Your search

Pierre Trudeau’s deep personal commitment to Catholicism was largely unknown to Canadians during his tenure as Prime Minister. Indeed, his religious commitment did not play an obvious role in his political life. Trudeau’s version of Catholicism, ‘personalism’, emphasized the personal – interior – spiritual commitment of the individual and the necessity of the separation of religion and politics. He stressed the importance of individual liberty in matters of faith but also the personal responsibility of the individual to serve others and work towards a more just society. Trudeau was opposed to the recognition of an official religion, and indeed to any form of state promotion of a particular religious belief system. He rejected the assumption that political community or social solidarity required a shared (and public) commitment to a particular faith or culture. His promotion of multiculturalism stemmed from his belief that national identity or political membership should not be based on a shared ethnicity that would necessarily include some and exclude others. His championing of the Charter of Rights rested on the view that citizenship should be grounded instead on a shared commitment to the protection of individual and democratic rights. Trudeau was a committed believer and a secular politician, who sought to separate his public action and private conscience. In a sense then he embodied the separation of religion and politics – of church and state – that is central to the contemporary conception of religious freedom. In this chapter, I want to explore the challenge of separating personal or communal spiritual life from civic life which Trudeau had to navigate, throughout his political career.

Religious beliefs/practices are excluded and insulated from political contest not because they are intrinsically valuable but instead because they are aspects of a collective or cultural identity and markers of membership in the collective. If the state’s duty to accommodate religious practices is about the status of religious groups rather than the liberty of individuals (a matter of equality rather than liberty) then it may not extend to practices that are idiosyncratic and have no link to a religious or cultural group/tradition. The requirement that the state should accommodate religious beliefs or practices (and sometimes compromise its policies) is most often justified as necessary to ensure that the individual’s deepest values and commitments and more generally his/her autonomy in decision- making are respected. I argue, however, that reasonable accommodation is better understood as a form of equality right that is based on the importance of community or group membership to the individual. Understood in this way, the accommodation requirement may not extend to an individual’s deeply held non-religious practices, if they are not part of a shared belief system. The willingness of the courts to protect certain non- religious practices (to require their accommodation by the state) may rest simply on their formal similarity to familiar religious practices such as pacifism or vegetarianism – that are specific in content, peremptory in force and that diverge from mainstream practices. Yet, as a practical matter, practices of this kind are seldom sustained outside a religious or cultural community. It is not an accident then that the very few instances of non-religious, ‘conscientious’, practices that have been accommodated are similar in content and structure to familiar religious practices, and indeed may have arisen from these religious practices.

The most frequently made criticism of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ktuxana v. BC echoes a familiar and more general criticism of the Anglo-American understanding of religious freedom. The Court’s narrow or ‘protestant’ conception of religious freedom, which is focused on the individual – on his/her belief or commitment and his/her personal relationship with a transcendent God – is said to have the effect of denying meaningful protection to Indigenous and other spiritual systems that emphasize ritual and community life, and that recognize a spiritual presence in the natural world. I will argue that in a religiously/culturally diverse society such as Canada, the protection granted by s. 2(a) (the Charter’s religious freedom right) must be limited to those practices that can be viewed, at least substantially, as personal to the individual or internal to the religious group. The failure of the courts to give religious freedom protection to important Indigenous practices may stem not from a narrow conception of religion but rather from a recognition of the limits of religious freedom in a democratic political community. However, I will argue that the majority of the Court in Ktunaxa went further than this and introduced a limit on the scope of religious freedom that unnecessarily and artificially limits the freedom’s protection based on a Christian understanding of religion, as concerned centrally with the worship of a divine power. In earlier cases, the Court has limited the protection of s.2(a) by defining the concept of religion narrowly or interpreting the practices of a particular religion narrowly so that they did not include communal connections and practices.

A commitment to free speech means protecting speech for reasons that are independent of the truth or merit of its content. This commitment, though, depends on certain assumptions or conditions – most notably that individuals are capable of making reasoned and independent judgments and have access to different opinions and reliable factual information. These conditions, of course, never hold perfectly, but they now seem to be eroding at a rapid pace.The character of public speech has changed in the internet era: how we speak to one another and how we experience that speech. Audiences have become more fragmented. Disinformation and conspiracy theories seem to spread easily and widely, so that distortion and deceit rather than direct censorship may now be the most significant threat to public discourse. There is little common ground in the community on factual matters or the reliability of different sources of information, which has made it difficult, even impossible, to discuss issues and to agree or compromise on public policy. Those who hold competing positions seem rarely to engage with one another and, when they do, their engagement is often combative. A growing number of people feel they should not be expected to hear speech with which they disagree, or which is critical of their views. The spaces or platforms in which public speech occurs have become increasingly privatized and therefore outside the scope of the constitutional right to freedom of expression. What future does the right to free speech have in this changing communication environment?

This paper examines the recent Supreme Court of Canada judgment in LSBC v. TWU, in which the court upheld the decision of the BC law society not to accredit a law program proposed by an Evangelical Christian university. The paper argues that the task for the courts in this and other religious freedom cases is not to balance competing civic and religious interests but is instead to mark the boundary between the spheres of civic and spiritual life. More particularly, in this case, the issue was whether TWU (in applying to operate an accredited law program) should be viewed as a private religious institution that is free to govern itself according to its own norms, or whether, because its actions directly impact outsiders to the religious group, it should be viewed as performing a public role and therefore subject to non-discrimination and other civic norms. The different judgments in the case begin with different assumptions about the public/private character of TWU (or at least its proposed law program) and so never really address the key issue and never really engage with each other. The paper argues that because admission to law school continues to be a significant barrier to entry into the legal profession in Canada, TWU’s admission decisions will have an impact on non-members. The law society, therefore, was justified in requiring TWU to conform to non-discrimination norms as a condition of accreditation.