[guytoronto]

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.

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.

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]

.

 

[zoziw]

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]

Regarding the quote in the OP

"well-founded religious belief"...

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

cheers

 

[guytoronto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ArtistSeries]

: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]

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]

So you agree with the stifling of personal freedoms?

 

[Macfury]

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

 

[guytoronto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?