Hutterites & photographs

I certainly do not see myself as intolerant or denigrating anyone.  Please step back from such comments.  I am highly tolerant, often exasperatingly so to others.  It is a unusual for me to be considered the intolerant person in a discussion.

I am just saying that in some of these issues it is allright to ask the members of various groups to bend, instead of the government.

Religions aren't always "right" about things.  Well, we all know that and when it doesn't matter, who cares?  Let people believe and do what they want.  I'm all for it.  I am very much in defense of freewill and self-determination by both individuals and groups.

But when it does matter, then we can challenge anyone - inside or outside of religion.  Not that driver's license ID is the greatest issue in the world.  It isn't.  I just think it is probably  going too far to allow the non-photo ID thing to continue - unless (and here is where I very much agree with those who said so above) a simple alternative can be found.

But, the fingerprint thing doesn't sound too convenient (or how would you make it convenient?), so what else do you got?  We are looking for a practical solution.  When I was a kid, we would swap ID's to buy booze and to drive when we underage or didn't have a valid license, etc, and it was easier because they were non-photo ID's.  So, issues like that show there is at least some good reasons to have photo ID's.

Howard

An interesting editorial from today's Globe & Mail which suggests that the Supreme Court of Canada made the wrong decision in this case: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/no-real-risk-of-identity-theft/article1233071/

We, as Canadians, need to come at this from the perspective of tolerance, as tolerance isn’t just something many Canadians hold as a value, it’s something which is prescribed in our Charter. "Uniformity" has never been a Canadian value, much less guaranteed by the Charter.

As far as providing "exemptions" from law based on religious belief, there is strong and recurring precedent throughout Canadian history to do just that. For example, for many of certain faiths, taking up arms to fight in wars is against their religious beliefs, and when their rights where impugned by our government, eventually compromise in the name of tolerance was achieved. The same had been true for Hutterites in Alberta for the long period of time in which that Province required photo drivers licenses.

Now, the tables have been turned, and Alberta, in the name of security (combatting "identity theft" through the use of facial recognition technology!), has changed the rules and reneged on the balanced compromise of an exemption for the Hutterite community. I’m still uncertain exactly what identifity theft and the issuance of licenses to drive motor vehicles has to do with one another, but there it is (does Alberta have similar laws for other forms of photo ID?).

More troubling is that the Supreme Court has bought into the argument that public security trumps our constitutional rights (in this case to practice our religion). In Alberta, this may have occurred because obtaining a license is not something one is forced to do (unlike in the example above, where if one was conscripted, one had to show up and fight).

Our Constitution, through the Charter, guarantees our rights, which may only be "trumped" in extreme cases. I would suggest that the issuance of a drivers license, which uses facial recognition technology to help combat identity theft, is not the sort of infringement which makes sense. Clearly, the majority of the Supreme Court disagrees.

Bram, I’m puzzled by your concluding comment that, "Systemic discriminating of rationality in favour of faith is an aggression against thought.". While I’m not exactly sure what it is you’re trying to say here, it certainly sounds to me like the arguments used by Richard Dawkins and other hard-core secularists as a justification against religion playing any role in our institutional decision-making processes (among other things). What we need to keep in mind is that Dawkins is no more representative of Canadians than is the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Dalai Lama.

Here, no one has been suggesting that we need to discriminate against rational thinking (presumably based on the "scientific method") in favour of religious beliefs. Instead, what this discourse has been about is the heretofore unchallenged rights of the adherents of a particular religion to practice their faith in peace, without interference from our governmental institutions. And to a larger degree, the conversation has been about the need for Canadians to come to an understanding that compromises are always required where so-called "god-centred" and "man-centred" laws come into conflict with one another.

Achieving a balanced compromise should never be an effort in dismissal of the position of others, but rather should be based on an understanding of the needs of each community in conflict. Using the example of Sikhs and rubber knives above, compromise through understanding is achieved first by knowing what carrying a Kirpan means to a baptized Sikh. When this is understood, one can clearly see how foolish it would be to a Sikh for a non-Sikh or for a governmental institution to suggest the substitution of a rubber kirpan in place of the real article.

Faith communities should not be forced to "bend" for the perceived "common good" (whatever that amorphous concept is). Instead, faith communities have, and will continue, to seek compromises within the context of their faiths and larger communities in which they operate.

Remember, Canada is not a secular nation, and our national institutions and laws are not secular in their composition (When I am on holiday on Christmas Day and I stand and sing our National Anthem with the words God Keep Our Land in front of a picture of the head of the Church of England, I know that this nation is not secular nation). Faith-based belief systems are very much a part of our cultural, national and personal identities. And in my opinion, we, our culture, our nation, and our selves, are incredibly enriched by this fact.

Bram, I would agree with you that creating new classes of citizens should not occur on a "whim", and that is why I am profoundly saddened with the recent Supreme Court decision, which, although not on a whim, has created a new class of Canadians: Hutterites who are now not able to practice their religion in our modern Canadian society, all in the name of "public security". Remember, no rights were created by this court case: existing rights were removed, as they were deemed to be above the interests of the Charter guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms.

The erosion of rights will be a continuing struggle for all of us over the coming decades, particularly where questions of "security" arise. We Greens need to do a little "standing on guard" ourselves.

Howard, with regards to your question regarding whether or not there is any way we can make laws which all people of every religious and moral persuasion can obey, I would suggest (and I hope that you would agree) that the answer is a resounding, "No". And that’s because religions tend to be based on their own "god-centred" laws which, in almost every circumstance, exceed the secular laws of societies in the minds of the faithful. With this in mind, I believe that faith-based communities throughout Canada have strove to find an acceptable compromise on many of the issues of the day where human-made laws come into conflict with spiritual laws.

The question itself, though, asking if we can ever find a single set of laws for which everyone can live by is, in my opinion, not relevant. Our society constantly changes and adapts; what was legal one day, may be illegal the next day. Certainly we here in the Green Party largely do not advocate static laws, given our stated desires to change the way Canadian society functions.

So the question certainly isn’t one of accommodation or, as Bram has indicated, uniformity in application. Rather, it’s about compromise. And we must remember that compromise isn’t about what is perceived to be in the interests of a majority of the public or its institutions: it’s about finding solutions we can largely live with that are as just as they can be.

Further, keep in mind that freedom to practice one’s "personal morality" isn’t protected in the Charter (thank goodness...I mean, can you imagine?), whereas freedom to practice one’s religion is. Certainly, there may be questions regarding what constitutes a religion, and when those questions arise they need to be addressed. In the case at hand, though, there is no question that Hutterites practice a differentiated version of Christianity and constitute a legitimate and viable faith-based organization, and are protected by the Charter. In short, this isn’t about morality, it’s about religion.

Keep in mind, though, that the Charter does not offer an outright "free pass" for religious practices. And that’s what we’ve seen the Supreme Court rule on in the case which sparked this thread. It has been suggested that the Supreme Court’s compromise tilted the balance too far in the direction of the "public security" over the rights of a religious community in Alberta. Some will obviously agree with the Supreme Court that, in this case, public security through facial recognition software used on personal drivers licenses outweighs traditional Hutterite concerns about how they practice their faith. Whether you agree or disagree, though, clearly what is happening to the Hutterites can only be seen as a restriction on their rights, but a restriction within the context of the Charter. The Hutterite communities were not seeking any accommodation or exception: they already enjoyed the right to have a drivers license in Alberta which did not include a photograph. It was Alberta which made the argument that the Hutterite’s right to practice their religion should be legally infringed upon in the name of public security, and in this case, the Supreme Court decided that Alberta had the stronger case.

We will not ever find one set of laws we can all agree to abide by. Nor should we strive to do this. I, for one, wouldn’t want to live in that kind of society anyway.

*

Yeah, looked at the decision and it has little to do with a drivers license, but more so with maintaining the "integrity" of Alberta's driver's license photo matching identification system.  

Of 13,000 Huterites in Alberta, only 250 or so had a driver's license before hand.  

The broad language though in the majority decision appears to state that the need to photo-match ID is paramount to other charter rights, and I doubt it will be long before a Canadian database of photos are used for all social services.

I'm sort of re-thinking my position. Small photos aren't really great for positive indentification of anyone, Hutterite or not.  People's appearances change.  They age, they change their hair, they add or remove facial hair, they get make-overs and so on.  On top of this, many people look sort of alike.

So, maybe the government should work creatively with the current situation, devising better ID methods with the goal of instituting them for everyone, and use Hutterites as test subjects in trial runs.  Whether it is fingerprints or something else.  What I see is that both sides may dig in their heels and a new method of ID, which seems to be needed, anyway, may help alleviate the situation.

Security issues and identity theft/swapping issues seem like they will only grow in the near future, so the need for better positive identification will likely grow.  If they go with fingerprints, they may be able to devise a foolproof system.  Ofhand, it seems like police could carry a scanner and scan the prints of drivers.  The info could be compared with a  database to confirm that this is actually the person they say they are.  Well, it certainly isn't my area of expertise, but it seems feasible....

Steve, with each of your replies I get increasingly concerned that you (and others) being blind to a very real form of discrimination.

My concern is the differential between the following two statements:

(a) You are willing to consider a group's religious beliefs as paramount and unquestionable regardless of rationality.

(b) You consider secular moral rationalizations available for debate.

The differential between these two statements is a manifestation of discrimination.  And I am concerned that you have been unable to recognize this.

As an example, let's concern ourselves with the SCC opinion of Sikhs wearing turbans instead of the usual RCMP headdress.  Before we proceed, let it be known that I am not agreeing with this conclusion.

However, let's say that my personal belief is that the RCMP should not wear hats, because I believe it to be immoral, but my conclusion is not founded in any religion.  I would first be subject to a discriminatory process where I would have to explain my beliefs and justify my reasoning.  Something to which a religious argument is not subject.  Then my beliefs can be struck down.  Again, something to which a religious argument is not subject.  The consequence is that will effectively get no standing in court, and have no reasonable expectation of winning.

Should I become an RCMP officer, I would be required to wear a hat even though it has already been determined that the wearing of a hat does not affect job function.  This is discrimination.

The discrimination is of the worst kind.  It applies to those expressing independent thought.  It should be a very large concern for human rights supporters, but it never is.

Increasingly foolproof positive identification of individuals by police and government, whether it happens through fingerprints or other methods, may indeed open the door for increases in abuse of such knowledge and power by police and others, BUT we (society) seem to be heading in this direction anyway, so maybe it is better to try to influence the ID process and methods, etc, and modify them, rather than totally fight their implementation.

By influence, I mean work for safeguards which will make it more difficult for police or others to abuse their powers.  If police are monitored more, for example, we can more easily detect when they are up to no good, whether it is dumping Natives outside of Saskatoon to freeze to death in -30 weather or doing something else.  (A GPS travel record of patrol cars, for instance, might have helped matters, or at least convicted those who allegedly did it.)

Maybe police forces also need to be run and monitored more by elected citizen boards.  I'm no expert in these matters, but I think there are various things which can be done to make sure that policing and government are more democratic, fair, ethical and watch-dogged.

The point is, we can't turn back the hands of time and circumstance.  We can't live as people did a century or two ago in these regions, roaming freely and perhaps without any need or requirement for any identity papers or anything of the like.  (Hey, it would be nice, but we apparently won't reach such times again in the immediate future.)  What we can see happening now is more and more security and fraud issues, so there will be more and more pressing by government and police for more positive methods of idendification (among other things).  And we have to admit that it is at least somewhat justified, as crime and terrorism remain factors in the world.

Whether reasons like that are really reasons or just excuses for better ID's, most Canadians will agree with the rationale, I think.  If it is not "most Canadians" now, one or two significant terrorist strikes (real or manufactured, eh...) will likely get 80+% of them voting in favour.

So, even if such things infringe on our rights as decent citizens, it is likely coming anyway, so the real question may simply be how would you and I and the Green Party like to see these new measures safeguarded and modified, so that a balance of protecting rights and freedoms, while still addressing crime and security, is best achieved.  Preventing them completely from comeing seems both unrealistic and undesireable.

Positive forms of "anarchy" (read, "freedom and harmony", in this case) are utopia.  There aren't enough evolved people around to even begin approaching such a utopia (except in families and various small communites, perhaps - not in society as a whole).  So, rules will persist, and police forces and intelligence agencies will exist, and they try to get better and better methods to get a better handle on crime and terrorism...

I realize that "terrorism" can be just a word used as an excuse to do anything to whoever they like, but the fact remains that there is real terrorism in the world, too, so I don't think we have any choice but to, as I say, influence the inevitable move into a more strictly monitored society.

These are our governments and police forces, so we should be fighting for more say and in how they are run and monitored.   (I should read more to find out what the Green Party is saying, if anything, about these matters...)

With all due respect, you're comparing apples to orange.  I agree that nuclear power is a big mistake.  However,  security issues, even if blown out of proportion at times, are real.  If 9-11 was an inside job, it still doesn't take away from the fact that many terrorists would do a 9-11 at the drop of a hat, or similar, and they in fact actively work to achieve such - and worse.

Fear and caution are two different things.  They're close, so the distinction can be tricky.  Fear is that useless, detrimental thing which clouds judgement, while caution and accompanying practical precautions are most helpful.  And necessary.

The alternative to good security measures is that we all live like Gandhis.  That would be nice, but perhaps only one out of 1000 persons is prepared to really try and even less are able.  Meanwhile, government is required to act on behalf of all people.  So, this means resaonable policing and security forces for a population which desires this.

In our complaints about existing policing, security and military structures, procedures and activities, we often forget that these are actually necessary in the world as it is.  If we ask ourselves (us Greens), what kind of police, security and military would we design and implement if we achieved majority government tomorrow, many might have no answer other than to say we don't really need these things.  Well, if we did away with them we would have a lot of fear, anarchy and crime, and then they might change their answer in a big hurry, especially if they were personally victimized.  So, again, what we are really looking for is an answer about how we would modify existing police, security and military forces and/or create alternatives, to improve these important areas. 

In the first place, we will never get elected if don't provide this answer.  In the second place, we don't deserve to because we haven't done our homework.

Honour, creativity, just living, etc, are undoubtedly the best ways to fight injustice, crime and terrorism.  However, they're not enough.  Even if all Canadians were honourable, there would still be at least some terrorism in the world and some directed at us.  Why?  Because some people would still act unreasonably and violently.  Out of jealousy, wrong conclusions and psychosis, if nothing else.  So, policing and security measures would still be needed.  And really honourable people are probably a minority at present, so they are definitely needed now.

Our theories and beliefs about security, etc, are only that - theories - until we put them to the test in the real world.  If you already live like a Gandhi - without thought of self-preservation and in a state of love and self-sacrifice for the enemy - then you may be able to rightly advocate lax or non-existent security measures, but you would still need to keep in mind that not many others are at your level.  So, reasonable, intelligent and often sophisticated security measures are required.  If existing ones are inadequate or injust, it still doesn't mean that better ones are not required.  They must be created.  We can't ignore these things.

Anyone can disguise themselves as a Hutterite (though most Hutterites seem to be Caucasians, so one might not be too successful if your skin is quite dark or you look quite Asian).  Now that the fact that Hutterites don't (to this point, at least) need to carry photo ID, it is obviously the first thing a serious terrorist might try.

With all due respect, I don't think you are being very practical.

You won't get much (or, at least, it is very unlikely to get enough) review of the past, both recent or more distant, because, for one thing, there is now much scrambling to deal with the present, which is an increasingly complicated, confusing, shifting and dangerous situation.

So, while I can agree that an official open airing of all that has gone on and why, would be excellent to build a better future, it is a) difficult to uncover the facts and b) unlikely that  enough of the public (at this time, at least) to care and pay attention c) we still have to deal with the imminent now.

So, the important questions, in my opinion, are a) how do we deal with real and potentially real security threats and b) how do we deal with manipulations from certain government groups and factions, from structures created by government (intelligence organizations, etc) or from other clandestine sources, which may disguise themselves as terrorists to put the blame on them, or do unreasonable things in the name of preventing terrorism.

So, you see, I am actually agreeing with you that government and other non-terrorist clandestine sources are half the problem.  This problem can include harassing innocent people, which, is a waste of time and resources and is an unecessary curtailment of freedoms.

But, again, this is only half the problem.  The other half is real threats.  So, even if we manage to get a thorough and truthful review of everything which has gone on/is going on in government (an impossibility, really, but...) inorder to build better agencies, etc, we still have to have an answer for real terrorist threats and other crime.

So, tell me in nutshell how you would deal with real threats, because simply straightening out the kinks and decpetions of government and its agencies, etc, won't solve everything.  Do you see how there are two sides - two enemies, as it were?

You seem to be saying that terrorism is pretty much mythical and non-existent.  This isn't true.  Terrorism is a grim, persistent reality now.  At times, a reality manipulated for the selfish and short-sighted purposes of others.  Nevertheless, it is still a reality in itself and must be dealt with.  So, while your comments on one side of things are noted, please speak to the other side, too.

We all need to realize that we are living in a world where crime is organized, sophisticated, and in some cases state sponsored.  The biggest problem on our plate is no longer outlaw gunmen who rob trains.  Where do you think stolen cars and bikes end up?  Many of them are shipped to Russia -- where they go from there who knows.

In order to prevent a complete decay in our society by foreign interests, we do need to take security measures.  We should be more concerned about police slowly encroaching on our rights.  When it comes to crimes like DUI, police have slowly diminished constitutional protections in the name of saving the children.  There was a time when police couldn't stop you for no reason, then came sobriety checks, but they were only allowed when and where a risk of DUi was suspected, now they can set up sobriety checks anywhere.   Now police may stop you for no reason.  For speeding and other traffic offenses, police aren't obligated to present any evidence other than personal testimony.  In fact, the same is true for DUI, because the police aren't obligated to store a separate sample of blood for defense testing.  It all sounds like a good idea because it targets "bad evil drivers".

If you believe that I'm crazy, consider what we have now:  police in Ontario can stop you for no reason, confiscate your property under civil disgoregement laws, and no court date is ever set to actually find guilt.  Basically you have little recourse, because to sue, you normally have to spend $5K to $10K, and the onus is reversed.  Rarely worth it.  But this is all to "stop crime."

Remember the U20 team got their heads smacked by the Toronto Police Force?  Or our polish visitor who got tasered to death?  Or protests in Quebec that were "joined" by undercover SQ officers who tried (in vain) to start a riot?

This is what makes a police state.  Photographs on driver's licenses is not.