So the state of Florida has its panties in a bunch, and Islamic practices are at the forefront of...religious liberty? Sometimes, we at The Anger of Compassion aren't sure which emotion is called for.
It seems that one Sultanna Freeman, a convert to Islam, had her photo taken for her Florida driver's license--while wearing her veil. A valid Florida driver's license was issued and subsequently suspended. Sultanna Freeman is suing the state to have her license reinstated.
She should win, and I hope she does.
Writing at The Rule of Reason, Nicholas Provenzo states: "The question at bar is if Florida has a compelling interest in regulating drivers that overrides the religious protections afforded one of its citizens. Florida's own conduct in issuing driver's licenses would indicate it does not." Provenzo then quotes the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims that over the past five years, Florida "issued more than 800,000 temporary licenses and/or driving permits - without photographs - in the past five years to individuals in a variety of different categories. Convicted drunk drivers with revoked licenses are legally allowed to drive in Florida using only driving permits without photographs, as are foreign nationals, those who failed their eye or written exams and military personnel."
Read that again, those of you who find Ms. Freeman's lawsuit silly: if your license is revoked by the state of Florida because of your own drunk driving, you get a license without a photo--issued by the state of Florida. If you fail the (required) eye exam or the (required) written exam, you get a license without a photo--issued by the state of Florida.
Now, wearing that veil is irrational--especially in Florida, where the heat and humidity combine to baste you in your own sweat even if you're not wearing a veil--but compare that to the buffoonery of Florida's own officials, issuing driver's licenses to those whose licenses have been suspended, or to those who fail the eye exam. Provenzo concludes that this dispute is an "open and shut case," and I agree with him--but he doesn't go far enough.
For clarification, let's look at another Objectivist: Mark Da Cunha at Objectivism Today. Mr. Da Cunha opines, "This is silly--what good is a picture ID, if your face is covered? Freedom of religion doesn't give one the right to a driver's license, which is a privilege granted by the owner of the roads--in this case the government. "
Oh dear.
The older I get, the more I appreciate Ayn Rand's ability to craft meaningful definitions. Her definition of capitalism could have saved Mark Da Cunha a little bit of trouble, I think: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." Those words are from her 1965 essay "What Is Capitalism?" and may be found in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Now, if all property is privately owned, then real property is certainly included, and that means land and structures built on the land, from which we can, properly, conclude that roads ought to be privately owned and not owned by the state of Florida.
Florida has no business owning roads, operating roads, or licensing drivers to wish to use roads. None. Da Cunha's "privilege" argument is meaningful only if one grants that the state may properly operate in the economic sphere--an assertion which would have horrified Ayn Rand.
Da Cunha concludes: "Freeman's options are to uncover her face, or forgo getting a license. She does not have the freedom to force her whims on others."
Wearing that veil certainly is a whim, and a ridiculous one, but just how is she forcing her whims on others? Florida officials are acting on whims here--forcing some to have their pictures taken for driver's licenses, while forgoing that requirement for others, and then turning around and not granting that concession to Ms Freeman. Florida deserves to lose this suit--after which, they can get out of the business of issuing driver's licenses altogether.
Perhaps people are distracted by the silliness of it all, or by reflexive anti-Muslim bias--but the pundits and commentators all seem to be missing the point. I'm reminded of one of my libertarian heroes, the inimitable Frank Chodorov. He was asked, by a timid old woman, "Mr. Chodorov, what can we do about all of these Communists in so many government programs?"
Chodorov's trenchant reply: "Eliminate the government programs."
Good points but still, a tough call. After all, I think a case can be made that licensing drivers is a legitimate function of government in the sense that driving without the ability to drive, like drunk driving, is not a right. Like I said, though, a case could be made...I'm not going to try to make it!
Posted by: Don Watkins III at June 4, 2003 02:48 PM