h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Of course, any photo can be digitized, simply by scanning it. Anyone wanting to do that, could easily scan his photo from the newspaper....

The fact is, this guy claims that his objection is biblically-based, not simply that he doesn't want "The Man" to get hold of his image. That being the case,
1) he hasn't got a leg to stand on in claiming it's against his religion, and

2) he doesn't have a leg to stand on because, if he doesn't want "The Man" to get hold of his image
a) it's too late, and
b) there's nothing stopping him taking the bus or taking a taxi. Heck, he looks like he needs the excercise... he could always walk.

<>

Many people who drive could easily spend less by taking taxis.

Meanwhile, just as well this nutter is off the road - I thought the Amish always drove horse-drawn carts anyhow.


az

Yup

I don't think the man is Amish.


Public transport and taxis only work if you live in an urban area that has a decent public transport system.

Yeah well, I wouldn't live anywhere else.


az

Whereas I prefer living in horse and cart country

As was noted in the article, a license to drive is a priviledge, not a right. As this is the case, the Department of Transport of the province in which one is licensed makes the rules regarding this priviledge has its rules and he is SOL.

If he doesn't want to get his photo taken, and lives too far out to take the bus or a taxi, then his only option is to move somehwere where he can..... or hire a chauffeur.

I'm not sure about this right vs priviledge thing. AFAIK no-one can deny me a drivers licence on a whim - as long as I meet the criteria of the State I do have a right to have a licence and to drive.


I think the core of what this man is saying is that he objects to the digitilising of his ID (Gnomon put this better). He understands and explains this through his world view which is obviously unpopular here but I'm not sure he doesn't have a right to it. What I am wondering is what this thread would be like if he was an articulate, sophisticated urbanite who was objecting on civil liberty grounds.

The kind of ridicule I see in this thread reminds me of the reaction of white mainstream NZ to the spiritual priorities of Maori. One infamous example was local Maori objecting to a roading development through an area that contained a taniwha (a taniwha is a spiritual entity that usually inhabits water).

I'm sure there were all sorts of political, social, religious, spiritual etc reasons why this piece of land was important to Maori, but the white mainstream reduce the debate to something similar to what I have seen here - very brief newspaper article that doesn't explain very much leading to much ridicule and not much understanding.

You're right, kea (and Gnomon). I feel I should apologize: I read his objection originally as being to digital photography itself, not to digital databases.

That having been said, I think the Maori analogy is a little imprecise: The local Maori was objecting to the destruction of area that contained, in his view, a spirit; Mr. Bothwell is objecting to being required to follow the requirements of a government granted privilege on the grounds that he believes an unclear bit of a book says that said requirements are evil. For the Maori analogy to be fitting, the Ontario governement would have to be demanding that all copies of the Bible in the province be burned, whether or not Mr. Bothwell was interested in driving a car.

In any case, his picture is already in a digital database. And if you click on this link: http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/photos/bothwell_george041021.jpg it will be in yet one more digital database -- your internet cache.

"An Ontario farmer who claims digital photograph databases are the work of the devil was in court Thursday, challenging a law that requires him to submit a photo to get a driver's licence."

An Ontario driver's licence is your proof of your privilege to drive. You must carry it with you whenever you drive. Ontario has a one-piece plastic driver's licence. The licence has a digitized photograph and signature of the driver and a magnetic information strip.

From the Ministry of Transport site: "A driver's licence includes your name, address, signature, date of birth, gender, height, date licence issued and expiry dates, and codes showing what class of vehicles you may drive and under what conditions (for example, an "X" condition means you need to wear glasses/contacts for driving). If you have a red bar with four white dots under your photograph, it indicates that you qualify to be an accompanying driver under the graduated licensing program.

If you live in Ontario, you must be at least 16 years old and have a valid Ontario driver's licence to drive in the province. A newcomer to Ontario is required to apply for an Ontario driver's licence within 60 days of taking up residence in the province." http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/drvlicen.htm
Highway Traffic Act: http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/90h08_e.htm#BK6
Freedom of Information and Privacy Act: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/foi.htm
Collection of Personal Information: http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/collection.htm

(12) An applicant for a driver’s licence or a person who holds a driver’s licence shall submit to the examinations that are authorized by the regulations relating to this section and required by the Minister at the times and places that the Minister may require and the Minister may,

Applicant for driver’s licence may be photographed

(13) The Minister may require as a condition for issuing a driver’s licence that the applicant therefor submit to being photographed by equipment provided by the Ministry. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 32 (13).

No one is denying this man his license on "a whim".

One of the criteria for obtaining a drivers license is having your photo taken. The photo is used to identify you, if you are pulled over for violating a rule of the road or commit a crime behind the wheel, and to identify you as the licensed driver. A rule can be waived if, as a part of his religion, he cannot fulfill a particular requirement. However, in order for this to be taken into consideration, he must prove that he 1) is a member of a recognised religion 2) that, indeed, this would violate some tenet of his religion 3) that, by waiving this right, it would not put into danger the safety and security of other drivers.

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, he has the right to hold whatever religious beliefs he chooses.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

However, this right does not allow his personal beliefs to put others at risk.

Proving that a religion is a "recognised religion" is not difficult. One must do it in order to be able to perform marriages (Canadian law does not recognise the mail-order ministries that "license" via email people to perform marriages), one fills out a form and must have a number of "proofs" that you belong to a recognised spiritual body.

For an overview of several areas where "proof" is required in order to qualify one for exeption from or inclusion in various activities in Canada: http://religioustolerance.org/can_gov_reg.htm

In Canada, "officially recognised religions" include various Indigenous relgions, Wiccans, and other religions, large and small. Just because someone "claims" to have a particular objection to something or wants the right to do a particular thing that is normally regulated or outlawed, does not automatically give them the right.

Here in Canada, Native peoples are exempted from the law forbidding the buying, selling, or retaining eagle feathers because it is recognised that their indigenous religious tenets hold the eagle feather sacred. Doesn't mean that, ocassionally, some overzealous RCMP officer doesn't arrest some Native guy for having one, but I can't think of a single time when a court, when presented with proof that this person was Native, it wasn't thrown out of court.

Sikh RCMP officers have gained the right to wear turbans as part of their uniform.

Christian Scientists can refuse particular treatments. (The coursts will often intervene when a parent refuses treatment for a minor, but not always, and this has been challenged in the courts.

No one has the right to claim that they have the right to torture animals as part of their religion. However, it is not illegal to sacrifice a goat as part of one's relious observation, although it must be done in a humane manner.

If this man has an objection to having his photo taken (digitized or otherwise) and cannot prove that he belongs to an organized religion and that this particular objection is based on a real tenet of said religion, too bad, so sad.... no license for him.

And, by the same token, as the news story made clear, if he can come up with proof that he's part of such a religion and that that religion really believes what he says, and, as Mudhooks points out, that having a driver's licence floating around the province with no one's picture on it is not a dangerous thing, then he should get a licence.

But, by going to the media, he's already demonstrated that he has no great concern about being in a digital database.

... and, as I pointed out earlier, I can digitize my g-granfather's photograph simply by running it through a scanner. I think that "The Man" can figure that little trick and digitize to its heart's content.

Let's see, by launching a lawsuit, his name, address, and religious affiliation are now a matter of public record. His name, photo, and other information are now in the paper, and freely available on the internet. He has also stated publicly that he has a fear of "the government" getting hold of his personal information for its own "nefarious" purposes, which now has made "the government" aware that he has something to fear from them..... He is the topic of discussion over several continents, and an object of derision to at least half of the people who are now aware of his complain.

Had he just kept his mouth shut and had his photo taken, would he have been any the worse for it? Some people just don't think ahead of time.

Just a point, too, "The Man" had the ability to keep records on people long before the advent of the computer, the scanner, and the digital camera, as I can personally attest, and anyone who was blacklisted during the McCarthy Era. Not having a photo on his driver's license isn't going to be an impediment to any of the various people he seems to be worried about.

Perhaps if he spent as much energy in working towards a world where the CIA, FBI, CSIS, or MI5 (or whoever) didn't have the right to trample on the rights of people as he does in makling himself look like a Luddite, he'd have a tad more credibility.

The fact is, there is probably as much personal information on him floating about in the Ether as a result of his having bought the shirt he was wearing at Walmart than there is from having his photo on the MOT database.