|
This summer’s split decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that the Province of Alberta could force members of its Hutterite community to submit to being photographed when renewing their drivers' licenses or applying for a new one was a setback for the liberty of all Canadians, not just those who belong to a religious community.
"Freedom of Religion" is one of those rights specifically enumerated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s important to bear in mind though, that it, like all of the rights enumerated in the Charter, is predicated on the fundamental principle of individual liberty, in this case the right of free individuals to practice their religion - as free individuals - as they see fit, without undue interference from the state.
The Supreme Court's decision that Alberta's Hutterites can be denied drivers' licenses unless they agree to be photographed does not simply infringe upon the religious freedom of members of that community per se, it expands and enhances the power of the state, thereby diminishing the freedom of all Canadians.
One might ask: who cares if the government acquires and retains a picture as part of the process of obtaining a driver's license? It’s not the point. The point is that there are those who do care, and their reasons for caring are compelling - at least to them. The Government of Alberta readily acknowledged this fact, but argued that it was necessary to enforce the photograph requirement anyway or risk undermining the integrity of its photo database which is used to reduce identity theft.
Four of seven Supreme Court Justices agreed with this line of reasoning, explaining that "(t)he goal of setting up a system that minimizes the risk of identity theft associated with drivers' licenses is a pressing and important public goal..."
Except - the Alberta government offered no credible evidence that its photo database actually does reduce identity theft. Quite the contrary, the Hutterite community had been exempted from the photo requirement since the program's inception in the mid-1970s with no discernable increase in the frequency of identity theft. What's more, nearly three-quarters of a million Alberta residents don't drive and are therefore also not part of the database.
If 400-odd Hutterites are gravely harming the integrity of the province's photo database by refusing to have their pictures taken, think of how much damage is being caused by all those citizens who don't drive? How long before the province requires them to be photographed too?
Or finger-printed?
Equally troubling is the ease with which the majority of Supreme Court Justices accepted the argument that minimizing the "risk of identity theft associated with drivers' licenses is a pressing and important public goal..."
But why? Sure, combating crime is an important responsibility of the state, and reducing the risk of crime is something we should all strive for; but identity theft is primarily a crime against the individual - not society. If a law-abiding citizen is willing, with good reason, to assume that risk, what right does the state have to over rule him?
I'm not a libertarian. I'm a conservative, which means, in part, that I believe in principle that the community has the right, through democratic means, to establish and enforce public standards of behaviour. That right should be strictly limited though, and its exercise should be subject to the wise and judicious oversight of Courts and Judges who understand that protecting and defending individual liberty is also a "pressing and important public goal."
Alberta's small Hutterite community is made up of peaceful, hard-working and self-reliant citizens who are neither a threat, nor a burden, to anyone - a fine example to us all. They are exactly the sort of people the law should be protecting.
Instead, in defiance of common sense and objective evidence, the majority of Supreme Court Justices chose, for what can only be characterized as ideological reasons, to become a blunt instrument of state policy, thereby opening the door to the government's increased intrusion into our private lives and the consequent erosion of everyone's liberty.
This column was first published by No Apologies.
 |
