And another worm wiggles free.
An Alberta court has ruled that the law requiring a photo be taken for the purpose of drivers license identification violates the religious beliefs of Hutterites and is unconstitutional. (No link available yet)
Next up:
Via John Gormley LIve, where callers were quick to point out that they don’t seem to have any religious objection to having their images captured by surveillance video at Wal-Mart.
Upon further reflection… does this confer legal immunity on Hutterite drivers photographed by red light cameras?
Sorry, Kate!
Finger problems on my part.
That’s twice now I’ve posted something two times.
ok4ua, are you saying there are man-made laws that legalize the killing of Sikh brides in India?
There has been no one found quilty, in the Air India act of terrorism to send back to India.
They were Canadian citizens and would serve their time here.
Seriously, can one compare that example of Air India terrorists, to the Hutterites not wanting their photos on a driver’s licence?
And who made the laws that allow for Hutterites to refuse photo I.D. or Sikh’s to wear their turbans as RCMP? Our legislators and judges of the day, presumably mere mortals.
Worse, what would happen if those tricky ‘courts’ called Human Rights Tribunals get involved? Opinions of the ‘host judges’ will decidedly become very ‘loosey-goosey’.
Trudeau brought in his Charter. We all get to live with the challenges to it.
If man made laws were so definitive, why do they keep getting changed?
Does that make religion the kingpin? Of course not, but it certainly is given the provision to hinge itself to one of the rights provided for in The Charter.
Now what do we do with it? Fault the group, malign the group even, that legally takes their issue to the courts for a decision?
The ruling does nothing but give colony leaders more authority over individuals.
We can forget about requiring everyone in Canada have a unique separate identity or the right of citizens to know their neighbour. The judge in the decision must have found one of those unwritten constitutional laws.
“We can forget about requiring everyone in Canada have a unique separate identity…”
Is this a requirement? Surely every person has, ipso facto, a “unique separate identity” anyway?
“or the right of citizens to know their neighbour.”
Do citizens have this right? What about personal privacy?
JJ says:
“What about personal privacy?”
In a Hutterite colony? Surely you jest!
As for individuals having a unique separate identity, that decreases exponentially when increasing the authority of others over them.
Ask the media if they think we don’t have the right to know our neighbours? They sure act like we do.
I’m concerned about you JJ…you’ve got to take that Burka off to let the heat out.
Local news tonight said this decision will probably be appealed.
“In a Hutterite colony? Surely you jest!”
As long as they are not a nuisance to others, how Hutterites choose to view their personal privacy is entirely up to them, not us – just as your personal privacy is not my business.
Now, that does bring us back to the wider question of to what degree a government is entitled to intrude on that privacy.
Is the right to personal privacy more important than the requirement for a photo on a driver’s permit? It might be – unless we have now decided that a driver’s permit is actually a form of ID.
Now a passport is a very different kettle of fish; a passport is very clearly meant to be a form of ID from the outset. No photo, no passport.
But guess what? Even if a Canadian citizen somehow did manage to get a passport with no photo, there is no guarantee that passport will allow them to enter another country.*
It might seem blindingly obvious but every sovereign state in the world gets to decide on its own entry formalities.
“As for individuals having a unique separate identity, that decreases exponentially when increasing the authority of others over them.”
I have no idea what you think you’re saying here.
“Ask the media if they think we don’t have the right to know our neighbours? They sure act like we do.”
That’s neither here nor there. If I am a law-abiding citizen and I move in next to you, you have no legal right to know anything about me.
You are free to check the phone book for my name, you are free to go to the registry office and find out if I’m a home owner and you are free to come over and introduce yourself. that’s it.
* There are international conventions on passports too. If a Canadian passport did not meet the standard, it would likely mean entry denied.
“personal privacy is entirely up to them, not us”
You have a different interpretation of personal privacy than I do. My interpretation takes “personal” down to the individual level. Your interpretation only takes it down to the commune level. I doubt there’s much “personal” privacy for individuals living the commune lifestyle.
“unless we have now decided that a driver’s permit is actually a form of ID”???
If it’s not a form of ID then you best tell that to customs officials, drinking establishments, car rental agencies, financial institutions, traffic police, etc. Kinda amazing how these people rely on the driver’s licence photo to identify individuals.
“If I am a law-abiding citizen and I move in next to you, you have no legal right to know anything about me.”
I beg to differ. You don’t have to tell me anything but I have the right to find out who you are. Anyone can do a title search or ask the landlord. In a nation full of individuals it’s a matter of accessing public records. If we become a nation of communes then public records will exclude individual identities in favor of group identities. People will melt into the crowd…and become “faceless” except for the leadership.
My whole concern is that there is a non-religous basis for erroding individual identity: It makes them more dependent on the group and thus more under leadership control. Using religion as an excuse to keep personal ID out of the pockets of Hutterite individuals is a means to that end.
The picture baffles me, I have delt and worked with Hutterites and never seen them cover their face, “even make-up” They have always been very pleasant to deal with. As far as their kids I have never seen any thats under 14. The two Hutterites that I have worked with claimed that they were abused and when they turned 16 they walked away and never went back. Both of these people had very high work ethics. As far as the picture on the “DL”, if they don’t have it they wouldn’t be able to operate any drivable machinery to farm. I think we lost a lot of ground when started to step around basic rights. Either it is or it isn’t.
“I doubt there’s much ‘personal’ privacy for individuals living the commune lifestyle.”
But again – so what? If individuals choose to sacrifice their personal privacy to be members of a wider commune or group, that’s their decision and fundamentally none of my business.
“If it’s not a form of ID then you best tell that to customs officials, drinking establishments, car rental agencies, financial institutions, traffic police, etc. Kinda amazing how these people rely on the driver’s licence photo to identify individuals.”
Driver’s licences have become a type of ID by default. That’s because Canada does not require a private citizen to carry ID in public (unlike say, France or Belgium which have national identity cards). As a result, a driver’s licence is simply a convenient way to establish identity. However, it is NOT an ID card but merely proof that you are legally entitled to operate a vehicle.
“You don’t have to tell me anything but I have the right to find out who you are.”
No, you don’t. You merely have the right to seek out openly available public information. And there are very clear limits about how much you you can find out about me without legally intruding on my right to privacy.
“Using religion as an excuse to keep personal ID out of the pockets of Hutterite individuals is a means to that end.”
If the Hutterites wish to live in a communal society, then what business is that of mine? Unless there’s a clear contravention of someone’s individual rights – such as the use of coersion to enforce membership – I don’t see the problem.
“…If individuals choose to sacrifice their personal privacy…”
That’s my point. When someone with authority over others can use pressure (in this case, religious) to prevent the same identity “ownership” enjoyed by you and me, they have less choice. Individual identity gives us authority over our choices. Take it away and we lose that authority.
“simply a convenient way to establish identity”
JJ…you implied in previous comments that a driver’s licence wasn’t a form of ID? Make up your mind. Shouldn’t ID be convenient or should everyone be tatooed with a bar code on their inner thigh?
“coercion to enforce membership”
You know of many religious organizations that don’t use coercion? Canada shouldn’t be making it more easy for them by giving authority over the individual identities of their membership. Canada has to decide what’s more important: the rights of the individual or cultural rights that inevitably interfere with individual rights.