Idiotic! This is PCism gone overboard.

Presumably the same applies to passports?

Look - religion must not be used to remove an individual from the functional legal requirements of a society.

What we are seeing - and this is very obvious in Islamism- is that the realm of 'religion' is being used to remove an individual/group from the civic operational legalities of a society. Religion ought to refer only to the metaphysical axioms, i.e., the non-physical.

So, religion can define one's relationship to the infinite, the non physical, etc. But, it has no business defining one's relationship to red lights, car ownership, or confirmation of ability-to-drive.

If a society states that you must have a photo on your driver's licence - that must take priority to any religious dictum against photos.

A photograph is a physical entity. And a driver's licence and driving a car are physical realities. They have nothing to do, as far as I know, with anything metaphysical - Harry Potter is the exception.

Soon- we'll see that various individuals/groups will reject having to honour a legal contract, having to produce a passport, having to..whatever..and the excuse will be 'It's against my religion'...

I have a dear friend, who uses that, 'tongue in cheek', as a neat tactic on just about everything:
Ask him to pay his share at the restaurant.."Oh, I can't do that; it's against my religion"
Ask him to chair a session at a conference.."Oh, I can't do that; it's against my religion"

The legalities of a society must be privileged over religion.

So what's stopping EVERY CANADIAN (aside from a sense of propriety) from claiming to be a convert to the Hutterite religion and having the photos stricken from their ID? I think it would be marvellous if we could legally subvert this governmental control over our lives.

Well, I'm a libertarian, does that count?

(But maybe SCOC doesn't recognize the human rights of libertarians.)

sean - whats stopping us?

some of us cant grow a beard, sometimes even our men?

You're right, it opens the can.
There's no telling the damage caused by flawed Bible exegesis.

I'm a sucker for irony.

http://www.photoeye.com/templates/ShowDetailsbyCat.cfm?Catalog=ya008

Guess the 'ites in Montana are a different bunch!

simple solution... don't issue the drivers licence passport or whatever other legal documents require them. full stop.

"some of us cant grow a beard, sometimes even our men?"

We belong to a variant of the Hutterite faith, one that allows us to own Playstations and such, vary our clothing, even go without facial hair, but that absolutely prohibits us from having our picture taken.

Look, dammit, if we can get Jedi on to the census form as an official response why can't we do some tweaking with this?

Fight fire with fire, I say.

Right on the money Spike. We should have held that line when the National Police force uniform was 'abbreviated. Nuff said.

I will be interested in why this issue has suddenly come up for the Hutterites.

They have been in farming communities for a very long time.

They travel cross border often to visit their extended families in the United States.

To quote Grandpa Simpson....

"You've stolen my soul....."

Next up...how about Hutterite SSM...their colonies would be a bit smaller.

Next up to bat: Some Muslim females, objecting for reasons of "Islamic religious requirements of modesty".

We had the same thing happen in The Great Satan, in Florida, with a fundamentalist Muslim woman. She wears the burqa head-to-toe potato-sack-with-eyeholes and didn't want to reveal herself for the picture, for "Islamic religious requirements of female modesty".

Florida Motor Vehicles Dept. refused to issue her a license without a picture. She appealed and lost; took it to court and lost. To make a long story short, it went all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. She lost.

She and her family made all the expected comments after the Supreme Court ruling, about America picking on Muslims, not respecting Islam, yadda, yadda.

The court basically said some of what ET said above in his comment. A driving license is not a "human right", it is a privilege, subject to legal requirements. Requirements of the law for the public safety apply to all, period.

The logic would seem the same in both cases, as I see it. I hope when (not if) this happens, the Canadian courts rule in favor of requiring the photograph. Otherwise, it's Islamic "law" overriding Canadian law. Unacceptable!

Nice call Dave: These kind of things. Passports, Driver licences are a privilege not a right. What about OHIP cards. Dohhh! another can of worms.

"You've stolen my soul....."

Sask, you've hit the nail on the head.

Primitive and backwards cultures believe that a photograph does just that. Native tribes, Islam, they both want to destroy the "other" that are too much of a threat. So no wonder they both feel the same about a simple photograph. Read up on the Blackfoot and you will begin to understand.

Could it be that Hutterites and the Islam have one thing in common? A wish to revert to the Middle Ages?

Crusades anyone?

can they get their pictures taken for prison ID?
no name , just a number.

Here's a link to an Ontario case, where a man refused to have a digital picture, it being the work of Satan and all (he used to paper clip a polaroid to his licence back in the day). Bottom line: no picture, no licence.

http://www.canlii.org/on/cas/onscdc/2005/2005onscdc10005.html

Andy

Re, ET's 2.07 post:

Religion is not being used to remove an individual from the functional legal requirements of a society. Religion is being used as an excuse to perpetuate and promote a moral perpective based on the triumph of individual rights over collective responsibilities. The power elite permit and encourage this as a method of control and the retention of power.

The reason the Hutterities are being permitted this is that they are weak and isolated and thus present no threat to the power elites. Any sizable group, well-integrated within society, that wants such preferential treatment will effectively have to utter threats and murder. Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Just wait until they (or the Mennonites) try and withhold their taxes because a portion goes to the military. Or Catholics et al because the health systems fund abortion.

Gloves-off time then kiddies...

Are there not some religions against going to a doctor. What do they do when they are required to have a medical for a license. Main reason they don't want a photo is so they can get one license and let anyone use it when leaving the colony. Why are their pics in newspapers etc. We have 8 colonies in our surrounding area and most of them have photo IDs. Women were never allowed to drive, this changed when one could bring back 40oz of liquor and a carton of cigs after a stay in either canada or the US. The ruling said they did not have to have a photo. Did it say they had to be given a license without one.

Mary hit the nail on the head. Up until around 5 years ago, Hutterite women were not allowed to drive. Again, one license could be used for all women on a colony within the same age group. Its all about economics not religion! That's why they drive $500,000 combines and send their women to steal shoes from Wal-Mart.

On the Muslim front, I think we should put a law in place like the Dutch are planning and ban burqa's altogether. If I wore a wrestling mask to a bar or a bank, would they let me in?

This religious thing is no more than a farce. An apron to hide behind while thumbing your nose at the very society that protects/feeds you!
I spearheaded the letter campaign when that loser wanted to change the RCMP uniform to suit his "religious" wants. Too damn much "political correctness" in our world today to make any sense! We've lost control. We have no defined sense of direction. We have no set rules that evryone has to follow. We cave to the words "racisum" and "rights". We have no set "rights" anymore, just spineless politicians giving in to a squeaky wheel. We've lost our identity as a country.
Maybe, just maybe, ... it's time for us to reclaim all that we have lost due to idiots in politics??!!

Having known at least one photographer who has done essays and a book on Life in a Hutterite Colony, I am slightly confused as to this no picture thing. Is this a recent thing? Living in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta I have yet to see any Hutterite female wearing a veil or anything to hide her face. What gives?

Just a thought... Does the ban on taking pictures of female hutterite drivers include multinova radar too?

Henry - I don't see that religion is being used to elevate individual rights. I think it's being used to elevate one group's rights as dominant over the nation's law. The group is defined as governed by a religion (set of laws) that rejects photos. They want this religious set of laws acknowledged as valid and superior to the national law.

Can't be done. You don't introduce Sharia Law into Canada - because that sets up a parallel legal system, with Sharia operative only among one group - whose members are released from the laws of the nation.

So- you can't introduce Hutterite or Mennonite Law into Canada and permit their laws to supercede national laws. If our national laws require a photo ID for a driver's licence or a passport...well, tough. That's what you have to do.

Right - I see your point about the size of the group.

The Hutterites took the exceptional step and spoke out against SSM a while back, and were crucified in the media for it.

They usually do not interfere in things political.

Hutterites are not social misfits from the Middle Ages.

Yes, they have a different view of how men and women fit in their society.

But, the men have a high dose of respect for their wives and the women who work in the colonies.

Everyone has their job and skill and they teach the young ones to take over one day.

They all participte in every aspect of contributing to the individual home and to the group.

The homes may be in one yard, but they live as one family unit, per house.

And if you want clean, there is nothing to beat a communal kitchen and food prep area in a Hutterite colony.

There is little to no comparison to the Islamic societies, when it comes to entering the modern technological and computerized age.

Hutterites know how to research and use the most advanced machines and set-ups, and innovations in all of their farming operations.

These are not stupid people. They travel all over the world to learn, from the source, how to employ technological efficiencies in their operations.

And believe me, if you have been a neighbor and needed help, they would be among the first to come.

I am still waiting to see why they asked for this no photo aspect.

If more than one uses a driver's licence, why aren't the police asking for additional I.D. to verify that?

There may be some bad apples, (and the colony will deal harshly with them when caught).

I am perplexed to see this one group repeatedly maligned, having been on the receiving end of their considerable neighborliness over time.

ET, I'm totally with you on this.

Re size of group: Has anyone noticed that mainline Christians in Canada are routinely allowed to be derided in the media, education systems, etc., and penalized--Human Rights (sic) Commissions--even though their views and means of dealing with dissent are much more moderate than those of certain other--how about Muslim?--religions, whose anti-social and even violent idiosyncracies seem to be fully protected?

Equity, anyone?

ET, you haven't heard the last of Sharia law for Muslims in Canada. We have already set up the system for them to impose it, it's called multiculturalism. Napoleanic Code in Quebec, English Common Law in most of Canada and don't forget the First Nations, they are on their way to impose tribal healing. It's only a matter of time unless we wake up and do something about it.

Well said, Antenor. And most Candians are sleepwalking, totally unaware of this monster in their midst. Actually, if they should find out, the "equity and diversity" brainwashing's been so complete, many would rush to give the monster a friendly pat. Won't they be surprised when it savages them? And many would still have pity and counsel understanding and leniency. Ludicrous! That's often Canada these days.

And guess who's considered out of it and extreme? Not the extremists, but those who expose them. Oh, Canada!

...the million dollar question:

where do we stop?

I have no quarrel with Hutterites, there are certainly enough in this area, and they are considered good neighbors. However, not all is sweetness and light - a good friend once taught school at a colony, and couldn't take the physical evidence of child abuse she saw about which she could do nothing, so left.

Sean, Spike:

I haven't seen a press report on this yet but I just heard on the news that, although they can get a drivers license without photo, it cannot be used for ID purposes.

Hutterites don't have a problem carrying and touching money with the Queen's picture on it. You'd think the Hutterite men would have a real problem carrying around many pieces of some strange english woman's soul in their pants pockets.

Could be the beginnings of a Stomp'n Tom country classic...

From George MacDonald Fraser's - The Light's on at Signpost ... WWII veteran ... memoirs.

On the British -

"regard themselves as a completely liberated society, when the fact is that they are less free than any generation before them since the Middle Ages. Indeed, there may never have been such an enslaved generation, in thrall to hang-ups, taboos, restrictions, and oppressions unknown to their ancestors.
They won't believe, of course, that they don't know what freedom is, and that we were freer by far fifty years ago ... We could say what we liked; they can't. We were not subject to the aggressive pressure of special interest minority groups; they are. We had no worries about race or sexual orientation; they have ... We could and did differ from fashionable opinion with impunity, and would have laughed political correctness to scorn."

"That political correctness should have become acceptable in Britain is a glaring symptom of the country's decline. For America . . . well, a country that could tolerate Clinton in the White House and Edward Kennedy in public view will buy anything, as P.T. Barnum observed, and the transatlantic tendency to embrace the latest craze is one of their more endearing traits, but for Britain to swallow - or at least to accept at the prompting of its media and supposed intelligentsia - the most pernicious doctrine to threaten the world since Communism and Fascism, with both of which it has much in common . . . that truly beggars belief."

uh, wait a minuite...

Since when were Hudderites extremists, or terrorists?

Save the venom for those who deserve it, at least 'till they start running around in exploding combines.

ODE TO THE New Hutterian Brethren.
written for stomping tom.

Theres a tear in my eye.
Cuz the Queen is on the five.

My licence has expired.
and since my photo is retired- I havent any ID to buy beer.

I married in the colony.
my cousin she is all for me.
but at least she's of a different sex.

I feel fully protected.
educated but dejected.
cuz the feds now tax me just the same.

I dont often vote.
I think the gov.s a joke .
but I grab my subsidies like everyone else.

theres a tear in my beer.
cuz the anglos left me here.
just raisin' up the chickens and the goats.
theres a tear in my beer
cuz the anglos left me here.
and in the end all but the reserves I'll own

"An apron to hide behind while thumbing your nose at the very society that protects/feeds you!"

Better to feed and protect ourselves than to rely on society to do it for us, nie?

Personally, I'd love to see Driver's Licenses go the way of the dodo. I view them with the same suspicion as I do the gun registry and the SIN program, and we all know how well those last two worked out.

One obvious solution would be to simply remove photos from driver licences. We had licences for umpteen years without photos and it didn't seem to be a problem.

Of course, that would mean a licence could no longer be used as a form of ID but merely proof the bearer is legally entitled to drive a vehicle.

Which is what a licence is SUPPOSED to be anyway.

How about fishing licences for residents .
There is no way that the cost is covered with the fee.
It's just a tax that costs more to collect than the fees paid.
Net loss, with no benefit.

Ban the Burka, and one law for all!

Actually, penalty weighted requirements to register your facial identification record with the government violates everyone's civil liberties.....why do the Hutterites get a break from big brother while the rest of us must march onward like sleep walking March hares down the rabbit hole of electronic face scans,bio ID, RFID and video surveillance...all for the "privilege" of charter guaranteed mobility?

Check out page B9, of todays, May 10 issue of the Lethbridge Hearld. You will see the class photos of two colony schools, who won a recycling challenge. Livingston Colony and Armada Colony. One of the prizes is a Digital Camera. I think it will get a lot of use.

"Of course, that would mean a licence could no longer be used as a form of ID but merely proof the bearer is legally entitled to drive a vehicle..."

No - the license without a picture (or other biometric - maybe a fingerprint) serves only as proof that someone is legally entitled to drive an automobile. Without a verification of identity you have no way to determine if that someone is actually the someone currently in the driver's seat. I go back to the "driving is not a right" argument - if you don't want your picture taken, that's fine; but you can't drive without a photo license.

We are ALL equal....Of course,SOME of us are more equal than others....

"Without a verification of identity you have no way to determine if that someone is actually the someone currently in the driver's seat."

Yes - but so what?

There are all kinds of permits and licences that require nothing more than an address and a signature.

My point here is simply this: is it it a driver's permit or an ID card?

"Without a verification of identity you have no way to determine if that someone is actually the someone currently in the driver's seat."

Yes - but so what?

There are all kinds of permits and licences that require nothing more than an address and a signature.

My point here is simply this: is it a driver's permit or an ID card?

JJM:

Hmmm... I wonder how many driver's licences with no picture have a first name: "its time for androgeny" it's "PAT".

I think a lot of Muslim ladies will be driving trucks through this ruling.

They wouldn't have to worry about getting their picture taken, if they weren't trying to obtain a driver's liscence.

No picture, no liscence.

This just goes to show the total stupidity of any organized relion. It's all dogma and a total waste of paper. How immigrants use the law. Eg. That chinese student in Ontario killed that little Chnese girl. He wants to stay in prison here. Why because if he was sent back to China he'd be executed. Send him back. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom to not obey the law. It's like the Air India disaster. The Sikh community is responsible. They practise Terrorism to get an independant Sikh state. I'd kick the guilty out of Canada. They arrange murders of Canadian Sikh brides in India. There was a good report of this on the CBC. These people have no right to be in Canada. They feed rats because they are considered lucky. Rats!! Someday when people are free they will abandon religion and work with their brains and concience. There are no God's laws. There are laws that are humane and laws that are not. Man made these laws not a god.

Dear "ok4ua":

Thank you for that rant.

I hope you feel better for getting that of your chest.

Dear "ok4ua":

Thank you for that rant.

I hope you feel better for getting that off your chest.

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.