Your search

Québec is pushing to ban public servants from wearing religious garb even as the crucifix hangs in its legislature. It’s ironic and hypocritical for a province that prides itself on secularism.

Free speech may protect offensive speech, but we degrade this central right when we see it as simply the right to offend, regardless of the impact on others.

In most religious accommodation cases, an individual or group seeks to be exempted from a law that restricts their religious practice. The accommodation claim, though, has a slightly different form in conscientious objection cases. In these cases, an individual asks to be exempted not from a law that restricts his/her religious practice, but instead from a law that requires him/her to perform an act that he/she regards as immoral. In many of these cases the claimant asks to be excused from performing an act that is not itself “immoral” but that supports or facilitates (what she/he sees as) the immoral action of others, and so makes him/her complicit in this immorality.

Explores the interplay between law and religion in the area of hate speech, whether religion is the target or source

Canada is often cited as one of the principal sources of proportionality analysis --- an approach to the determination of limits on constitutional rights that has been adopted in many jurisdictions. The two-step structure of constitutional rights adjudication is built on the idea that these rights are the basic conditions of individual autonomy or liberty that must be protected from the demands of collective welfare. At the first stage of the adjudication the court determines whether the restricted activity falls within the scope of the right. At the second stage, the court balances the right against the competing interest advanced by the restrictive law, to determine whether the restriction is justified. Yet few of these rights fit this individual liberty model and are better understood as social or relational in character – protecting different aspects of the individual’s interaction or connection with others in the community. If we recognize that most constitutional rights do not simply protect individual autonomy but instead protect different aspects of human flourishing or dignity within community then two things may follow. First there can be no single generic test for limits on rights. The form or character of “limitations” on these rights may differ in significant ways. Second, the two-steps of adjudication may often be difficult to separate or the separation may seem quite artificial. Many of the issues addressed by the courts will not fit easily into the two-step structure of analysis, because the “competing” interests are really different dimensions of a social relationship.

Many recent hate speech cases in Canada, Europe, and elsewhere involve religion either as the source of views that are alleged to be hateful or as the target of such views and sometimes, of course, as both the source and target of these views. This chapter explores the difference religion makes to the application of hate speech laws – when it is the target of this speech. The ‘religious’ hate speech cases are difficult for the same reason that all hate speech cases are difficult. There is significant disagreement in the community about whether, or to what extent, the restriction of hate speech can be reconciled with the public commitment to freedom of expression. There is, however, another reason why hate speech cases involving religion are so difficult, which stems from our complex conception of religious adherence or membership – as both a personal commitment and a cultural identity. The chapter focuses on anti-Muslim speech in Canada.

In the burgeoning literature on law and religion, scholarly attention has tended to focus on broad questions concerning the scope of religious freedom, the nature of toleration and the meaning of secularism. An under-examined issue is how religion figures in the decisions, actions and experiences of those charged with performing public duties. This point of contact between religion and public authority has generated a range of legal and political controversies around issues such as the wearing of religious symbols by public officials, prayer at municipal government meetings, religious education and conscientious objection by public servants. Authored by scholars from a variety of disciplines, the chapters in this volume provide insight into these and other issues. Yet the volume also provides an entry point into a deeper examination of the concepts that are often used to organise and manage religious diversity, notably state neutrality. By examining the exercise of public authority by individuals who are religiously committed - or who, in the discharge of their public responsibilities, must account for those who are - this volume exposes the assumptions about legal and political life that underlie the concept of state neutrality and reveals its limits as a governing ideal.

The question of whether a province can require civil marriage commissioners to perform same sex marriages, over their religious objections, has been addressed by the Canadian courts in a series of cases. In each of these cases the issue is framed by the courts as a contest between religious freedom and sexual orientation equality that must be resolved through the balancing of these competing interests. And in each of these cases the court strikes the balance in favour of sexual orientation equality, determining that the equality rights of same-sex couples outweighs the religious freedom of marriage commissioners. Despite what they say, the courts in these cases do not balance or trade-off religious freedom and sexual orientation equality, but instead give complete priority to the latter. A refusal by a marriage commissioner to perform a same-sex civil marriage ceremony is viewed by the courts as the cause of harm or injury to the couple (an act of discrimination) and not simply as a competing claim. I will argue that there is no balancing in these cases because there is no freedom of religion interest to be balanced against the right to sexual orientation equality. The marriage commissioner’s freedom of religion lacks substance not, or not simply, because the commissioner is a public official, or because the interference with his/her religious beliefs is indirect or partial. Rather the religious objection of the marriage commissioner falls outside the scope of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [the Charter], because it involves a belief about how others in the community should behave and be treated. A marriage commissioner has no claim to be exempted from the duties of his or her position on the basis of such a belief.

There is a debate at the moment about whether the law societies (which regulate the legal profession in the various provinces) must accredit a law program to be offered by Trinity Western University [TWU], a private Evangelical Christian college. The Law Society of Upper Canada [LSUC], along with the law societies of British Columbia and Nova Scotia, refused to the accredit the proposed program because of the school’s discriminatory admissions policy and in particular the covenant that all students are required to sign, in which they agree, among other things, not to engage in sex outside of marriage and sex with a same-sex partner. The issue in the TWU accreditation case is whether the covenant is simply an internal matter (a rule that applies simply to the internal operations of a voluntary religious association) or whether it impacts outsiders to the religious community or the public interest, more generally. As I understand it, the law societies are not claiming that the members of a religious community need to be protected from oppressive or discriminatory internal rules. There are two ways in which it may be argued that the TWU program (and the covenant in particular) will have an impact on the public interest. The first argument is that a school that teaches its students that homosexuality is wrongful or immoral will not properly prepare lawyers for practice in the general community. Lawyers have duties to their clients, to the law, and to the institutions of justice. An accredited school must be willing to affirm basic equality rights. Second, admission to Canadian law schools is competitive. If its program is accredited, TWU will select students from a large number of applicants. Following graduation (as well as articling, and bar exams), TWU students will be eligible to practice law in a particular province. The accredited law schools are a gateway to the legal profession. The concern then is that TWU’s admissions policy will have a discriminatory impact on gays and lesbians who wish to enter the legal profession.

In Mouvement laique v Saguenay the Supreme Court of Canada held that the recitation of a prayer at the opening of a municipal council’s public meeting breached ‘the state’s duty of neutrality’ in matters of religion. The comment discusses some of the difficulties or challenges raised by the Court's commitment to religious neutrality.

An introduction to a general discussion of the Canadian courts' approach to religious freedom, which argues among other things that despite their formal commitment to state neutrality in religious matters, the courts have applied this requirement selectively - sometimes treating religion as a cultural identity towards which the state should remain neutral and other times (when it touches upon or addresses civic matters) as a political or moral judgment by the individual that should be subject to the give-and-take of politics. Behind the courts' uneven application of the neutrality requirement lies a complex conception of religious commitment in which religion is viewed as both an aspect of the individual's identity and as a set of judgments made by the individual about truth and right. The challenge for the courts is to find a way to fit this complex conception of religious commitment into a constitutional framework that that relies on a distinction between individual choices or commitments that should be protected as a matter of individual liberty, and individual attributes or traits that that should be respected as a matter of equality.

A recent request for religious accommodation at York University has generated controversy not just about the merits of the particular claim but also about the general practice of religious accommodation under human rights codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue in this case exposes some of the tensions in our understanding of religious freedom and religious equality – and more particularly the requirement of religious accommodation. “Religion” (religious belief and practice) does not fit comfortably within the model of equality rights or anti-discrimination laws and seeing why this is so might help us to better understand the conflict in this case – the university’s decision to accommodate and the public reaction to that decision. The first difficulty is that religious adherence may be viewed as both an individual commitment and a collective identity. The second, and related, difficulty is that religious belief systems or traditions may be seen as both a set of practices and a set of beliefs about truth and right, which sometimes have public implications.

There is a strong case to be made that racist, and other forms of bigoted, speech, even when it is not so extreme that it breaches general hate speech laws, should be prohibited on campus. A commitment to academic freedom supports the free and open exchange of ideas and information but also certain standards of communicative engagement – most notably the treatment of others in the academic community as interlocutors, as conversation partners who should be addressed and heard. Racial (and other) stereotypes and insults are inconsistent with the educational mission of the school and the idea of membership in an educational community. More generally, the injury of racist speech may be more acute in the closer environment and tighter community of the campus. However, the regulation of a broad category of racist speech raises a variety of challenges. In addressing the question of the fair and appropriate limits (or forms of regulation) of speech on campus, I will consider the case of Israel Apartheid Week [IAW], an event that takes place each year on several Canadian campuses, and more particularly whether IAW (and its claim that Israel is an apartheid state) is anti-Semitic and appropriately banned from campuses. The recent report of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism [CPCCA] argues that IAW is anti-Semitic. However, the CPCCA claim appears to rest on the politically contestable view that the existence of Israel is vital to the continued existence of the Jewish people and that any criticism of actions taken by Israel to ensure its viability or any questioning of Israel’s religious ethnic identity constitutes an attack on the Jewish people. But these are politically contestable claims – about the link between nation and state, the treatment of religious-ethnic minorities, and the actions necessary ensure the viability of the state … The challenge to these claims must be treated as a legitimate part of political debate and cannot be excluded from campus.