Alberta Driving Law
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.
(From the CBC, “No photo required for some Hutterite drivers.”)
Only in Canada could national security take a backseat. Possibly France will adopt the same legislature. I have not seen anyway the bible could be interpeted this way. The judge that agreed to this needs to be removed from the bench. Also if this is the case do the people protesting the photo have any painting or pictures in their home. This would also violate their so called belief..Just another idiot trying make a point of their stupidity.
Uhh, there’s more than one bible out there, and its easy to support this on the basis of idol worship, false images, and things like that.
Wow, very informed comment Glad. Concerning the actual decision, firstly, the CBC article neglected to mention that it is being appealed. Secondly, if you really think that a provincial vehicle operator’s license, or any internal government identification of the sort, is a major factor in ‘National Security’ then I think I see a spot of fascism flavoured Kool-Aid on your chin, get a tissue and clean yourself up.
These licenses have little to nothing to do with supporting national security; they were never purposed as such. With respect to fraud and identity theft, there is little to no impact as these cards (with pictures) can be forged or even obtained under illegitimate circumstances if you are desperate enough.
Speaking as a citizen of Canada, and specifically Alberta, I’d say that having my civil liberties protected is much preferred to having them curtailed with no obvious benefit. What defines your way of life fundamentally? What frames the social contract? That right, your civil liberties. The more you have the better, so how does giving them up under false pretense protect them?