# Hutterites Win Religeous Exemption On Drivers Licenses



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

This is just plain wrong. No group for any reason should be allowed to reject security on drivers licenses.

“EDMONTON - Alberta Hutterites won the legal right Thursday to carry driver's licences without photos, but other motorists hoping to discard IDs with unflattering pictures are out of luck.
The right to be issued a photo-less licence only applies to persons with a proven religious objection to being photographed, said Eoin Kenny, a spokesman for Service Alberta. "My photo makes me look fat is not a well-founded religious belief," Kenny said.
The only motorists who will be issued the licences are those who can document a "well-established opposition" to being photographed, he said. The registrar of motor vehicles will then decide on a case-by-case basis. About 80 such licences are already in use by Hutterites.”


http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourn....html?id=c03127c8-f088-4f15-acf2-82692b861d47


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Absolutely wrong decision. If they are religiously opposed to having a photo license then they are religiouly opposed to meeting the requirements of driving in Alberta.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

stupid idea to allow some not to show their photo on their driver's licence

oh wait, it's Alberta...
never mind


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver, SINC just posted one link. It's in the Globe & Mail for goodness' sake!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Edmonton Journal, a 100 year plus institution in our city is hardly an "online rag".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

SINC said:


> The Edmonton Journal, a 100 year plus institution in our city is hardly an "online rag".


What, no SunShine girl?


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

tell the hutterites the stone age is calling.

the do know that their photo is taken daily by security cameras everywhere they go, right?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> tell the hutterites the stone age is calling.
> 
> the do know that their photo is taken daily by security cameras everywhere they go, right?


They better watch out for their car mirrors too, I heard they steal your soul.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

HowEver: I don't need to know what kind of thought went into such a bad decision. We are discussing the decision, not some confused thinking that might have resulted in that decision.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

What a load of bunk.

We don't life in a religious society. We live in a secular society. There are rules to our society.

You cannot stone your cheating wife.

You cannot forbid your daughter from getting an education.

You cannot burn someone at the stake because they may be a witch.

Absolutely stupid of the government to bend the rules for these people. As a mass protest, everyone in Alberta should claim this religious belief and have their pictures removed.

Hutterites exempt from driver's licence photos: Appeal Court


> Members believe the second commandment in the Bible ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image") prohibits them from willingly having their picture taken.


Sounds like a simple solution. Force them to have their pictures taken.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A simpler solution. They can choose to ride bicycles.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

guytoronto said:


> Absolutely stupid of the government to bend the rules for these people.


For the record, it was in fact the Government of Alberta who appealed the decision to the Court of Queen's Bench, but lost. They had no wish to bend the rules. They are now considering taking an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Once again, judges make the rules, but such is the case with our broken judicial system.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

This is simply a case where government legislation interfered with a well-established religious groups constitutional right to freedom of religion.

The government was not able to demonstrably justify that demanding a photograph on a drivers license was a reasonable limit on religion in our society.

Back when this story broke, probably over a year ago, the lawyer defending the colony told CBC Radio One that the license that is issued does not carry the same weight as the picture ones and that it can't be used for ID in the same way that the standard license is.

This is simply and only a permit to drive, just like a non-photo fishing license is a permit to fish. It has no other use.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> HowEver: I don't need to know what kind of thought went into such a bad decision. We are discussing the decision, not some confused thinking that might have resulted in that decision.


And thus spoke the so-called Libertarian.

What ever happened to the philosophy that persons and their actions with the government should be voluntary?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

A bit more information:

The Calgary Sun - Province loses Hutterite photo battle

No photo required for some Hutterite drivers

Apparently some Hutterites, not all, believe it's a sin to get your picture taken. In my view, if your a country that is going to accept people of all religions and allow them to practice their religions, then you're going to have to make exceptions like this. Besides, what's the problem? Hutterites aren't exactly commiting crimes or having people pretending they are Hutterites, and apparently the licenses for these few are made using other security features. Big deal! must be a slow news day... oh wait, this is Alberta... they're trying to distract us from gas prices...

I frankly have a different problem with all this "secure" identification these days. As we're being asked to put more of our "identity" on identification cards such as photographs, thumb prints, retina scans. I think we're putting more of our "identity" at risk. We're giving away more information that can be stolen.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

zoziw said:


> The government was not able to demonstrably justify that demanding a photograph on a drivers license was a reasonable limit on religion in our society.


Important point. The test is not necessarily adherence to some non-existent pure form of secularism. That would be to assume away religion then have it argued back into society on a "make no waves" test. The test is, I think, when there is conflict, what is reasonable? I think it would be difficult to argue the security angle and that may be why the specific statement about established religion appeared. 

The religion was not established to get around photo id rules, it preceded them. That would be different than the Beej Church of Getting Around Rules, est. 2007. beejacon


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Double.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> oh wait, this is Alberta... they're trying to distract us from gas prices...


Shhh. :greedy:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

zoziw said:


> This is simply a case where government legislation interfered with a well-established religious groups constitutional right to freedom of religion.


Their religion existed well before cars were on the road. Therefore, a picture requirement on a driver's license does NOT interfere with their freedom of religion. The religion has no basis for usage of motor vehicles in the 21st century. If their religion does allow for all aspects required to operate a motor vehicle, then they should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.



zoziw said:


> The government was not able to demonstrably justify that demanding a photograph on a drivers license was a reasonable limit on religion in our society.


The government did a ****-poor job in court then.



zoziw said:


> Back when this story broke, probably over a year ago, the lawyer defending the colony told CBC Radio One that the license that is issued does not carry the same weight as the picture ones and that it can't be used for ID in the same way that the standard license is.
> 
> This is simply and only a permit to drive, just like a non-photo fishing license is a permit to fish. It has no other use.


Good. Now if the insurance companies don't like it, will they end up in court?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Their religion existed well before cars were on the road. Therefore, a picture requirement on a driver's license does NOT interfere with their freedom of religion.


The issue is pictures, not cars.

This isn't new, when driver's licenses came out they did not have pictures on them, later, when pictures were added, an exemption was put in place for Hutterites and similar groups. This exemption was only recently revoked and so they took it to court and got the exemption put back in place.

During the trial, they had temporary licenses issued with no pictures on them.

So things will continue on just as they always have and it hasn't caused any problems in the past.

Again, these are simply permits to drive and are roughly equivalent to a fishing license as far as ID goes.



> The government did a ****-poor job in court then.


I doubt that. I keep an eye on court rulings involving religion and the freedom of religion clause in the Charter is as powerful as any other, including freedom of speech. I also suspect that the Alberta government can afford very good lawyers.



> Good. Now if the insurance companies don't like it, will they end up in court?


I'm not aware of any problems with the Hutterites and insurance.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Regarding the quote in the OP

"well-founded religious belief"...

This one goes in my oxymoron collection. Made my day.

cheers


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Oh, the wonderful Hutterites:



> Hutterite colonies are male-managed with women participating in stereotypically feminine roles


Where are the feminist groups picketing outside the villages?



> Although Hutterites attempt to remove themselves from the outside world (televisions are forbidden, though tapes, CDs and radios are not), and many of the Lehrerleut and Dariusleut (Alberta) colonies still only have one central phone, the majority of the Schmiedeleut already have phones in each household and place of business.


So they can't even decide on what their religion actually believes in. Solid!



> Music is officially permitted only in vocal form, however, some colonies allow instruments. Even where instruments are banned, they are sometimes brought out behind the back of the Minister (with a wink and a nod), to the enjoyment of all.


To bad they can't give a "wink and a nod" to drivers license pictures.

Hutterite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you read the whole article, you see they bend their religion when it suits them. Sounds like a very convenient religion indeed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> If you read the whole article, you see they bend their religion when it suits them.


Sounds like how everyone leads their life, bending their personal ethics to suit them.

The government, apparently, could not make their case. Maybe they'll win at the SC, but the Charter was designed to protect certain freedoms and not allow back-door discrimination. I do not consider this case an easy one, particularly because it combines the challenge of determining "reasonableness" in combination with religious freedoms that inherently differentiate individuals. 

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms: set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

A clearer case would be something like not allowing people to wear a hijab in public (without the confusion of specific settings, such as a soccer match?). Saying that freedom of religion is protected, but then banning aspects of a religion is just back-door discrimination, thus the reasonableness test. 

But, as a strange hypothetical, is it okay to ban anyone whose religion does not include wearing a hijab, from wearing one? 

Not easy stuff to deal with, but skipping the 'theoretical' indignation stage could help. Are you really bothered by having to provide a picture; and, does it really threaten you in some way that a Hutterite does not? 

This is not the same as being bothered because everyone does not have to (misery loves company). Consider the two questions as separate. 

I also do not mean that the other point of view on "equal" treatment for all is ignored, it's just another way to consider a matter when "equal" is easier said than identified (vis a vis religious freedom, for example).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: You're looking at this question like an economist. There are certain requirements for driving in Alberta. The real question is--how far should the province bend over to cajole Hutterites to drive on the Hutterites' own terms? The most I would agree to here is to allow any Hutterite who previously drove without a photo to continue to do so until they die--or their license lapses.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> The most I would agree to here is to allow any Hutterite who previously drove without a photo to continue to do so until they die--or their license lapses.


Agreed, they should follow the rules of law as set down by the province. If not they are free to leave, or relinquish the privilege of driving for new drivers. I can live with a grandfather clause on current no pic licenses.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The real question is--how far should the province bend over to cajole Hutterites to drive on the Hutterites' own terms?


You sure you are a Libertarian? They more you write, the more you sound like a fascist/con hybrid...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: Typical of your ilk, you confuse libertarianism with anarchy.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

:yawn: 
Quite the difference between a pragmatic minarchist and someone who's always asking for corporate welfare and the suspension of personal freedom...
Like I said, you'd make a fine corporatist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

AS: You are a crashing bore. Find one post on EhMac that suggests I support corporate welfare. If you can't do that, please stifle yourself.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

So you agree with the stifling of personal freedoms?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

No, I agree with the freedom to request fools to stifle themselves.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> So you agree with the stifling of personal freedoms?


This has nothing to do with stifling of personal freedoms. We can't just "choose" to have things our own way, and expect it.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> There are certain requirements for driving in Alberta.


And the Hutterites have to meet those requirements, however, a photo has no impact on a person's ability to drive, it is just for ID purposes and the Hutterite licenses can't be used for ID like our licenses can.

This is the way it has always been and it hasn't caused problems in the past.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> So they can't even decide on what their religion actually believes in. Solid!


There are different sects of Hutterites, some more conservative, some more liberal and that article does not do a good job of distinguishing between the two when mentioning what is allowed and isn't.

The photograph issue only applies to a small group of hutterites, most don't have an issue with it and many have photo driver's licenses.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> This has nothing to do with stifling of personal freedoms. We can't just "choose" to have things our own way, and expect it.


According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stifling freedom of religion is stifling a personal freedom.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

zoziw said:


> According to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stifling freedom of religion is stifling a personal freedom.


My religion says my daughters should not attend school.

My religion says that my seriously ill son can be cured with a bath of fruit juice.

My religion says I should stone my wife to death for flirting with another man.

My religion says I should fly two airplanes into the World Trade Center.


You want your religion? You're free to have it. Want to be part of our society? You follow our secular rules.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

zoziw: You make a huge and fundamental error in confusing someone stifling someone's religious freedom, and that Hutterite choosing not to meet the requirements of a driver's license in Alberta--and thus not driving. 

If my religion prevented me from getting a driver's license at all because it would force me to bow down to an earthly authority--and yet I could demonstrate superior driving skills--would my religious freedoms be stifled by being forced to get a license?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

guytoronto said:


> My religion says my daughters should not attend school.
> 
> My religion says that my seriously ill son can be cured with a bath of fruit juice.
> 
> ...


You misunderstand what the Charter says.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> zoziw: You make a huge and fundamental error in confusing someone stifling someone's religious freedom, and that Hutterite choosing not to meet the requirements of a driver's license in Alberta--and thus not driving.


Photo ID was never a requirement for a driver's license for a hutterite and remains so today, even during the court hearings they had temporary non-pictures licenses. Nothing has changed.



> If my religion prevented me from getting a driver's license at all because it would force me to bow down to an earthly authority--and yet I could demonstrate superior driving skills--would my religious freedoms be stifled by being forced to get a license?


That is a different question than the one the court addressed and I don't know the answer to it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

guytoronto said:


> Hutterite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hmmm, some pretty gaping holes and inaccuracies in Wiki...


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Hmmm, some pretty gaping holes and inaccuracies in Wiki...


So fill them in.



zoziw said:


> You misunderstand what the Charter says.


You claim the government's requirement that there be a picture on the drivers license infringes on the Hutterite's religious beliefs. Apparently, the government couldn't justify having a picture on the license for simple driving permit purposes, so therefore it is unreasonable to require people with religious objections to be forced to comply.

So what if my religious belief is to "not be constrained in any manner", including wearing a seat-belt in a car?

Oh,btw, how do you verify that the person holding the permit is the actual person it was issued to? By going by height, hair colour, and eye colour? Good thing not too many people are 5'11"-ish, with brown hair, and bluish-grey eyes.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> So what if my religious belief is to "not be constrained in any manner", including wearing a seat-belt in a car?


This hypothetical misses the concept of an established religion, versus one created on the spot to get out of something and, by all means, take it to court and see what happens. 

If you read the Charter, it is a balancing act without instantaneous obvious answers to all of these types of questions. This is because it is difficult to differentiate when the government is imposing reasonable limits to our freedoms and unreasonably violating others. Alternatively, we could have an ad hoc justice system with no underlying principles...that could work in the information age, but I'd hate to live under it.

It is not just about a person choosing to jump through the hoops to take part in a public activity (get a picture, go for a drive...otherwise no); the validity of the hoops comes into question because our governments' freedom to make rules is constrained. That's why there is a question of harm from not having the picture.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> There are certain requirements for driving in Alberta. The real question is--how far should the province bend over to cajole Hutterites to drive on the Hutterites' own terms?


Not necessarily the relevant question. Governments do not have complete freedom in setting requirements (notwithstanding the notwithstanding clause  ), but your construct seems to assume the, "certain requirements" are not in question.

It is not how far the province should bend over, but how far people can be forced to bend over, given a certain set of fundamental freedoms balanced against general societal interests. You seem to have the analysis reversed. This could be because, implicitly when fundamental freedoms involve subjective things (e.g. religion) then it can result in a form of inequality.

This seems to be such a marginal issue (but with potentially significant consequences) that I can see this being reversed in court, upheld or adapted to in another way (alternative metric for IDing?).


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> So what if my religious belief is to "not be constrained in any manner", including wearing a seat-belt in a car?


The issue at hand is having a photograph on a driver's license and I am unaware of any challenges to the seatbelt law based on religious belief. The court would have to decide this issue separately on it's own merits.



> Oh,btw, how do you verify that the person holding the permit is the actual person it was issued to? By going by height, hair colour, and eye colour? Good thing not too many people are 5'11"-ish, with brown hair, and bluish-grey eyes.


The court apparently felt that between height, weight, hair colour, eye colour, date of birth and having your signature on the license, that there would be enough information to be able to identify the person.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Since we have firmly established that picture is not a requirement of a drivers license, can anyone now request a picture-less license?

If no, why not? Requiring someone to be of a certain "faith" to get the same advantages from the government screams of discrimination.

I can think of at least a few reasons not to have a picture on your driver's license, none of them religious.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I prefer not to have my photo on a license--who in their right mind wants to look at that for the next few years? Our level of discomfort with the photo ID is probably equal. The only difference between my protest and that of the Hutterites is that they are calling on a religious authority to back up their demands. 

In essence, the validity of the religious belief--not any other quantifiable factor--is what the court is being asked to judge.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Non-religious people who don't want their picture on their driver's license would have to bring their own arguments as to why this violated their Charter rights before the courts and have those arguments evaluated on their own merits.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

On what "merit" do you suppose the Hutterites might expect favourable treatment, zoziw?

What argument would you present on their behalf?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> On what "merit" do you suppose the Hutterites might expect favourable treatment, zoziw?
> 
> What argument would you present on their behalf?


It would seem at this point that the argument made by their lawyers was successful so I would present that one.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

zoziw said:


> Non-religious people who don't want their picture on their driver's license would have to bring their own arguments as to why this violated their Charter rights before the courts and have those arguments evaluated on their own merits.


So, what you are saying is "that group of people fought for a certain right, but that right is not universal, it is based on religious beliefs". How is that not discriminatory?

Their argument is "we interpret the Bible to say we should not have our pictures taken". Fine. The court respects their belief. What about a personal belief that your picture should not be on your license? How is it fair and equal to say "That person's beliefs are more valid than yours"?



Macfury said:


> In essence, the validity of the religious belief--not any other quantifiable factor--is what the court is being asked to judge.


I would ask how any religious belief can be deemed "valid" since there is no supporting evidence for religion (sorry, 2000 year old books and ignorance of science just don't cut it for me).


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Their argument is "we interpret the Bible to say we should not have our pictures taken". Fine. The court respects their belief. What about a personal belief that your picture should not be on your license? How is it fair and equal to say "That person's beliefs are more valid than yours"?


You would have to take that up with the court.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> If no, why not? Requiring someone to be of a certain "faith" to get the same advantages from the government screams of discrimination.


Welcome to the protection of minority and other groupings' rights. It's a tricky area, even before looking outside the sphere of government rules.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: You would like it to be trickier than it is. 

Zoziw: Do you really know which argument was used by the Hutterite lawyers or are you just being coy?


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Beej: You would like it to be trickier than it is.
> 
> Zoziw: Do you really know which argument was used by the Hutterite lawyers or are you just being coy?


Here is the overview of the case the first time it went to court:

http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2006/chchlb18.htm

I haven't seen an overview of the most recent one yet but I imagine it was similar.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Beej: You would like it to be trickier than it is.


From Zoz's link:
"The Alberta government did not dispute that the new requirement that individuals be photographed in order to obtain an operator's license _violated the Hutterites' guarantees of freedom of religion and equality under the Charter_ (subsections 2(a) and 15(1) respectively), and accepted the sincerity of the Hutterites' beliefs in this regard. However, the government argued that the _regulation could be saved under section 1 of the Charter as the infringement of the Hutterites' religious freedom was "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."_4 In order for a court to accept that the infringement of Charter rights is demonstrably justified, _the government has the onus_ of showing that the legislation in question has a pressing and substantial objective, and the means the government has chosen to achieve the objective has been designed to minimally impair the Charter right in question and is proportional to their objective."



MF: Not within the current context. You may prefer another (different Charter/no Charter) and that could be a great discussion about systems that would have this matter be simpler and what else would change. But, within the current context (the relevant context to current legal decisions) it is tricky because the Charter explicitly calls for certain things, such as religion as a fundamental freedom. 

Note the comment on onus. You seem to be arguing your case within a different legal framework than Canada's current one. Perhaps you would like to argue it in another country's framework or one of your own creation? 

It is the Charter's 25th anniversary, so maybe you would like to start a, "What amendments do you want?" thread.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

guytoronto said:


> Oh,btw, how do you verify that the person holding the permit is the actual person it was issued to? By going by height, hair colour, and eye colour? Good thing not too many people are 5'11"-ish, with brown hair, and bluish-grey eyes.


Same way you verify my birth certificate is me! 

My birth certificate has no picture, why should a driver's license? Which by the way, as I was informed by a Border Security officer, is a more legitimate ID than my driver's license, yet it could describe a million different people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh: If I were to then argue my charrter rights to remove my photo from the driver's license, I would only have to show that it as good as my birth cerificate and that it has always afflicted my conscience to have such a graven image there. It shouldn't matter if others hold my belief--a religion of one is a minority's minority.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Update



> Canada's top court says a small Hutterite community in Alberta can be forced to have their photos taken to get a driver's licence.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Looks like the Supreme Court is on a roll, using the Charter to supress the right to freedom of conscience. Next they will be herding the Quakers into a plane so they can be forced to fight the Taliban.

It's time to fire these court cranks, and to stop with their endless assualt on decency, common sense, and our basic rights and freedoms - that for some reason, they seem even more keen on raping and denigrating the citizens of this nation with their perversions than ever before.

I see no problem in exempting the Hutterites - photo licenses are bogus since anyone these days can easily make their own with inexpensive computer equipment, an inkjet and PhotoSlop. They were exempted, had been exempted for a long time in which they never caused a problem with the exemption, so I see no problem with continuing the exemption.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> ^^^
> 
> ...It's time to fire these court cranks, and to stop with their endless assualt on decency, common sense, and our basic rights and freedoms - that for some reason, they seem even more keen on raping and denigrating the citizens of this nation with their perversions than ever before....


And we should replace them with which court cranks? The regular posters to the Ehmac Political sub forum? 

That should provide some scary decisions to protect the citizens from their Government.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BigDL said:


> And we should replace them with which court cranks? The regular posters to the Ehmac Political sub forum?


You are bring silly. I think Supreme Court justices should be subject to a similar process of vetting that nominees for the US Supreme Court go through, and should also be subject to Impeachment and Conviction proceedings for crimes done while in office. Here, it is all hush-hush, where the PM installs various cronies and filth into the Court. Our Supreme Court has long been a joke, and once the Constitution was patriated, it was open season on common sense and decency.

I think that justices should be professionals, and able to render decisions based on the facts, rather than on being the font of Law by other means. Too often they trample on the most basic of rights, in order to fulfill some sinful impulse. Too often they hear cases that are brought about by people who choose not to follow the regular means of writing laws, through the process of public debate, tabling of legislation, passage by Parliament and Royal Assent - but rather, who go out and commit some crazy crime then get the Court to overthrow a righteous law, because we all know that the law infringes on the Constitutional right to engage in self-aggrandizement by means of committing crimes.

In our Constitution, we engender the rights and freedoms of religion and conscience. We are also a nation that is composed of those who were oppressed in other countries for these very same reasons. The law, as it stood, allowed for certain exemptions based on this principle, and that Hutterites would have a special means by which they could be exempt from onerous regulations. No where in the Constitution does it say that all citizens must submit to big brotherism, and no where does it say that all people are guilty until they get a photograph taken.



> That should provide some scary decisions to protect the citizens from their Government.


Any scarier than Supreme Court decisions that allow dope pushers to smuggle whatever they want - because the Police do not have the right to search and seizure of drug smugglers? Any scarier than allowing filth like Morgenthaler to grind up fetuses because it is his right to overturn law by breaking the law, in order to satisfy his need to kill and murder whatever he pleases? Any scarier than the Supreme Court to make rulings where First Nations children are shipped off to far away schools in order to have their cultural identity stripped away, or where immigrants are persecuted because they may want to hang a sign in their store?

There is enough shame in Alberta with the corrupt Stelmach government running rampant over the rights of people all around, without the Supreme Court shoveling even more shame onto the situation.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

How are you supposed to prove that a license belongs to you without a picture? Give your head a shake when you say they should be allowed. What next, no pic on a passport?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

As much as my first reaction is that this decision is wrong-headed on the Supreme Court's part, the real issue is inconsistency. Either religious rights are constitutionally protected or they are not. You can't go around for years upholding Sihk and Muslim rights to have their religion supersede the laws of the land, only to declare that a another religion does not have such rights.


That being said, as long as they are not forced to HAVE a driver's license, this should still be OK. Other Anabaptist sects are more luddite than the Hutterites, and don't drive motorized vehicles at all. Just stick to horses, and all is well.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> You are bring silly. I think Supreme Court justices should be subject to a similar process of vetting that nominees for the US Supreme Court go through, and should also be subject to Impeachment and Conviction proceedings for crimes done while in office. Here, it is all hush-hush, where the PM installs various cronies and filth into the Court. Our Supreme Court has long been a joke, and once the Constitution was patriated, it was open season on common sense and decency.


Yes! Yes I was being silly. 

My thinking, the Excited States system, is a zany zoo always waiting to happen. Giving politicians a stage to perform and expecting them not to act out, is silly.



EvanPitts said:


> I think that justices should be professionals, and able to render decisions based on the facts, rather than on being the font of Law by other means. Too often they trample on the most basic of rights, in order to fulfill some sinful impulse. Too often they hear cases that are brought about by people who choose not to follow the regular means of writing laws, through the process of public debate, tabling of legislation, passage by Parliament and Royal Assent - but rather, who go out and commit some crazy crime then get the Court to overthrow a righteous law, because we all know that the law infringes on the Constitutional right to engage in self-aggrandizement by means of committing crimes.
> 
> In our Constitution, we engender the rights and freedoms of religion and conscience. We are also a nation that is composed of those who were oppressed in other countries for these very same reasons. The law, as it stood, allowed for certain exemptions based on this principle, and that Hutterites would have a special means by which they could be exempt from onerous regulations. No where in the Constitution does it say that all citizens must submit to big brotherism, and no where does it say that all people are guilty until they get a photograph taken.


The purpose of the supreme court is to review all laws in relationship to the basic laws of our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The professional lawyers/judges become supreme court justices after demonstrating their skills in an on the job situation. 



EvanPitts said:


> Any scarier than Supreme Court decisions that allow dope pushers to smuggle whatever they want - because the Police do not have the right to search and seizure of drug smugglers? Any scarier than allowing filth like Morgenthaler to grind up fetuses because it is his right to overturn law by breaking the law, in order to satisfy his need to kill and murder whatever he pleases? Any scarier than the Supreme Court to make rulings where First Nations children are shipped off to far away schools in order to have their cultural identity stripped away, or where immigrants are persecuted because they may want to hang a sign in their store?


The Supreme Court correctly limits the authority of governments and its agents, thereby protecting the citizens and people in this country from undue interference from the governments.

When the agents (i.e. Police) of the state do wrong, as an example and overstep their authority with an accused person, the courts have to make the call that the agents of the state are the evil doers. The courts can not make things right by committing another wrong and convict the accused.

This logic protects us all. Emotionally we can react in a negative manner.

On the one hand the crooks should not be set free, however logically and sadly the only way to protect all of our rights is to correct the government(s) agent's misbehaviour.



EvanPitts said:


> There is enough shame in Alberta with the corrupt Stelmach government running rampant over the rights of people all around, without the Supreme Court shoveling even more shame onto the situation.


In my view the saddest issue in all of this is that the majority of Ehmac citizen and citizens of the world are willing to give up freedom for the security of their picture on a document to feel safer. A picture on a piece of paper makes you no safer than your signature on a piece of paper and proves the same thing.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> How are you supposed to prove that a license belongs to you without a picture? Give your head a shake when you say they should be allowed. What next, no pic on a passport?


Whether or not a license has a photo means nothing when it comes to ID - considering the fact that faking such documents is entirely easy with the preponderance of computers, scanners, and PhotoShopping capabilities that the average 9 year old can handle.

I see no problem in granting a religious minority the recourse of another form of ID - which in fact, is entirely the system that was already in place with set exemptions. Making such demands is simply knee-jerk politicizing of a non-issue. I don't think your average Al Qaida dude collecting cahs for terrorism is going to resort to hanging out in the remote parts of Alberta, posing as a Hutterite.

As for passports - they are a sad device that provides nothing more than a false set of pretentious "security". As if fake passports are entirely unknown and impossible to make.

It comes down to the fact that our Constitution provides for the right to religion and the freedom of conscience, and for the Hutterites, graven images are a significant no-no. In other circumstances, we entirely provide for such situations - so why this peculiar exemption. I nfact, why was this ever an "issue" in the first place, as the Government long practiced the issuance of special licenses in these cases, and had no problem doing so. It just sounds too much like a bunch of religious loonies wanting to impose fake law and order down those who they look down upon. Of course, what makes this even more sad is the fact that the Supreme Court saw fit, once again, to not uphold the Constitution and our body of laws and social mores, but rather, disenfrachise a minority because of religious belief.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The Amish don't drive. They let you take pictures of them.
> 
> I too think that photos on drivers licenses would be better replaced with fingerprints and DNA sampling. Install a microchip in our necks that must match the info on the drivers license.


^^^
Much like a Jennifer Government.

It's all about having Big Brother monitoring every single move of the law abiding citizen, while allowing criminal scum the run of the world without any real punishment - and then side swiping minorities along the way because it is obvious that the Supreme Court has never respected the citizens of this nation, nor the Constitution that they use as toilet paper when they subvert the rights of man for their own special interest payoffs.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MazterCBlazter said:


> When new licenses are issued, you get a temporary one which is just a yellow piece of paper until the real one shows up.


It depends; the only paper (temp) license I was issued was for fishing.

When I moved to Quebec and got my healthcare card I was issued a temporary plastic card without a photo. When I transferred my driver's license, I had a fresh card (with photo) within 10 minutes.

There's a level of legitimacy with photo ID--it's something that not just anybody can fake--and they are getting more sophisticated that it's incredibly difficult for one to fake. There are automated services that allow one to use a kiosk to pay fees, update information, etc. without ever having to set foot in a bureau to complete tasks that at one time required one to stand in a line for hours on end.

I'd rather use ID cards than paper ID any day, what with ID theft being what it is today.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Let's keep in the right time zone here. The Supreme Court ruled that they must have their photos on the licenses.
So the Hutterites lost their case.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

BigDL said:


> My thinking, the Excited States system, is a zany zoo always waiting to happen. Giving politicians a stage to perform and expecting them not to act out, is silly.


I think it has validity - many people who would be given fat paying appointments end up going down in flames. Not to mention that the US has an actual method of impeachment of corrupt public officials - while in Canada they just end up appointed to the Senate.



> The purpose of the supreme court is to review all laws in relationship to the basic laws of our Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The professional lawyers/judges become supreme court justices after demonstrating their skills in an on the job situation.


To bad that theory is not applied in practice.



> When the agents (i.e. Police) of the state do wrong, as an example and overstep their authority with an accused person, the courts have to make the call that the agents of the state are the evil doers. The courts can not make things right by committing another wrong and convict the accused.


The Court ruled that drug busts are illegal - unless the police first five the pusher / smuggler prior notice. The police didn't go Abscam, didn't set anyone up - the pusher was caught fair and square and should be hanged for the crimes committed. In this case, the Court decided just the very opposite of what you stated - that the Government has the full authority to impose draconian measures and to remove civil liberties as they see fit, especially if it is a religious monority. So much for protecting the Constitution, or even common sense.



> On the one hand the crooks should not be set free, however logically and sadly the only way to protect all of our rights is to correct the government(s) agent's misbehaviour.


The police didn't do anything wrong, the caught a dope smuggler in the act. Thus, the Court has stated that the Police do not have the right to do their job because it infringes on the right of the criminal to commit crime.



> In my view the saddest issue in all of this is that the majority of Ehmac citizen and citizens of the world are willing to give up freedom for the security of their picture on a document to feel safer. A picture on a piece of paper makes you no safer than your signature on a piece of paper and proves the same thing.


That's how feudalism started - giving up freedom in exchange for security. In these cases, however, freedom is surrendered for a faux security, by stomping over the Constitution once again. The sad thing is that Canadians do this without expecting the Court to do what is right, or for them to be held accountable - thus, the Court has free reign over altering whatever it feels like, in return for whatever payola they are stuffing into their pockets.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> Let's keep in the right time zone here. The Supreme Court ruled that they must have their photos on the licenses.
> So the Hutterites lost their case.


As Canadians, we have accepted the repudiation of our Constitutional rights and freedoms of religion and conscience. The Hutterites loss is everybody's loss because Governments now can demand pretty much anything they choose, so long as it is for some purpose of faux security. The Supreme Court has once again wiped their arses with the Constitution.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> There's a level of legitimacy with photo ID--it's something that not just anybody can fake--and they are getting more sophisticated that it's incredibly difficult for one to fake.


Yeah - it requires a computer, a scanner, and inkjet printer of some decent quality, and PhotoShop - pretty sophisticated stuff.

The whole issue is so bogus, and is nothing more than an act of persecution foisted upon the citizen by the bigoted and racist Stelmach Government who has nothing better to do than to attack religious minorities. It's not like there is no alternative, for years the Government has made alternative ID available, and had zero problems with it.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

How can mandatory photo ID for driver's licenses be bigoted or racist when it applies to _everyone_?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

MannyP Design said:


> How can mandatory photo ID for driver's licenses be bigoted or racist when it applies to _everyone_?


It's bigoted against their freedom of religion, because their religion forbids having pictures taken for any reason. Other religions have won the right to stick to less reasonable tenets of their faith.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

bsenka said:


> It's bigoted against their freedom of religion, because their religion forbids having pictures taken for any reason. Other religions have won the right to stick to less reasonable tenets of their faith.


AND YET ... Hutterites have appeared in ads, been willingly interviewed for TV news shows, and are aware that CCTV security cameras take their pictures when they drive into town, park in parking garages, get passports, their community shows up on Google Earth etc.

It seems to me that this is something they (other than some hard-core extremists) are willing to be realistic about. Taking the Bible literally means standing on some REALLY SHAKY moral and legal ground in the 21st century (the explicit endorsement of slavery among MANY other examples), and any sane person knows it. Talk to any non-Orthodox Jews you might know about how their observance of the laws of the Torah has changed and adapted with the times.

The fact of the matter is that the phrase "graven image" is itself a translation into English of a less specific (and multiply-translated-and-interpreted) phrasing handed down from King James, not god so much. It's certainly very open to interpretation at the very least. For example, digital photography doesn't involve "photogravure," ergo it doesn't seem to qualify under a literal interpretation, so the DL licenses (which are all digital now) should be fine.

Of course, one COULD argue that things like this just prove that the Bible is not really a holy book at all (except by tradition), as more and more of it is shown to be outdated and even wrong ... but don't mind us heathens, you just enjoy that shrimp scampi and those 3-cheese smokies and don't listen to us ...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bsenka said:


> It's bigoted against their freedom of religion, because their religion forbids having pictures taken for any reason. Other religions have won the right to stick to less reasonable tenets of their faith.


Fair enough. Any insight to EP's racist comment?


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

[deleted by user]


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> AND YET ... Hutterites have appeared in ads, been willingly interviewed for TV news shows, and are aware that CCTV security cameras take their pictures when they drive into town, park in parking garages, get passports, their community shows up on Google Earth etc.


It isn't that all Hutterites are opposed to such things - but there are sects of those among them that are more "orthodox" than others. It isn't as if the Hutterites in question all of a sudden got up and opposed such measures - and for a period of thirty years, the Alberta Government had alternate measures by which such people could obtain a license while opting out of photo ID. If it was entirely acceptable for thirty years, why all of a sudden is it a problem now?

The whole "security" thing is a scam - no Al Qaida dude is going to go live in remote parts of Alberta and fake-claim to be a Hutterite in order to avoid having photo-ID. The Government makes all kinds of exceptions, all the time, and has no problem, so why has the Supreme Court seen fit to act in a flippant and disrespectful manner when it comes to religious freedoms in this case?



> Taking the Bible literally means standing on some REALLY SHAKY moral and legal ground in the 21st century (the explicit endorsement of slavery among MANY other examples), and any sane person knows it. Talk to any non-Orthodox Jews you might know about how their observance of the laws of the Torah has changed and adapted with the times.


Of course, this is the same flippant attitude that the Supreme Court has dished out. I do not see how attempting to live a lifestyle that pursues a specific set of religious tenets, tenets that do not bring about criminal activities or attacks against others, is "really shaky". Considering that our nation is made up of refugees, people who came here to forge a life free of religious discrimination, and that out nation has long expressed the freedom of conscience with repect to such things in other nations - this is one pretty bad brown stain. We are saying that we have "freedom of religion", but only if you don't "follow the Bible".

I think the fact that it was a close decision states that the Court was really split about this matter, and that at least some of the judges thought that the Constitution and the Charter of Rights actually has some validity in this world.

To the Orthodox Jew - those that are not Orthodox are infidel - just like in other faiths where, say, Sunni Muslims look upon the Shi'a as not being with the program. I say, who cares, it all comes down to the fact that these Hutterites, who came to this country to escape discrimination and persecution, with to engage in a lifestyle that is legal, legitimate, and does not attack other people or that promotes no criminal activity. Their wish is to be able to follow the tenets of their religion and free from persecution. No one is saying that the Hutterites want to enslave people, or rape Philistine women, or any other craziness - what they are saying is that for a period of thirty years, a Government provided alternate means by which they could obtain proper ID, and that the change of mind is nothing more than an attack on their religious rights.

By your measure, just because some Jews decided that ham is yummy, doesn't mean that Governments should be forcing the Orthodox to eat ham because the Torah is "old" and is on "really shaky" moral grounds. Instead, this nation is on pretty shaky grounds when we call out to other nations that they should respect the rights and freedoms of religion and conscience - then goes on to engage in persecution here, persecution that doesn't need to exist because de jour, the Goverment had already, for a long period of time, provided means by which such religious observants can obtain a license. For a Supreme Court judge to be so flippant and just say "oh, they can go hire some drivers" is just about as Jim Crow as the Southerner saying that the ****** should get back out in the fields to pick cotton.

This decision is an absolute abomination and a disgrace for this nation, and shows that we have a Supreme Court that does not repect the Constitution, or our Charter of Rights.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Fair enough. Any insight to EP's racist comment?


Any Government who really wanted to keep in step with our most fundamental laws - or at least to not wish to impose the calamity of Jim Crow, whould have simply dropped this silliness, and provided the same means of providing ID to those that have a consciencious objection to being photographed that the Government has long provided, for at least thirty years.

With this precident, Stelmach and others can choose to impose whatever kind of racial or bigoted policies they please - kind of like the bigotry that John Tory pledged to bring to Ontario but that the Electors wisely voted against. Unfortunately, such things are liable not to happen in the Jesus Land that Alberta has become, run by crass political opportunists, rather than the smart kinds of people they used to vote in in the old days.


----------

