Hutterites exempt from driver's licence photos: Appeal Court

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fotze

Dandelion Wine.

Is really good....

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Very true, but that is based on the assumption that a real religious freedom is at stake here, which is doubtful. Since there is very likely no real religious freedom involved here, merely religion being used for the expediency of advancing ulterior motives, then the hutterites' position is even weaker than the government's.

I missed the part where this phrase was backed by some kind of proof or facts. Could you remind me?

I'm just basing what I said on the Court of Appeal decision which, for the most part, didn't question the validity of the religious belief. It wasn't even open for debate whether the licensing scheme violated s. 2 of the Charter.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2...07abca0160.pdf

edit: That came off sounding really jerky. Not what was intended at all...

[Azure]

There is no religious clause in the Hutterite Constitution that requires them to NOT have pictures on their DL. Its simply a move by a few colonies to gain attention. And the last thing they want to do is take that constitution to court, and have a judge determine what is right, and what is wrong. Because the Hutterites do SO many others thing that are against their constitution, it isn't even funny.

I wonder how many of them pay taxes on the money they earn working 'outside' of the colony. Because they sure as heck don't turn that money over to the colony once they get it. Most of them keep it for themselves.

In order to travel to the US, they WILL get passports.

[Resolute 14]

You do not have the right to drive. You are given the priveledge to drive.

If you do not wish to follow the rules that grant you that priveledge, then you dont drive.

Bad ruling by the court.

[RedHot25]

Alright, found a longer article by chance here:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ional/National

"This is good news. Not being photographed is one of the Ten Commandments," said John Wurz, the head of the Wilson Hutterite colony, which belongs to the brethren that launched the court challenge.

About 30,000 live in Canada, and many believe that the Second Commandment, which forbids graven images, prohibits them from willfully having their picture taken. Some even believe it is a sin for that photograph to be seen by another person.

...

Madam Justice Carole Conrad wrote in yesterday's 37-page decision that driving is important to the Hutterites' communal way of life, and the lack of photo-free licences violated their Charter rights.

And as for...

Originally Posted by Azure

So much for traveling to the US. There is no way someone crosses the border without picture ID.

Despite yesterday's legal triumph, Mr. Wurz is already concerned that a U.S. requirement for all Canadian citizens to have passports by the end of 2008 to cross the border will land them in the courts again.

"It's getting harder to protect our rights with every law they make," he said, adding that it is already difficult for Hutterites to make border crossings with their current identification papers, which don't include photos.

[octothorp]

Standards really vary a lot from one colony to another. Some are really upstanding Christian communes, others are pretty lax in what the men get away with. My first exposure to a playboy magazine came on a hutterite colony.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

You do not have the right to drive. You are given the priveledge to drive.

If you do not wish to follow the rules that grant you that priveledge, then you dont drive.

Bad ruling by the court.

Thankfully, the Charter applies to government action. Even when that action involves the regulation of a privilege like driving.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

You do not have the right to drive. You are given the priveledge to drive.

If you do not wish to follow the rules that grant you that priveledge, then you dont drive.

Bad ruling by the court.

I, for one, DO have the right to drive. That may not be a "charter right," but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It has simply been accepted by our society, though, that the licensure system is a "necessary and justifiable" infringement on that right because it helps provide for the safety (i.e.,survival) of other road users.

Did the government argue the safety aspect, or did they focus solely on "fraud, identity theft, and terrorism" issues?

Fact is, we can't practically keep anyone off the road without incarcerating him. The licensure system really only acts as a deterrent, then, as it results in fines being issued after an offense has occurred. Now, though, the deterrence aspect no longer applies to Hutterites because they can escape fines simply by saying "wasn't me!"

[Cube Inmate]

Heh...the solution just occurred to me!

When pulled over by a cop, the first thing the cop should do is whip out a camera and shoot a picture of the driver. They may not be allowed to "willingly" have their pictures taken, but there's nothing stopping someone from shooting their pictures when they're out in public.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Heh...the solution just occurred to me!

When pulled over by a cop, the first thing the cop should do is whip out a camera and shoot a picture of the driver. They may not be allowed to "willingly" have their pictures taken, but there's nothing stopping someone from shooting their pictures when they're out in public.

Too bad. That would have been a fun defence to try on a Multi-Nova ticket. "But Your Worship, it's against my religion to have my picture taken!"

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I missed the part where this phrase was backed by some kind of proof or facts. Could you remind me?

I'm just basing what I said on the Court of Appeal decision which, for the most part, didn't question the validity of the religious belief. It wasn't even open for debate whether the licensing scheme violated s. 2 of the Charter.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb/2...07abca0160.pdf

edit: That came off sounding really jerky. Not what was intended at all...

Two things ... one, I hedged my comment by saying "very likely no real religious freedom" and for evidence I submit the pictures I see in the local weekly newspapers. The local colonies certainly have no issues with their pictures being taken by the newpapers.

No worries about your tone ... inflection gets lost too easily on-line.

[Burninator]

Huh, they don't look like the drinking type. In fact they look like the type that would spend a Friday night churning butter and listening to AM radio. Although most of the Hutterites I've seen aren't much for the eyes, so I could understand why they drink.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Huh, they don't look like the drinking type. In fact they look like the type that would spend a Friday night churning butter and listening to AM radio. Although most of the Hutterites I've seen aren't much for the eyes, so I could understand why they drink.

Talk about stereotyping...

Just like any other ethnic group...they have the good-looking ones, and the ugly ones. I guess it all depends on what you prefer.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Talk about stereotyping...

Just like any other ethnic group...they have the good-looking ones, and the ugly ones. I guess it all depends on what you prefer.

I should have added a , to make sure you knew I was joking, but I thought it was implied.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I should have added a , to make sure you knew I was joking, but I thought it was implied.

Hehe...

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

About 30,000 live in Canada, and many believe that the Second Commandment, which forbids graven images, prohibits them from willfully having their picture taken. Some even believe it is a sin for that photograph to be seen by another person.

That's hilarious. "Image" as written in the bible is a synonym for "idol" as in, don't worship any other gods besides me. It has nothing to do with your picture getting taken. I'm pretty sure photography wasn't even invented way back in 1300 B.C.

[burn_baby_burn]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Huh, they don't look like the drinking type. In fact they look like the type that would spend a Friday night churning butter and listening to AM radio. Although most of the Hutterites I've seen aren't much for the eyes, so I could understand why they drink.

They are not allowed to listen to the radio. Allthough many of them do. As long as the minister doesn't see it. Your ok.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Odd... aversion to photography must vary from colony to colony. I had the fortune to take a photography class with George Webber, an award winning photographer who's put out a book dedicated to life on a colony.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Within-I.../dp/1894856600

I remember him saying that working with Hutterites required a great deal of respect and always asking for permission. Some would refuse, while some obviously said yes.

As a side track: George's photography is simply stunning. His series at the King Eddie and the Blood reserve is amazing in how it perfectly captures individuals's emotions in their environment.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Despite yesterday's legal triumph, Mr. Wurz is already concerned that a U.S. requirement for all Canadian citizens to have passports by the end of 2008 to cross the border will land them in the courts again.

What court would they be landing in?

An Econoline Crush of Hutterites without photo ID won't get very far at the Coutts border crossing saying "you have to let us through because we don't like our picture taken".

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What court would they be landing in?

An Econoline Crush of Hutterites without photo ID won't get very far at the Coutts border crossing saying "you have to let us through because we don't like our picture taken".

And the whole 'well it is for religious reasons' won't pass either.