04
Aug
2009
Supreme Court rules against Hutterite’s religious freedoms Print E-mail
Current Affairs
Written by Jesse W Kline   

On July 24th, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against some of Alberta's Hutterite communities, ensuring they will no longer be exempt from being required to have photographs on their drivers licenses.

The Hutterites believe that photographs are prohibited by the second commandment. While that belief would seem to fall under their constitutional right to freedom of religion, the ruling states that being exempt from having their photograph taken on religious grounds does not satisfy Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that our rights and freedoms can be overridden if it can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." You can thank Trudeau for that one.

In his latest column written for the Western Standard, Pierre Lemieux examines the ruling and questions the need for photographs on government identification in the first place:

A drivers’ licencing system calls for adding photographs, which soon morph into a digital photo data base. What’s the next step? Biometric ID papers or RFID implants? Once you get into this logic, the end product will be a parent licencing system, a three-decade-old academic proposal based on the driver licencing model. The reason why no drivers’ licences should carry a picture is that we need to stop this drift – if we are too shy to question the whole system of licencing drivers.

Look at the big picture. The danger of official ID papers is that they allow the state to monitor individuals and, thus, to reduce the cost of enforcing and imposing growing regulation on them. Photographs on drivers’ licences (and on medicare cards) contributed much to the rise of government ID papers in Canada. When they bore no picture, they were less efficient. Blessed inefficiency!

Even the Supreme Court recognizes that requiring photo identification is a violation of the Hutterite's right to freedom of religion. The Hutterites originally came to Alberta because it offered them the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit. Not anymore apparently.

Not only is it disgraceful for the Alberta government to challenge the exemption, which to my knowledge has not created many problems in the past, it is also wrong that the Supreme Court thought that limiting their freedoms was justified, supposedly to protect identity theft.

Pierre Lemieux's full article can be found at westernstandard.ca

Update: Rob Breakenridge recently talked to Pierre Lemieux about this issue. You can hear the interview via the player below:

Share Link: Share Link: Bookmark Google Yahoo MyWeb Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Myspace Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Stumble Upon Slashdot identi.ca Twitter

Comments (0)
Write comment
Your Contact Details:
Comment:
[b] [i] [u] [url] [quote] [code] [img]   
:angry::0:confused::cheer:B):evil::silly::dry::lol::kiss::D:pinch:
:(:shock::X:side::):P:unsure::woohoo::huh::whistle:;):S
:!::?::idea::arrow:
Security
Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.
Last Updated on Monday, 10 August 2009 12:25
 

Latest Tweets