Western Standard
email print

Hutterites steamrolled by the state

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled against the Hutterites, stating they will need to have their pictures taken in order to get drivers licenses, even though this goes against their religious beliefs. Pierre Lemieux questions the need for photo identification in the first place.

Pierre Lemieux - August 4, 2009

On July 24, in a case brought by the Hutterian Brethen of Wilson Colony, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Alberta government is entitled to require a photo on the Hutterites’ drivers’ licences. “The negative impact on the freedom of religion of Colony members who wish to obtain licences,” the decision summary explains, “does not outweigh the benefits associated with the universal photo requirement.”

The Hutterites – a sect or a religious group as one might want to call them – refuse to have their pictures taken for their drivers licences and for a related digital photo data bank. They believe that photographs are “likelynesses” prohibited by the Second Commandment: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4). Stupid belief? I would think so. But it is their belief, and weighing its importance for them against the beliefs of others about some ID system is comparing oranges and apples. Such comparisons can only be arbitrary and dictatorial.

It can be – and was also – argued that the Hutterites should be subjected to the same laws as everybody else. However, loopholes can be useful in undermining a bad law. Equal oppression for all is not a great ideal.
The main issue remained whether the photograph requirement infringed on the Hutterites’ freedom of religion. The court said yes, and used the so-called “Oakes test” to determine whether this infringement is, according to s. 1 of the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms, “justifiable in a free and democratic society.” The majority ruled that it is. They argued that “maintaining the integrity of the driver’s licensing system” is necessary to protect the drivers’ licences as “a widely used and respected method of personal identification.” Now, this is precisely the problem.

The government of Alberta argued that a photograph on drivers’ licences (brought in by a Conservative government) is necessary to fight identity theft. How can it be so? Until relatively recently, there was no government photo ID at all in this country – as late as the 1990s in the case of Québec. Tricks and rules of thumbs developed to evaluate honesty and identify individuals, from their signatures to their body language. And it worked.

With no state ID papers, there was no canned identity to be stolen. Interestingly, the Supreme Court recognizes that “the issue of identity theft is a social problem that has grown exponentially in terms of cost to the community since photo licences were introduced in Alberta in 1974,” and admits that “[a] collateral effect of the licensing system is that the driver’s licences issued under this system have become generalized identification documents, with the attendant risk that they might be misused for identity theft.”

A drivers’ licencing system calls for adding photographs, which soon morph into a digital photo data base. What’s the next step? Biometric ID papers or RFID implants? Once you get into this logic, the end product will be a parent licencing system, a three-decade-old academic proposal based on the driver licencing model. The reason why no drivers’ licences should carry a picture is that we need to stop this drift – if we are too shy to question the whole system of licencing drivers.

Look at the big picture. The danger of official ID papers is that they allow the state to monitor individuals and, thus, to reduce the cost of enforcing and imposing growing regulation on them. Photographs on drivers’ licences (and on medicare cards) contributed much to the rise of government ID papers in Canada. When they bore no picture, they were less efficient. Blessed inefficiency!

Since photographs appeared on government ID papers, private parties have jumped on the bandwagon or obediently fallen into the ranks. Just a few days ago, I had to show government photo ID to my branch of the CIBC, where I have been a customer for nearly three decades, in order to renew an ATM card. The CIBC had resisted perhaps better than other banks (the National Bank, for example, caved in much earlier), but it has now fallen too. One sometimes wonders if these tightly regulated bureaucracies are really private businesses anymore.

More articles by Pierre Lemieux