CTV News | Alta. Hutterites lose court fight over photos

Top Stories -   

Alta. Hutterites lose court fight over photos

Viewer

CTV News Video

CTV News: Terry Vogt on the court ruling
CTV Winnipeg: Sect says photos violate beliefs

Font-size:      Share  Print  Comments(125)

CTV.ca News Staff

Date: Fri. Jul. 24 2009 1:56 PM ET

Alberta Hutterites have lost their fight to be exempted from a law making digital photos mandatory for drivers to get new licences in the province.

The Hutterites, a Christian sect that believes being photographed violates their faith and way of life, have been allowed to carry special driving permits since 1974 - the year the government introduced photo licences.

But the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 4-3 on Friday to uphold provincial rules that went into effect in 2003 that make a digital photo universally mandatory for all new licences.

"The goal of setting up a system that minimizes the risk of identity theft associated with drivers' licences is a pressing and important public goal," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote.

"The universal photo requirement is connected to this goal and does not limit freedom (of) religion more than required to achieve it."

When Alberta offered the Hutterites a comprise in 2003 allowing permits without photos - with the proviso that photos must still be taken for a database - the Hutterites refused.

The Hutterites believe being photographed violates the second of the Ten Commandments forbidding idolatry.

McLachlin said those who won't comply with the rules could always hire drivers.

"Many businesses and individuals rely on hired persons and commercial transport for their needs, either because they cannot or choose not to drive," she wrote

McLachlin was joined in the majority by Justices Ian Binnie, Marie Deschamps and Marshall Rothstein.

Lawyers for the colony argued there was a lack of evidence to show that the special permits granted to Hutterites somehow constituted a security threat.

And Justice Rosalie Abella agreed, in a passionately-written dissent which was backed by Justices Louis LeBel and Morris Fish. She even suggested the majority ruling lets the Alberta government off the hook without proving religious rights were justifiably infringed.

"There is no evidence that in the context of several hundred thousand unphotographed Albertans, the photos of approximately 250 Hutterites will have any discernable impact on the province's ability to reduce identity theft," Abella wrote.

Abella said the security benefit of mandatory photos is slight, compared to the impact on a traditional community that was exempted for almost 30 years.

The result "imperils and contradicts human rights jurisprudence," Abella said.

The judgment on Friday overturns past victories by the Hutterites before the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, which struck down the photo rules as unconstitutional -- and a majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal which agreed.

The Hutterites believe that having their photo taken violates this biblical commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."

The Hutterites are one of three major sectarian groups -- the others being Mennonites and the Amish -- in Canada. They live a communal form of existence, the main tenets which were established under the initial leadership of Jacob Hutter.

Hutterites fled Russia, as well as parts of the U.S., for Canada in the early 20th Century to escape harassment and persecution.

Comments are now closed for this story

annie, ontario
said
0 0

The law trumps religion, thankfully.


Mark Toronto
said
0 0

The top court is starting to display common sense.


Conservative Mike
said
0 0

Way to go Supreme Court!

This would have set a stupid precedent had the Court singled out Hutterite Bretheren as a group that could be permitted to NOT have their photo taken.

This would have been a provision that clearly would have been absued. A picture of a person on a driver's license allows a police officer to determine if the person driving the vehicle is really that person, and is of legal age.

Not putting a picture on a license allows people (Hutterites included) to take advantage of the law, and would just facilitate underage and reckless driving. The last thing we would want would be for other groups (i.e. gangs, cults, etc) to start using freedom of religion to not get theri pictures put on important government documentation like a driver's license.


Zaphod
said
0 0

As much as I enjoy sharing and preserving cultures, rules are rules. That's what makes everyone equal.


Janet
said
0 0

Seemed like a no brainer but it was a close vote so I guess not. Seems simple; if the law says a picture is needed and you don't do pictures then ride a bike!


Shawn
said
0 0

I think that it is only right that the Hutterite have photo's on their licenses.

To allow them to continue without this leaves a door open for others to fight again having photos on identification.

Even though I believe the Hutterite have valid reasons for not wanting to comply, this is not an area, or a time to skimp on a practice put in place ultimately for our protect.

We can't even cross the boarder now without a passport... this is a time where security is getting tighter. We can't get start granting exceptions to one group, that could eventually come back to harm the country as a home.

Photo ID is a huge part of today's world!


Jacqueline
said
0 0

How can your religion allow you to drive a car but not have your picture taken? nonsense


Jackie Barrett
said
0 0

With a recent string of Supreme Court of Canada rulings against disadvantaged persons or beings, including Pitbull Terrier ban in Ontario, Autistic persons fighting for treatment, Albertan Hutterites fighting for driver's license exemptions, and Jehovah's Witness children being forced to get blood transfusions, it seems now that the Supreme Court of Canada which is supposed to respect personal differences is practicing active discrimination towards disadvantaged persons they are suppose to protect.

Time for a major reforms to the Supreme Court of Canada. These reports include the requirement to hear all cases since litigants have to pay at least a $50,000 fee to get a case heard before the Supreme Court, no discrimination towards disadvantaged persons such as disabled persons and perceived minorities except in extreme circumstances, have circuit supreme courts across the country similar to USA, requiring Supreme Court Judges to undergo sensitivity training and sign "no discrimination" clauses, and 2/3's majority for a defendant to win a case so that the loser will not be punished for losing by one vote.

With the string of discrimination against minorities from the Supreme Court of Canada, its time for this court to have major reforms.


Bill in BC
said
0 0

For once the courts have demonstrated some sense.


P Tarzwell
said
0 0

Re Janet's comment;
And if you ride a bike,wear a helmet, it's the law also.Unless your religion dictates you are exempt from that one.


John
said
0 0

I am a Hutterite myselfe I think it's only right to have your picture on a License especially for security reason anybody can claim to be a hutterite and used it various reasons.I'm speaking mainly for the Manitoba Hutterits


Ken - Calgary
said
0 0

Good for the SCC!

There shouldn't even be a debate. You want to keep your customs and traditions, fine. Nobody said you had to be part of society. If you want to be part of society, you obey the laws of that society. END OF STORY.


Ron J.
said
0 0

Equality from government means every citizen having the SAME RIGHTS and the SAME RESTRICTIONS.

The ruling was 4-3. Therefore, 3 justices of the Supreme Court still don't understand the basic principle of equality.


John
said
0 0

This is Canada in post 9/11 where the need for enhanced security outweighs the desires/wishes of a few. Getting a picture for a driver's license is hardly persecution in this day and age and one can always leave Canada if it's too much. Had the motion been successful, every gang member, gun runner, drug smuggler, money launderer and scam artist would have cried for their "religious rights" in not getting their picture taken. Given these ramifications it is scary to see how close the vote actually was (4-3). Thank God for common sense in an era where the inmates are running the asylum.


Oam
said
0 0

Why is there not a law across the nation that states for all ID that a person has to have a photo for permission to enjoy the rights of driving, health protection, etc., etc.? This should also include the wearing of helmets, voting - showing one's face, etc., etc..
Religious sects began before the age of cars, motorcycles, voting, etc. but not terrorism or war. Updates are necessary with the current living conditions and improvements that all persons in this country and the rest of the world enjoy for personal freedom, safety, etc.

Even some religions need to be updated.




Brian fr Langley
said
0 0

I find most of the comments very disturbing. While I believe in security and do not believe the photo violates one of the ten commandmants, religious freedom is a right not to be trifled with. Much of Canada and the U.S was founded by people fleeing religious persecution. There is a story out today about a North Korean woman executed for distributing bibles. Canadians have used freedom as their rallying cry in every war we have fought. Our freedom has been vindicated with our blood. If we are not free on matters of conscience then we are not free.


Lindsay - Pigeon Lake, Ab
said
0 0

They aren't being "forced" to have their pictures taken. Having a drivers licence is not mandatory, it's not a right that everyone be given one. If they don't want their pictures taken, then don't line up to take your drivers test.


CrackerJackLee
said
0 0

Jackie Barrett:

Thanks for the info. I never knew that it cost money ($50,000) to go to the Supreme Court. That leaves me out.

Also, it seems that Canadian law is applied willy-nilly. I guess Hutterites don't have voting or commercial importance.

Did you ever think that maybe a secret fraternity runs Canada? The government seems to have little in common with the rest of us.



M
said
0 0

The law is to be applied equally to all. If the law isn't applied to all and each group has a different application of the law we are no longer equall under the law. If each group is treated differently under the law where does it stop. If its legal for one group but illegal for another group under the same law there is something wrong with the law. Glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did, everyone is treated the same under the law.


Amanda
said
0 0

I think it is great the finally ... one set of rules (laws) I am frustrated when because of religion or beliefs, people get special treatment. It is the biggest problem we face today ... don't people need photo's for passports? How do they get on the plane to travel here if they don't have photo ID? If they are arrested for a crime, do we still take their mug shot... sure we do.


JR
said
0 0

While I don't hold to the beliefs of the Hutterites, I do think that there should be respect for religous beliefs.

Our country makes consessions for most religions.


wally from Montreal
said
0 0

Great decision, remember a few years ago my drivers licence in Quebec was only a peice of blue paper no photo nada... all because of the right to privacy groups were against it... well to bad, we were the only Province in Canada without photos, all of the states in the US had them, even Mexico, well that was then... now we got photos on our Medicare cards, this to prevent some of our U.S. heighbours from using our clinics and hospitals.(about 75 million a year). Also no photo no bank account, it saves a lot of money from being defrauded..


Daniel Murdock
said
0 0

I am disappointed by my fellow Canadians view concerning freedom of religion.

While this may seem a stupid rule, they believe that photography is a sin. As a result, if they want to drive, which is almost a necessity now days, they must commit an action that they believe deems them to hell.

I think this is a sad ruling, forcing a minority group to commit what they see as reprehensible actions.


glenda, ontario
said
0 0

finally....when in Rome.


Jacquie
said
0 0

The court is right. I admire the Hutterites and their choices, but the law must apply to everyone equally. If you don't want your picture on your license then do not drive

A while back Muslim women were demanding that they be allowed to have their license picture taken with their faces covered. They should not be allowed to drive that way because it would impede their vision.

Religion should be practised in the home. Leave the state out of it.


Debb
said
0 0

The SCC is right. Photo ID is essential to correct identification.

This is why every country in the world requires a photo for passports.






Rick in NB, Ste Marie
said
0 0

It's alright to wear a dagger if your religion says so, it's ok to wear a turbin with our RCMP uniforms if your religion says so. But you Hutterits better get your picture taken.

I wonder how the supreme court decides witch religions are valid. Has there been a Hutterite terrorist movement?


Michael, Cambridge On
said
0 0

SCC has been always display common sense however what problem is that alot of stupid people and lawyers pushing all stupid cases all way up to SCC. They can't deny them all!

So in end they had to ruled in stupid cases which people would imply that SCC has been too damn liberal which is not true.

SCC is not liberal or conservative puppet.

Okay. I've always supported SCC since day #1 they were created so people need to stop complain about SCC.

SCC always did their job in the best term they could do...

If people think common sense doesn't exist in somewhere in government level... Set your eye toward to House of Commons. Not SCC.

This is response to Mark Toronto's comment regarding common sense amongs SCC.

It does exist however it does not exist in House of Commons (all parties).


Sandie
said
0 0

Does this mean that a person wearing a Burka or veil must also show their face for a license or passport photo?


Jerry G Hart
said
0 0

About time, If I desire to drive in Canada I take tests like all folks, then when I meet the requirements, I go line up and let the Government take a photo of me. If I do not want my photo taken, simple I do not get my Licence and am not allowed to drive. This is the laws and all laws should apply to all people living here.(PERIOD) If I do not wish to follow these rules move else where. WE ARE ALL EQUAL IN CANADA. Why ask the courts to make you special, then run around and rant and rave about how we citizens treat you different, just be the same. We respect you the same. Do not ask to be different.


AC
said
0 0

Another example of twisting the teachings of the bible.......how is having a picture taken a form of idolatry. Idolatry is worship of foreign objects other than God. I don't know of anyone worshipping their own pictures/photos. You can take the scriptures out of context and use it to justify not obeying the law. It is a narrow decision (4-3). Could have gone the other way.....God help us if it did. Other cultures/religous groups can justify hohour killings too !!


Margaret
said
0 0

A common sense solution to a problem that has the potential to get out of hand. "B suits" are used by other cultures to prevent seeing the faces of female members. Those faces need to be photographed too. Not just to correctly identify the owners of those pieces of identification, but also to prevent identity theft.




sad but true
said
0 0

A friends husband was killed by a grain truck full of young intoxicated Huttereites that went through a stop sign. The police have multiple stories on who was driving and are unable to verify, partly due tot hte nature for involved parties' ID. The Hutterite colony has an excellent corporate lawyer they retain at all times and are trying to give $10,000 for her husband's death. I work in Alberta's Ag community, closley with Hutterites (who are for the most part as good as people as any other group of humans on this planet) but their young people and men are prone to to the same behavious the rest of us are regarding alchohol etc, forbidden or not. This law has to be.


Bev
said
0 0

As someone who managed a photo lab for 8 years, yes the hutterite colonies brought their film in for developing. And many had digital camera long before anyone else.


Rod
said
0 0

This really is not a religion issue... so before everyone starts bashing religious beliefs.. think about it for a minute. If the Hutterite community claims that photographs taken are a violation of the Ten Commandments they are distorting some literal interpretation for their own purposes. I am Christian, I believe in and accept the Ten Commandments, and my house is FULL of family photographs. So this is a control issue within their community and nothing to do with religion... even if this group is trying to play it as their trump card.


Cathy
said
0 0

Their religion does not say they should drive a car or have a licence. It is a choice - not a right - to drive or get a licence.


Ryan
said
0 0

There is a separation between church and state for a reason, because government cannot always be restricted by religious ideology. At a time when we are dealing with identity theeft, terrorism, and high levels of crime, we need clear cut identification.

There should not be one set of rules for one religious group and another for the rest of society. That is not equality.

I don't say this often, but I am proud of the Supreme Courts decission. Perhaps common sense has finally reached that hallow hall.


HT
said
0 0

Re: Jackie.

I'm not sure what you mean by "disadvantaged persons". especially in this case. If the Hutterite community feels it necessary to have drivers licenses to operate vehicles that they own, they must not be at a huge disadvantage. And where do you draw the line for what constitutes disadvantage?

It comes down to this, if the Hutterite community would like to have the privilege of operating a vehicle, and using the provinces roads, then the must abide by the same laws that the rest of us are required to abide by. I am sure that if I went to the courts as a white female with no obvious attachment to a religious group and asked that I be the exception to the law that requires us to be photographed for our licenses due to the fact that I am camera shy, I would be laughed right out of court.

We are equals here in Canada, or so we are told. Isn't it time we started treating everyone as such?


GM
said
0 0

Driving is a priviledge not a right, this should never have even gone to the Supreme Court. No picture, no license plain and simple.


Johanna Sommer
said
0 0

It is about time that we follow the rules and not make exception for every cult/religion etc. out there.... I was raised in a cult and I know that leaders often use the rules just to hold power over the people....If a photo is required then let it be so....please let us stop with these exceptions to the rules!!!


Ted
said
0 0

Seems they don't unerstand their own bible. The section you quoted in the news means they should not carve images, for them selves, (not of them selves) meaning images of the god in heaven, the god in land or the god in the seas. I am glad that the laws apply to everyone regardless of religion. You live in Canada you follow Canada. Now how about we go after the other non conforming groups.


Operator
said
0 0

Jackie......

Until you posted, I wasn't aware that owners of Pit Bulls, Hutterites and Jehovah's Witnesses were "disadvantaged people"

Although I do not always agree with some of the decisions, the Pit Bull ban for example, I do see the Supreme Court as part of our democratic society and therefore as a Canadian, I abide.

If I desired to make a serious change, I would run for office.


Ryan
said
0 0

Jackie Barrett,

We are not talking about discrimination, we are talking about a small religious group asking for special privlidges not available to the rest of the citizens of this country.

The special privlidge they ask for creates a loop hole for criminals to use. I don't know if you have been a victim of identity theft but I hope you never are.

Further, at a time when we are having troubles with boarder crossings, how long do you think it would be before one such group said it should not have to do a picture for a passport, and referes to this case had it gone the other way.

There is a HUGE difference between discrimination and equal application of the law. We have taken political correctness in this country WAY to far because of bleeding hearts who can't look past the story itself to the larger picture.


Peter
said
0 0

Unfortunately, such a close vote (4-3) means there was a strong dissent in the judgment, and that could mean that sometime down the road, when another case like this is before the court, the decision may easily go the other way.


Tom Lewis LLB
said
0 0

Jackie Barrett:

A couple of points for you, speaking as a person with a disability and a lawyer.
You are completely wrong. There is NO $50,000 fee to get a case heard.
How do you possible get that the SCC is anti-disabled? Have you never heard of the principle of reasonableness?

You are truly not understanding the role of the law in our society or of the Supreme Court of Canada. I would point out to you that the Constitution Act and the Charter specifically allow limitations on "freedoms" that are "reasonable" in a just society.
I would rather have some reasonable limits on me than the anarchy of special interests.


Mike W in London
said
0 0

Asking for exemptions from the rules of society because of religious belief makes no sense.
Would I be able to ask for exemption for pictures if I said I believed in pink unicorns?
Would I get tax exempt status if I got a room full of people to believe in pink unicorns and give me their money?
If you want to believe in nonsense, that's your prerogative. But if your nonsense doesn't mesh with science, technology, common sense, and decency - leave it at home.
It still bothers me that even in Canada we have religion infiltrating our public schools. My elementary school principal handed out bibles at a "special" assembly, and preached to us - children who are hardwired to accept the words of adults as a survival mechanism.
One of my high school teachers threw me out of class for not taking part in the Lord's Prayer at Trenton High School in the early 90s. Another secular public school forcing religion on people. Though I don't seem to remember them giving equal religious opportunity for non-Christian religions.
If someone is going to be mandating religion be forced on me in school, at least make it Buddhism. I've never heard of Buddhist writings advocating genocide, slavery, or the sexual victimization of children.



Mel from Calgary
said
0 0

They don't want their picture taken because they equate this with worshiping idols...but money is an idol and all organised religions worship this.


ravinder dhillon
said
0 0

What is going on with this country?
It is the Hutterite religion that should come first, not the law! The next think you know my people will not be able to wear our turbans and daggers to serve in the RCMP.
That's it, I'm going back to Punjab!!

Ravinder Singh Mohammed Dhillon


Dave
said
0 0

To Jackie Barrett...

Your words are nothing more than a collection of politically correct nonsense concentrated into two paragraphs. Utterly riduculous.

According to your logic, just about anything can be twisted into an act of discrimination. Pit bulls... Are you serious? Human being, human life and safely come before pets for pet's sake.

Sensitivity training for supreme court judges?!? Surely you must be joking. Sensitivity training is, by far, the purest form of political correctness brainwashing. The fact that you support it speaks volumes.

Utterly riduculous.



Chris
said
0 0

As a Born Again Christian, and an Ordained Minister, to use the Second Commandment as an excuse to lift yourself above the law is ludicrous.

When in Rome, you know the rest.

Too many people misinterpret the Bible or certain verses in order to use religious beliefs as an excuse to not to do something. For those people, I shake my head and wonder what is really motivating them.

Pastor Chris





The Other Lowell in BC
said
0 0

well some people believe it their right to have a drivers license. Actually it is a privilege and there are rules that should and do apply. Injecting religious beliefs into this mix does not make sense to me and comprises safety and security as well. There are so many folks now that hold up religious rights to circumvent established practices.
So good for the supreme court.


ed
said
0 0

All these comments are against the Hutterites. I wonder how they would read if it were moslem women who want to wear a burqa in their photos.


Dave T
said
0 0

I'm fine with the decision but they had better be applying this accross all different cultures.

I don't want to be hearing anything about Muslims getting a exception on showing their faces while we are forcing the Hutterites to do so.

Hutterites pose no threat to Canada at all. None. Never heard of a Hutterite extremist screaming "death to western civilization". So if we are going to be this careful with our friends we had better be at least this careful with everybody.



Hippocrites
said
0 0

I can appreciate that we need photo i.d. on drivers' licences, but please explain, then why women can show up at a polling station in a burqa, refuse to show their face, yet nonetheless vote? What if these same women want to drive? Would they be exempt, whereas the Hutterites are not?


my take on this
said
0 0

Couldn't God have made a special appearance to straighten this out. We haven't heard a thing for thousands of years. Hmmm, sometimes I wonder.


Yvonne
said
0 0

Finally the courts are saying enough of religious freedoms!!

So, if they don't belive if photographs because its a "carved image", does this mean they don't have any pictures in their house - landscapes, etc?

Please, and people worship idols, are you telling me they're going to worship their drivers licence?

I'm all for practicing your religion - but what kind of a christian are you if you want to bend or flaunt the law in your favour?

If you don't want to abide by the rules - don't drive!!


ML in Trenton
said
0 0

To: Lindsay - Pigeon Lake, Ab

I agree, that's what I've been told the first day in driving school : "Driving is not a right, it's a PRIVILEGE."

If you don't agree then start walking.


Only Pay Taxes to God
said
0 0

I'm starting a cult where it's against my religion to pay taxes as well as to answer to any higher authority but God. I had a chat with God last night and he told me as long as I keep the offering plate full he's cool with it, so it's a go, anybodody else want to join?


Now you know I'm joking and it sounds rediculous, but really what religion doesn't sound a little crazy when you look deeper into it.


Do you think I'd be taken more seriously if my pretend cult had been around for 100 years or so, I bet I would.


SANDIE_b
said
0 0

every person in canada should have to be photographed to prove identification, including muslims. the ruling that they may vote with a veil on is ludicrous. now that the hudertites must be photographed, let's hope that this will pertain to ALL.


Darlene, NS
said
0 0

@ Jackie Barrett and Brian fr Langley;

Nothing in this ruling prohibits people from following their beliefs or expressing their differences. No one is stopping or discouraging them from doing so. However, regardless of your beliefs or differences, you still have to follow CANADIAN laws and regulations which should apply indiscriminately to everyone.


James
said
0 0

Jackie Barrett, if you don't like the laws here in Canada, feel free to leave!


forrest
said
0 0

What a crock. I live in Alberta and do some business with Hutterites. They have cell phones, buy their kids Nintendo DS's. I've even seen them in Casino's. It seems they want to enjoy certain privilages of our society but hide behind faith the rest of the time.


ryder
said
0 0

This is a no-brainer folks!!

Driving is a priviledge. PERIOD!! Driving a vehicle has nothing to do with religious beliefs or political beliefs. If you wish to enjoy that freedom and priviledge of driving, then you follow the law; plain and simple. If your religion deters you from having your picture taken, then to easy, ride a horse. Last I checked, you don't need a license to ride a horse.

Laws are in place for a reason people.


hold the phone !!!!!!!!!!!!!
said
0 0

so what about the blankets the women of the muslim faith get to wear when voting? seems like the same thing to me is it not? could it be that hutterits did not make a big stink about it and just said well thats the law. when other groups yell and cry till they get what they want. RELIGIONS NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME FROM IT JUST BLOOD AND WAR IN THE NAME OF "GOD" THAT NOONE HAS EVER SEEN OR TALKED TO


Lance
said
0 0

If they don't like it, tell them they can always move back to Russia.


Baker, Ottawa
said
0 0

I think one of the sad things about this particular story is the way that particular commandment has been taken out of context and turned into a wacky reason never to get a picture taken.
The point of not creating false idols was specifically aimed at those who would worship them. Unless hutterites were finding that they had people in their sect spending their time worshipping their image in celluloid, they dont really have a case.


david sawkiw[saskatchewan farmer]
said
0 0

Give your head a shake,, something is VERY loose!!!!

If this is religion VS state like some of you think it is, we are all in a heap of trouble!

It seems the courts are picking on Christians.

Case in point,, if you search your memory banks, it is not that many years ago 'THEY' allowed turbans to be worn in the rcmp, and royal canadian legions.. Was this not based on religion??? Oh but wait ,, I guess 'WE' don't want to offend "CERTAIN" religions....

Yes canada is the tolerant secular state society.. Yeah right.......


DM in NB
said
0 0

If this group is so fixated on the ten commandments, what do they do for this one:

"...But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns...."

Is it saying that we can have a male or female slave? I choose female.

And now we have aliens running about? :-P

(yes, I get the meaning of "alien", but it's funny worded this way)


ron in victoria
said
0 0

if a photo is a carved image, what is a fingerprint? a signature? an ultrasound of an unborn baby? this is rights and freedoms gone to absurdity!


Alex
said
0 0

Getting your photo taken is definitely not idolatry. Idolatry is the representation of God by the hand of man. It's not the photo itself that makes it idolatry, it's how you look at the photo. I respect all peaceful religions, but I do think these Hutterites are taking the Bible commandment out of context.


Mere Edmonton
said
0 0

This is ridiculous. Of course the Hutterite community should have their pictures on their ID. If you want the same privilage as any other driver, then a picture goes along with that. Do they realize their picture is taken everytime they walk into a Walmart? I often see Hutterites "shopping" there.


Bev Mc T
said
0 0

Oh please...why don't we let all religions have what they want. What a mess Canada would be in if that happened!


Pete M in Toronto
said
0 0

If the reason they can not have their photo taken for their license is that they feel it will violate their interpretation pf the 2nd commandment, what about the other 100 times a day that their "photo" or "likeness" is captured on closed circuit cameras, including the ones, I presume are in Alberta License Bureau's?

If the Hutterites integrate in to the rest of Albertan and Canadian society, their images are captured many times a day, one poster stated they visit Casino's, they are video taped constantly and it's not like they aren't aware of it.

Therefore the whole things sounds like a scam.

Now, on the other hand if the issue is that they don't want to "carry" their likeness around, which would side step the captured images from surveillance cameras, etc, then how about a compromise? Take the photo, store it on Ministry computers for access by those that need it. If a Hutterite is pulled over and/or needs to produce "photo" id, the requesting party, police officer, etc, can simply look it up and compare it to the person. I think all police forces in Canada have that type of access in their vehicles. Even if they don't then the Hutterite would have to bear the inconvenience of "going downtown" to a facility where their ID could be verified.

Simple, if you think about it.

--Pete


JDP
said
0 0

I wonder how the Court would have ruled had it been Muslims asking for the same concessions...I doubt they would have ruled in the same manner...


Trevor in AB
said
0 0

I completely agree with the ruling by the supreme court. I live in Alberta very near to the colony iin question and some of you might be interested or surprised to learn some more detailed information about this situation. It is not all Hutterites who are against having their picture taken, not even all colonies in Alberta. It is only 2 colonies who have a problem with the photo requirement, so they are a minority even within a minority.

According to their interpretation of the second commandment they cannot have a carven image (photo, painting etc.) of anything in the heavens above, earth below, or underwater. If this is the case, why do they have family photographs and portraits in their homes? Why is it that one of these Hutterites agreed to have hism picture taken and shown on the front page of our local paper holding up his photoless driver license? I'm sure a lot more people saw the front page of the paper than would have seen his DL photo.

Is the real reason more related to a local police officer in the period of 2 weeks pulling over 3 different people all of which were using the same photoless driver license?


anonymous
said
0 0

If it is against the second commandment to have your photo taken, why does the Pope allow his photo to be taken. Religion and state should never mix. I guess god did give you feet before he gave you wheels.


Hal in Halifax
said
0 0

Gosh, I've NEVER heard of a Hutterite crashing their horse and buggy into a sky scraper, killing people in the name of God or blowing themselves up before.

Wonder if the same rules and logic will apply to burkhas and drivers licenses.



Lorne from Brampton
said
0 0

Driving is a priveledge, not a right. To enjoy this priveledge, one must folow the rule of law, which dictates photo ID. If one does not want their photo taken, one does not have to obtain a driver's licence. Canada is a secular state, so freedom of religion is encouraged so long as laws are not broken. If the Supreme Court ruled against this, it would be a slippery slope as far as religion trumping laws.


Julie
said
0 0

So they have to have their pictures taken but a woman wearing a burka gets to vote without proving who she is????



It has to stop
said
0 0

JR says we make consessions to other religions, true but that is the problem we cannot satisfy everyone. We have to think of the country as a whole and what is best for the country as a whole. They let knives in the school for religion, what about the right of another child not to feel threatened by that child with a knife. What about the rights of the Legions that have customs and are forced to give them up.


eric in the hat
said
0 0

I agree...if they want to violate our law...go back to russia...i'm sure they will be MORE than accomidating..


George
said
0 0

I'm happy that the Supreme Court ruled that way. Everybody should have their picture on their driver's license. Canada is too lenient with human beings.

Having a picture on the driver's license is important because it serves for identification. The Hutterites have a strange religious belief. At the same time, God does not exist, so therefore the bible has no power.

I don't agree with former prime minister Pierre Trudeau Charter of Rights and Freedoms - created in 1982. The Charter made the laws powerless, and very weak. Pierre Trudeau should not of created the Charter of Rights, and Freedoms.

I'm glad the Supreme Court enforced the Alberta Government's law. But it is unfortunate there is no super natural being to control the earth.


karen in wlake, bc
said
0 0

i wonder if this wont just increase the number or people in the huddarite community driving around without a valid license, therefore drawing into question the validity of insurance in the event of an accident?

i believe in religious freedom however question a system that would allow mine and everyone else's to be jeopardized in the name of it (the ceremonial swords still being worn). this freedom should be enjoyed by all, not just the religious minority. case in point, my kids attend a public school that will not host any christmas or easter celebrations on account of THREE kids (with a school population of 150) that do not celebrate this holiday.

if you want the privilege of driving, i think everyone needs to follow the same rules.


Taryn
said
0 0

If you look up hutterites on wikipedia, there are pictures of them. What gives?


Kim
said
0 0

Last time I checked driving was a privilege. They can always choose not to drive.


Linda Ridgewell
said
0 0

The law should apply to everyone regardless of religion and It's nice to see the government uphold a ruling making the same rules apply to everyone.


Blake
said
0 0

If the Hutterites have to have their photos taken, then Muslim women should have to show their faces when they vote. It's just common sense. All groups should be treated the same.


BadP, Edmonton
said
0 0

I don't think that God explicitly forbade Hutterites to take their digital photographs for a police database: there were no digital cameras when the Bible was written.

It seems very self-flattering for the Hutterites to assume that their pictures will be idolized by police officers.


Linda
said
0 0

Please everyone look at the comment from "Oam" clearly this person has a very good thought process!


Patricia
said
0 0

Good! If you want a driver's license you have your picture taken. It's as simple as that. And the photo must be of your entire face. Enough of this "I am entitled to be different" nonsense. Everybody must play by the rules.


Jess
said
0 0

Now all we have to do is have people remove their veils to provide a visual ID before they vote and it will be the same rules for everyone.


BadP, Edmonton
said
0 0

For those Christians who see attacks on their faith and discrimination in this SCC decision, I want to remind you that just a couple hundred years ago you tended to burn people alive for their disbelieve in your god (or even a suspicion of heresy).
I think you got off easily.


BD, Red Deer
said
0 0

As mentioned before, at what point is driving mandatory in this province? Is there a commandment that says "Thou shalt drive"? I know a lot of people who don't drive, and somehow, they manage to survive just fine. If you don't want your photo taken but still want to drive, fine, just go back to Russia. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Tom, Winnipeg
said
0 0

I agree that everyone should have their drivers photos taken, but here's some background information. A small number of religions over many centuries have thought making an image of a person was sinful.

In the 1990s the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed thousands of ancient statues and artworks because of this belief, and in Medieval times there was branch of Christianity that destroyed thousands of ancient and medieval artworks because of this. In more recent times some very traditional Muslim and Christian sects also believed this. Usually, this is a sign of an extremely repressive religion that disrespects human rights and the discards history


George
said
0 0

I'm glad the Supreme Court ruled that way. The bible has no power. Nobody can give verses to justify themselves, that is not right.

And I don't agree with former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau Charter of Rights, and Freedoms - created in 1982. The Charter made the laws powerless.

In this era, the Government has to be strong. If the Government is powerless some people might take advantage of that, and that is not right.


Westerner
said
0 0

Well done Court System for seeing the light! To much Identity theft,this can come from ANYWHERE if in the right hands for the right price - just look at the CRTC having the "Do Not Call List" fall into the WRONG HANDS. I for one got both my Cell and Home number solicited - never happened before on the Cell till listed with the CRTC.


JB
said
0 0

What about the Muslim women who wear scarves over their faces? Sikhs who where towels on their heads?

The Hutterites are harmless people, and if they want to expose themeselves to identity theft, that is their own choice. They should at least have the freedom to choose.


Lynn
said
0 0

These people obviously don't have passports....laws are laws, and they are made for EVERYONE to follow!!!


Katherine
said
0 0

Ravinder,
if you want to wear a turban and dagger than please do go back to Punjab.

I am not racist and am all for multiculturalism but if people cannot follow simple rules and laws put in place for EVERYONE'S safety then leave. My husband being a Muslim was completely disgusted that I may not have been able to vote because I did not have appropriate photo ID , but a woman with her face completely covered was! I believe everyone should have to follow the same rules as the majority of the country.

And if you own a pitbull you are better off than me, because I can't afford a dog!


Tim
said
0 0

I am a Protestant Christian and the second commandment means that we should not have any images that we worship in place of God. No one worships drivers licenses. I am all for people having their own beliefs but some things are just silly.


Alex (Toronto)
said
0 0

Freedom of religion only affects belief, not behavior. It should not grant anyone privileges or exceptions from laws that apply to everyone else.

Where a religious practice does not cause harm or difficulty for others, society should be tolerant. But if a practice is potentially harmful, being based on religious belief does not justify it.


Dennis L. Krahn
said
0 0

I have lived around Hutterites all my life.

Hutterites usually use the 'religon' card whenever it benefits them financially; this time however, I don't see any financial gain.

I also know a little bit about the Bible but cannot recall where getting your picture placed on a document for identification only is forbidden.


al
said
0 0

Yahoo -- justice prevails
Anyone choosing to live in Canada should lives by our laws!!

Why should our laws be changed/bent to suit a minority?


cindyptolemy
said
0 0

Heh this is canada people, if u don't like our rules then leave the country. Why is it that people think they are above the law in religion.
The rest of us who were born here have to do as the law says so should everyone else.


abdula
said
0 0

Not that I agree with the Hutterite belief, but if they actually believe that God says they are not to be photographed, then God's law trumps man's law to them. Thus they won't be able to drive and the court has taken away thier livelihood. That said hutterites are resourceful they will likely find a way to move thier products probably hire nonhutterite drivers.

Thanks for voting for tolerance in Canada.


What a Joke!
said
0 0

Hey - I don't particularly like to get my picture taken either....but I need my driver's license ( & passport!) so I have to bite the bullet and get the photo.....not to mention I really like the protection from identity theft that my ID gives me....

also- I agree with the comment that this is not a religious issue, but a control issue, and good for the SCC.


George
said
0 0

The Supreme Court did the right thing. A picture is good to have on a driver's licence. The Government is powerless though, because it should not of gone that far.

The Government needs to be strong. Canadians are tired of having a weak government that is scared to do anything. In this day, and era, it is time for the Government to be strong, and to control the country.

A picture is needed on the driver's licence.


David, Mississauga
said
0 0

I agree. The photo requirement in no way infringes on the Hutterites' rights to practice their religious faith. On the contrary, it is the requirements of their faith that prevent them from driving in Alberta. Their choice should be: Do I drive or do I follow my religious beliefs.

Religion gets a free pass in this country too often, especially when it comes to gender discrimination. I'm glad to see that, at least in this case, they have to follow the law of the land.


Thomas C
said
0 0

Janet: the close vote was because the Crown failed to meet its onus on the reasonable limits test. It was more a process issue, which normally would result in a victory for the Hutterites.

That said, I'd hate to be their lawyer. The Crown didn't meet the requirements of the test, and yet the Hutterites still lost.

Michael from Cambridge: You supported the SCC since day #1? That would make you over 130 years old and number one in the Guinness Book of World Records for Oldest Person Alive.


reece
said
0 0

Welcome to Canada where religion takes a back-seat to secular law. No, we don't all believe in space-daddy's including Zuess & Apollo or whatever his name is, so we can not bend our logics to adhere to the religious doctorines of your particular following.

It would be intersting to see if these people will now have their photographs taken at risk of offending the Great One in the Sky. Either offend or take the bus...let's test your faith.


Wurtz
said
0 0

I am over 30, a former Hutterite, and have photos of myself and my family from ever since I was a baby.
This issue is ridiculous and I'm shocked that it reached the SCC. They should now turn around and fine the colonies involved for wasting the court's time.

People have to realize that it is only a very small minority of Hutterites who are against the photo ID. Growing up, I never heard of such an issue in my life!

LOL @ Trevor: Yup, that sounds about right! LOL
Thanks for the chuckle!



Nate, Ontario
said
0 0

I find this interesting since I have seen books about Hutterites, all with plenty of pictures.

But the law is the law, and driving is a privilege, not a right. So you have to follow the rules for that privilege.

Good call.


Bill, Mississauga
said
0 0

It's odd that the Supreme Court would decide to enforce this administrative rule, when religions get a free pass when it comes to gender discrimination.


Justin
said
0 0

Solution: Ban religion.


Amanda, Ontario
said
0 0

I heard some stupid things in my day, but damn this one is up near the top.

We live in Canada people, not Russia, Germany, India or any other country.

Either accept the rules of our country or get out!

Im sorry I don't agree with the RCMP uniform being changed to accomidate the few. I don't agree with being allowed to carry weapons in our schools or anywhere else, or not having to have a picture taken to obtain ID or to vote.

Im not a racist person, in fact my husband is black and i'm white. We have too bi-racial children who are being raised to love our country and respect it and it's rules.


Mike W in London
said
0 0

@cindyptolemy

Actually, even if we don't agree with someone and they don't agree with us telling someone they should leave the country because of it doesn't solve the issue.
Since we're a democracy and we have the ability to change laws, sometimes people standing up to them is a good thing, even if we believe they are in the wrong.
Can you imagine, in a country where a lot of people smoke marijuana, if we had the same draconian drug laws as the US?
The general opposition to the existing laws has lead to less enthusiastic prosecution of people for what is essentially a morality law, and this can be applied elsewhere.
Whether they win or lose, as long as a reasonable argument is presented and we are able to filter out the laws which are unjust or archaic we'll be a strong nation.




jack
said
0 0

One Canada. One Law.

If your religion forbids you from participating or conforming. Then dont conform and dont participate. Dont drive.




Tom Hanna
said
0 0

They don't want thier photo being taken but everyone of them own a camera, cell phone with a camera, radio and TV.

Get off the fence!


Patrick
said
0 0

Where's the balance? A small number of licenses without a picture in order to allow a group of deeply religious people the opportunity drive isn't a threat to public safety. And unlike other religious exemptions, such as Sikhs claiming the turban is a religious symbol when it is not (see France where they claim it isn't to get by France's religious symbols ban), this is one where Hutterites believe pictures contravene one of the Ten Commandments. That's not something they can simply ignore. Is a driving ban worth it? We accommodate Muslims with special bathrooms in Universities and allow Muslim women to vote behind a veil! But not these Hutterites? I'm sure it's just a coincidence that they're Christian...


lisa kreitzer
said
0 0

Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right!!!


Dano in the city that rhymes with fun
said
0 0

Go and do a search of google images for hutterites. You will find pages and pages of many hutterites who have broken the 2nd commandment. If you can have your picture on the internet, you can totally have a picture taken by the government to prove your identity. The picture is taken by a reliable source who will not use or idolize your picture. Simply, they will try to protect your identity. I applaud the courts on this issue.


Steven
said
0 0

An excellent decision by the Supreme Court of Canada. Now I would like to see this same treatment hold true for all other religions. If you live in this country you must abide by our laws, no exceptions !


Cara B
said
0 0

Not once in 25 years of voting in each and every municipal, provincial, and federal election held have I been asked to show any type of photo ID. Not once have the people manning the voting stations been people who knew me personally and could possibly have identified me without that photo ID that was never asked for. My assumption from this is that there is no regulation requiring visual identification of someone casting their vote.

If there is no regulation to show a photo ID for identification purposes when casting a ballot, then what is the correlation between this issue and that of Muslim women wearing veils to vote?


aaron
said
0 0

I completely agree with the supreme court ruling as do many others apparently, according to many previous comments. However, how can we say "when in rome" when we allow other beliefs to not have to wear traditonal RCMP hats or not wear helmets on a motorcycle. It must become the same law for all who are Canadian.


Jackie Barrett
said
0 0

Taryn, some progressive Anabaptist factions, particularly the Schmeideleut Hutterites, New Order Amish, and Andy Weaver Amish allow photos to be taken and tend to brace modern life with some restrictions.

In the case of the Schmeideleut Hutterites, some households are permitted to have computers with filtered internet access, children often complete their education and some go on to university or college instead of dropping out at Grade 8, embrace advanced technology, allowed to drive cars, and have their own phones.

However, more conservative and traditional Hutterite factions, like the Lehrerleut and Dariusleut, still impose heavy restrictions on their people such as leaving school at Grade 8, ban on computers and radios, bans on personal photos, etc.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

User Tools

About the tools

Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.

Share it with your network of friends

Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz