there are deep parallels, especially with regards to religious belief and ethnic character.

--German's and american's mentalities are the same as Guantanomo bay prison compare to Nazi's concentration camps. The whole nation of Germans suddenly became jew-haters...Germans were making leather purses from skin of their neighbor's children, tortured to death in concentration camps... No, Americans are not that sick nation, thanks G-d.

(I think)Gui de Mopassan said that "you really afraid of things which only you don't really know ".Mouslims for americans something like gargoyles-- scary, exotic, irreal creatures, mostly all of them live somewhere overseas, they have mosqs, they slottering ships for holidays, and they have belly dancers--what else? Easy subject for any conjectures and manipulations. Add here tragedy like Sept.11 and other terroristic acts, commited by someones, who happens to called themselfes mouslims...I feel like WWIII is coming soon.

Unfortunately, in times like these - lots of debris and foam appears on the top of stream, just like on the river during the storm --all those hustlers, fanatics, power-thursty avanturists are activating, using religion as a cover and excuse for their immodesty and sining. "Sultana" is just one of them-taking advantage of American tolerance to a different confessions .

This reminds me of an anecdote from a few years ago...

A Canadian Sikh soldier here in Canada took the military to court for forcing him to remove his turban in order to wear a helmet on the grenade range. He forgot that we have contacts in India. During the proceedings, a graduate of the Indian staff college at Wellington called a course-mate to find out how Sikhs do grenade training in the Indian Army.

The answer? They remove their fucking turbans and put on a fucking helmet. Maybe there is a place for common sense.