• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

No photo required for some Hutterite drivers

Chris

Well-Known TRIBEr
No photo required for some Hutterite drivers
Last Updated Wed, 10 May 2006 06:14:59 EDT
CBC News

Members of an Alberta Hutterite colony have won the right to carry driver's licences that don't carry their photographs.

The Wilson Colony, near Coaldale, 12 kilometres east of Lethbridge, took the province to court after the government introduced a new licence that must have a driver's photo on it.

The colony argued in a Lethbridge court that the government's rule violated its charter right to freedom of religion. Members believe the second commandment in the Bible prohibits them from willingly having their picture taken.

The province argued the photos were necessary to prevent fraud or identity theft. But a judge determined the Crown had failed to prove that this would likely be the case.

Justice Sal LoVecchio of the Alberta Court of Queens Bench ruled in favour of the Hutterites.

Chris Levy, associate dean of law at the University of Calgary, thinks people with a religious objection to having their photo taken for identification will be interested in this decision.

"Potentially, at least, they have a strong freedom of religion argument now based on a Court of Queen's Bench decision in Alberta to back up their objection to being photographed. We're going to see a lot more of this," Levy said.

The colony's lawyer, Greg Senda, said colony members are happy with the decision. He said the ruling has restored their faith in the Canadian judicial system and the protection of minority rights.

He doubts, however, the ruling will have an impact for people needing pictures on other documents or types of ID.

The colony was worried about what might have happened to its large-scale farming operation if no one was allowed to drive.

Members will have to apply for an exemption to having their picture taken before new licences are issued without photographs. They had been issued temporary licences while the case was before the court.

The government of Alberta has one month to appeal the decision.


Headlines: Canada
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Image01.jpg


Don't be so happy little Ismal HELL awaits you for having your picture taken.


Image04.jpg


Satan will wipe that smile off your face Jacob!!


Image15.jpg


You know the penalty for reading USA Today Ezikial, yup eternity in hellfire!!


Image26.jpg


The chick in the middle looks like she's already in hell!
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Please note these are actual pictures of Hutterite-s yup each and every one of these people has knowing allowed there picture to be taken and they are going to burn in fucking hell for it. Excpet the chick in the last picture, rumour has it she split away from the church and along with 3 sisters and two cousins she now runs a rub and tug in Edmonton.
 

jazzsax

TRIBE Member
this must be the breakaway hutterite sect that believes in photographing because photographs keep satan at bay (*whips out picture of grandma* take that satan!)

hahahaha
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

dig this

TRIBE Member
The second commandment:

"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or 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; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV)


So they're saying that they are God or at least images of God??
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
man_slut said:
Hutterites are nice people.


hutterites_cover.jpg


Oh I don't question that they are nice people, but its obvious that young Maria might as well take up a life in porn now that she's already destined for hell. In many respects she should be thankful, think how liberating it would be to find out your afterlife before you hit 8 years old. Where her friends (not depicted in any picture) must be careful to follow there religion less they go to hell, she already knows she is going to hell and can instead follow her religion however the fuck she sees fit. In fact she can get a passport and visit other Hutterites in far of lands cause Maria is already going to hell.

If its obvious that Hutterite communities do allow pictures to be taken then shouldn't we just say the law is the law and maybe freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to not have your picture taken for a drivers license.

I'm making fun of these pictures because they kind of point to the fact that this isn't the most deep seated religous belief obviously some might follow it but most don't.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
dig this said:
So they're saying that they are God or at least images of God??

we were created in gods image thus an image of ourself is an image of god.

"for ours is a jealous ass god who will smite your evil ass for letting your picture be taken." Ditto 3:16
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
hutterites1.jpg



Well Samuel Hoffer you've just sent 10 good people to hell buddy hope your proud of your evil pagen self. Even with all of my offers of sex gambling and lives of carnal sin I have yet to convince a single Hutterite away from thier faith, but you, yes you, in one pictury Sammy you sent ten good souls to hell. Satan must have blessed you!!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Ditto do you have some bad experience with Hutterites or something?


dig this said:
you shall not make for yourself a graven image, or 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
So they're saying that they are God or at least images of God??
... "of anything that is in heaven above, or that is..."
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
deafplayer said:
Ditto do you have some bad experience with Hutterites or something?


Nah I just like seeing people engaged in acts that according to there faith send them to hell. I have a poster with this jewish dude eating a bacon double cheeseburger, every time I look at it I smile and I feel a little warmer inside.

Really picture or no picture is no skin off my dick, I just really hate laws that have exceptions based on declorations of faith. And personally I thought it was kind of funny.

Remember if these people are right we're all going to hell!!!
 

atbell

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
"for ours is a jealous ass god who will smite your evil ass for letting your picture be taken." Ditto 3:16

I like your revision, it has so much more street cred then the stuffy old verse I'm used to seeing. I think this will really hit home with the under 20 "cool" crowd.

Glad to see you are working to bring stray sheep back to the Hutterite flock!

:D
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
In my public law class this was the topic for our mock trial, in which I was a lawyer for a woman who did not wish her photo to be taken for a driver's license.

When it came to trial, the biggest obstacle for me to overcome was the fact that until it reached the supreme court, my client had been photographed at press conferences at each stage of litigation. How did I overcome this and sway my classmates to my side?

here's a sample from my factum:

"Counsel for the Appellant will surely mention the press conferences held by Mrs. Smith at various stages of her case's progress through our judicial system. Since photographs were taken for newsprint and other media, it will be argued, Mrs. Smith's belief that a photo by the Ministry of Transportation would steal away part of her soul is insincere. This approach ignores several very important distinctions between a photograph taken by a journalist and one taken by the government. Firstly, photographs for newsprint and other media are not stored indefinitely; they are put out for publication and kept on file for predetermined lengths of time. The photographs of drivers taken for the Ministry of Transportation are stored on a permanent basis – from Mrs. Smith’s perspective, as long as she continues to live part of her soul will be in the possession of the government. Were that the only difference, this significant distinction should be sufficient for the Court to dismiss the photographs taken at press conferences as irrelevant to the issues before it and dissimilar to the photograph required by the Photo-ID Requirements.
19. There is yet a further distinction to make between the photographs taken at news conferences and the photograph required by the impugned legislation: that Mrs. Smith did not consent, written or orally to the photography of the media. The Photo-ID Requirements, by requiring consent, change the nature of the photo being taken. While the Appellant may argue she could have expected to be photographed at the news conferences, one would then also have to concede that individuals can expect to be photographed in many public places. This is not an insignificant point, as Mrs. Smith can surely expect to be photographed as she travels through public places by security cameras in malls and other areas under constant surveillance without her consent. Clearly, it is impossible for an individual in today's modern world to avoid being photographed at all times. This fact alone, were it found to be sufficient to deny sincerity, would then prevent any individual from ever arguing that the Photo-ID Requirements infringe upon s 2(a) of the Charter – even those that had not held press conferences. It is logistically impossible to investigate whether an individual arguing on analogous grounds to Mrs. Smith had ever had a picture taken in a public place let alone determine whether such photography was consented to or even expected by the individual. Were it possible, such an investigation would be inappropriate as per Syndicat, as it would entail an overly rigorous examination of ones past contrary to the minimal approach mandated by Iacobucci J.
20. Mrs. Smith's stated belief that the photo mandated by the impugned legislation would result in part of her soul being taken away is sincere based on her long and trying commitment to the case before the Court and her demonstrated worry for the protection of her family. The Respondent respectfully submits that the photography at various news conferences is not comparable to the photography required by the impugned legislation for two important reasons: length of storage and perhaps most importantly, for consent. Even should the Court decide to ignore these two distinctions, it could be readily accepted that Mrs. Smith endured the photography of the news conferences in order to protect the souls of her family. The impugned legislation should thus be modified or struck down to apply the protections of the Charter not only to Mrs. Smith, but to her family and to those who may believe as she does."


Remember too that our own personal opinions matter little when there are CLEAR "tests" set out to determine whether asking for a photograph on a driver's license violates a) one's equality rights, or b)freedom of religion. Throughout, the court is guided to examine the validity of one's religious beliefs in a cursory manner -> it is not up to the court to say whether one's religous beliefs are sincere in an overly rigourous examination. In my class mock trial, my client was a mennonite that personally believed a photo would steal her soul - its not a beliefe of mennonites as a whole. That distinction did not prove important in my mock trial, as it didnt in recent freedom of religion cases such as Syndicat (where a Jew wanted to build a special kind of religious "hut" on his balcony of his apartment for a special religious ceremony and was forbidden by his landlord - Jews arent require to build these huts right outside their sliding doors, religion permits them to have these "huts" in communal areas - the court ended up siding with the landlord but the fact that this one Jew's belief diverged from the "mainstream" of his religion was NOT something the court felt was appropriate for it to examine.)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

praktik

TRIBE Member
ya mon I won!

Was tough too cause once everyone read the setup in the assignment instructions everyone's gut - including mine - felt like the claim of the woman was tenuous at best. The news conferences just added to the sceptism.

But the arguments for the photo ID, such as the security arguments, didnt seem that strong to me when I started digging in. The crown argued that identity theft was a major reason for photo ID and cited the millions of people every year who fall victim to it. While there is something to being able to match a face to a photo, I assume that quite a large percentage of those who fell victim to identity theft also carried photo ID. It has little to no protective value to a crime conducted largely over the internet or "in house" by bad employees catching credit card #'s at the cash. As for concerns of terrorism and such, I don't see how letting the few who require non-photo driver's licenses apply for the exemption. Foreign terrorists require photo passports - which are easily forged anyhow, and domestic ones could simply forge driver's licenses. Tracking by intelligence agencies isnt something that will be affected by allowing the exemption to a few. And if we were really paranoid, CSIS could keep tabs Im sure on the individuals that do have non photo driver's license.

As much as we may belittle a belief that seems so silly and superstitious at first glance, we gotta remember how damned important having a car is when you have a family. I don't believe that we should put an individual in a situation where he or she is forced to choose between freedom of mobility and fear of eternal damnation (or even a fear of lesser degree, such as fear of comitting great sin). At least, I dont believe we should create the conditions for such outcomes without good, proven reason. After working doggedly on my factum I ended up on the opposite side of the fence then where I started - and I began thinking I'd be arguing something I would disagree with underneath. At the end of the day, the security arguments were not strong enough to overcome the negative effects of mandatory, exceptionless photo ID on freedom of religion. Heck, we went without photo ID on driver's licenses a long time - but maybe someone can tell me how that would have helped the FLQ crisis... :D
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
..And as to the news conferences, I'm obviously really pushing my arguments as far as they can go in my factum, but I think none of them on their own really give the news conference issue the "knock out punch" I was looking for. I think together they prove enough of a smokescreen for people to at least start reconsidering their initial reaction that the news conferences (or as in the above thread, photos of hutterites) is a clear demonstration of insencerity. If you argue fervently enough, you might be able to capitalize on that confusion.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
..And as to the news conferences, I'm obviously really pushing my arguments as far as they can go in my factum, but I think none of them on their own really give the news conference issue the "knock out punch" I was looking for. I think together they prove enough of a smokescreen for people to at least start reconsidering their initial reaction that the news conferences (or as in the above thread, photos of hutterites) is a clear demonstration of insencerity. If you argue fervently enough, you might be able to capitalize on that confusion.


You presented a really good argument!!


I still don't like laws that change according to a person declaring personal faith in a religion. The camera isn't taking anything from you, the fact that we keep your picture on file doesn't represent anything related to a soul and people have to get over it and realize they live and work in a modern society.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
You presented a really good argument!!


I still don't like laws that change according to a person declaring personal faith in a religion. The camera isn't taking anything from you, the fact that we keep your picture on file doesn't represent anything related to a soul and people have to get over it and realize they live and work in a modern society.

That's true for you and its true for me. But for the hutterites and other individuals its not. If we want to be able to believe what WE want, then that does mean allowing others to believe what they want as well - as long as accomodating those beliefs does cause undue harm or cost to society. IN this case, I believe the harms of accomodation to this belief to be smaller than the harms of NOT accomodating it.

We live and work in a modern society, this is true, but its one that's especially vibrant, inclusive, diverse and free - partly due to laws and jurisprudence relating to religion.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
too lat for me to edit -> but that previous post should read "...does NOT cause undue harm..."

lol!
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
praktik said:
too lat for me to edit -> but that previous post should read "...does NOT cause undue harm..."

lol!


yeah I made that as an assumption ...


So why have pictures on drivers licenses in the first place. I just really really don't like laws that change based on the beliefs of the individual.
 

dig this

TRIBE Member
Praktik - If one could take God to court for not allowing them into Heaven I think you'd make an excellent lawyer...

Question... Say a Hutterite gets arrested, can they get out of having a mug shot taken of them based on your argument/religious belief. After all, it would be a permanant photo. Or is just assumed that if they get arrested they're going to hell anyways, and a photo couldn't make things any worse??
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
I still want to know how a picture in a paper isn't premenate. I mean go to York University and they have ever picture ever published by a Canadian paper in there records. Where as in the case of a government agency you have the ability to demand privacy anyone can go to a library and check out past news papers.
 

Shug

TRIBE Member
Call me crazy, but I'm totally diggin on the clothes that the male Hutterites wear.

(actually serious)
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top