Saturday, February 21, 2015

Freedom of Religion

Recent events in the news have raised the issue of religious freedom and specifically the legal implications of religiously focused face covering. The Constitution does give certain rights and freedoms that are relevant.
The "Fundamental Freedoms" section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion ...
A fundamental right to freedom of religion is a central part of the Constitution.

That said, all rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that are consistent with a free and democratic society. The hard issue is where to draw that line.

The Supreme Court considered the issue of people who did not want their faces to be on public documents - drivers licences - in Alberta v Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony 2009 SCC 37. Here the Court held religious conduct was properly limited.

Alberta required all persons obtaining drivers licences had to have a photograph taken; a requirement objected to by Hutterites. Alberta conceded that the photograph requirement was a violation of the Hutterites' religious freedom but argued that this violation was allowable as a "reasonable limit" on Charter rights. The Hutterites maintained that the requirement was an unreasonable limit.

Chief Justice McLachlin, writing for the majority, found the law constitutional. She found that the government's need to fight identity fraud was pressing, and that driving was not a right, so the government was entitled to attach legitimate conditions to it.

A government requirement to reveal a face, contrary to a sincerely held religious belief, is valid but only if there is a substantial and important reason for the requirement and there is no other practical way to fulfill the requirement. Absent such basis a limit on freedom of religion will be held unconstitutional.

7 comments:

MarkhamMom said...

seems like a balanced view of this issue

Anonymous said...

Yes a reasonable and balanced limit which should consider that a religious face covering, such as a burka, does not exist. The requirement that a Muslim women should cover her face stems from the demand of the man she "belongs" to, be it her husband, brother or father.

I am Muslim so DO NOT try and tell me my religion or that I am wrong on this issue. I firmly believe that this issue has been and is currently being, politicized by a small vocal Muslim minority. This small minority is being exploited by opportunistic politicians such as Trudeau and Mulcair, all in the name of obtaining so called religious equality.

Any opposition to this politicized matter will result in the opposed being call a racists, Islamaphobic, xenophobic and or un-Canadian.

The current Harper government is too cowardly to call a spade a spade and to admit that the so-called religious face coverings are not religious and violate everything that is representative of being a free Canadian.

Instead we have these vocal minority groups who hide behind the guise of freedom and democracy and use the Canadian Charter of Rights to justify their twisted version of religion. Further to this we have politicians jumping on the bandwagon in the hopes of gaining a few votes at the cost of true freedom and democracy.

If a person wishes to merely cover their face for the heck of it and for the sack of expressing democracy then FINE! BUT IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS necessity: So if the covered person is told to remove it when confronted by police, occupying a public or private building, obtaining a service at a grocery store or government agency or just otherwise asked to remove the face covering for purposes of Canadian social integration and assimilation - STOP USING THE RACE AND RELIGIOUS CARD and remove the covering!

And for people who simply dismiss a face covering as a religious right then I encourage you to send your mother, daughter, wife or sister to Saudi Arabia and see if the face covering is as beautiful and as wonderful as you may think.

Anonymous said...

One of the reasons the limit was permitted in the Alberta decision was that the objective of preventing identity theft was pressing and substantial. There is no corresponding concern when it comes to taking the oath. In fact, there is simply no reason at all to say someone must have their face uncovered when taking the oath. None.

Frankly, while I respect the concerns expressed above, and I personally abhor the notion that women have to cover their faces, I do not want my country to deny citizenship to this woman simply because she feels she must cover her face (for whatever reason). If she is being coerced into covering her face that is not going to change simply because we deny her citizenship. In fact I think it is more likely to change if she has citizenship.

Anonymous said...

Actually, religion ought to have no place within government at all. If people follow their religious beliefs in justice there would be no need for it to be covered within government....that is a ha-ha. However, the clear understanding of Religion of any kind, is it prejudicial to the mind.

Anonymous said...

Religious appeasement equals votes. Secularism equals exclusion. Exclusion violates the principles of Canadian equality through multiculturalism. When a person's religion requires them to pray 5 times a day and our society does not accommodate that requirement then this is a violation of religious freedom as per the Charter. This is why many public schools, universities and government workplaces in Canada now make time for Muslims to pray throughout the day. Any objections? Didn't think so. Canada will have Sharia law as a parallel for people of the Muslim faith within 10 years I promise you that. Sharia law is coming into effect in many places in Europe and especially Great Britain, which is the mother of Canada's legal system. The government is currently being lobbied by Muslim groups and it is an inevitable certainty. The formal Sharia law debate was lost in Ontario back in 2005/06 but Many informal aspect of Sharia have thrived which require formal regulation to ensure compatibility with Canadian law. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Canada and the world and Islam is the fastest growing population demographic in Canada. Since 9/11 Canada has seen an average of over 55 thousand Muslim immigrants a year being welcomed here and blessed with citizenship, democracy and freedom.

Nat said...

I rather liked the specification that driving is not a right. If there are social limitations in covering one's face in a place where one has a choice, then the person choosing to do so properly claims those limitations.
All religions are subject to some level of cultural conditioning - that's human nature. It's unfortunate that some of the cultural adaptations of Islam set some individuals up for experiencing less of life in a country that tries to offer its citizens such an abundance of possibility.

Nat said...

I rather liked the specification that driving is not a right. If there are social limitations in covering one's face in a place where one has a choice, then the person choosing to do so properly claims those limitations.
All religions are subject to some level of cultural conditioning - that's human nature. It's unfortunate that some of the cultural adaptations of Islam set some individuals up for experiencing less of life in a country that tries to offer its citizens such an abundance of possibility.