The Lethbridge Herald reported yesterday (story isn’t online) that the legal fight over whether the members of the Wilson Hutterite colony near Lethbridge will be exempted from provincial requirements to have photographs on their driver’s licenses. It is apparently contrary to their interpretation of the second of the Bible’s Ten Commandments which forbids making graven images or worshiping such images. This is an particularly strict interpretation not shared by many other Hutterite colonies who do allow some photographs (although often not formally posed ones. There are a few different sects of the Hutterian Bretheren, some embrace technology like computers and what not, others do not.
It is a religious freedom issue and I can understand how the Wilson community could feel quite strongly about the issue, but I don’t think this particular issue is serious enough to warrant making exceptions in provincial regulations
Hutterites were granted an exemption for around 30 years but when Alberta brought in new, high tech licenses a few years ago to prevent identity theft, the Brethren lost their privilege to opt out. As I understand it, their new licenses would not actually display the photos, but the province would include the images in a common database. The matter went to the courts, they won, but then there were provincial appeals.
I posted about the issue back on July 25 reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada decided in favour (4-3)of the province.
The Globe and Mail had a story about it in July: “The goal of setting up a system that minimizes the risk of identity theft associated with driver’s licenses is a pressing and important public goal,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the majority. “The universal photo requirement is connected to this goal and does not limit freedom [of] religion more than required to achieve it.”
The Herald is reporting today that a decision came down on Thursday that the court will not allow the Hutterites to reargue. Greg Senda, the lawyer for the Wilson Colony, is quoted as saying:
“Now they’ll have to decide how they can continue to adhere to their faith”. “They now have to read down deep in their souls and decide what to do.”
While I understand their feelings, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for their cause at all. No one is asking them to “worship” the photos and the principle of one law for all should be regarded as at least as important as a principle as religious exemptions. The Hutterites are asking for special rules to get around what amounts to a trivial complaint and inconvenience.
People should not get what they want just because it is claimed to be part of their religion.
The issue is far bigger than their own concerns about photography and idolatry. Many people in Canada would love to have religious exemptions from all sorts of obligations. I normally don’t like slippery slope arguments but in this case the slide is pretty appropriate.
Should biology teachers be expected to teach evolution or sex education if it is in the curriculum? Of course. Their own religious convictions should not be allowed to interfere. Should the proper government officials be obligated to perform marriages for same-sex couples if such unions are lawful? Absolutely. It should not but up to the couple to find a Justice of the Peace who would be willing. In the delivering of government services, there should be little if any allowance for the individual provider to refuse to perform her or his duty on on religious grounds. In any case, the regulation in question is not as egregious as demanding that pacifists crew artillery pieces for the army.
A groovin' image
By the same token, people should expect that it is not a light thing to exempt some people from the obligations others have to live under. It is unfair to expect the government to provide special allowances for one group who do not want to demonstrate in the same way everyone else does that they have the proper qualification to lawfully drive on public roads.
Part of the idea of photo I.D. is to make sure the person carrying the license while driving is the person named on the darn thing and that there is protection against identity theft. I’m sorry, but photo I.D., databases, microchips in credit cards are just the way the world is. It is a bigger issue than the Alberta government or even the Canadian government.
Talk about this ruining their religious way of life is just rhetorical hype. It is not as if the Hutterites are being orced to photograph themselves regularly or are being banned from praying, or forbidden to wear their distinctive clothes in public. One hyped up Christian news service even claimed in their headline, Hutterites Ordered to ‘Commit Idolatry’. No one is ordering them to do a damn thing, except to get their photos taken if they want to drive on the public roads legally.
Similarly, I think bans on burkas in public should be resisted quite strongly. People should have the right to dress as they please. Yet, I would not extend that right to exclude people from walking into banks or other secure facilities when their faces are covered, or being photographed for passports or driver’s licenses with their faces covered.
Technorati Tags: driver’s+license, graven+image, Hutterites, idolatry, religious+exemptions, religious+freedom, Supreme+Court+of+Canada, Ten+Commandments
October 18, 2009 at 9:52 am
On the burka thing, do they want to be covered up, or are they forced by their belief system to cover up? I agree with you either way, I just thought I’d ask that.
This Hutterite thing causes some strife in the library system as well. We usually require photo ID and proof of address when setting up library cards, but I think the colonies get a special reprieve when it comes to that. I don’t even know if the women drive, and they’ll often come in with cards belonging to a whole host of their relatives to grab any religious fiction holds off the shelves. They sure love their DVDs, too.
Our library system is also in the process of merging the catalogues of several different libraries in Saskatchewan, with a later merge of all patron records province-wide. I’ve just had a fearful thought about all those Hutterite names…
October 18, 2009 at 6:28 pm
My sense is that some Islamic women DO want to wear the burka et. al. It is simply part of their culture and they might feel really exposed without it. Even with horrific things like female circumcision in Egypt and other places it is often the women who are enthusiastic supporters of it.
OF course, that is not to say that peer, family and cultural pressure does not force many women into wearing the burka when they would rather not.
If I have it right, the fully covered face is not actually demanded in the Quran or the Hadith (authoritative traditions about the prophet’s teaching or example), but are interpretations added to the general requirement that women dress very modestly. Many religious traditions pride themselves on adding extra requirements to prove their piety, and that is where the fully covered face comes from, I think. If I have it right, it is regional and sectarian, not every Muslim culture would require this.
Some Muslim women, growing up in fairly liberal environments, have chosen wear the headscarves, loose clothing, etc. as a political gesture or a way of renouncing the petty fashions of modernity. I’ve seen some reports where women who do this say they felt liberated from having their bodies rated by men.
I suppose it is easy to say “Ban the Burka” and so forth, but sometimes one person’s prison is another’s liberation. Still, there are times when one’s identity needs to be proven, and all face coverings from burkas to motorcycle helmets, have to come off.