User:Ansolin/Status of religious freedom in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the 1982 preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Canada was founded on the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law

The idea seems to be a balance between freedom of religion and the state rights, this was first tested in the guibord case of 1874 where the state used it power to force the Catholic Church to provide a Joseph Guibord a strong proponent of the church in life,with a Christian burial upon his death sighting that to do otherwise would be to suggest that guibord wasn’t a good man which was not the case.

Section two of this document goes on. Everyone has fundamental freedoms which includes the freedom of conscience and religion “the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination”. R. v. Big M Drug Mart

Since that time the state has always strived to provide complete freedom of religion as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Canadians are therefore free to have their own beliefs and opinions, are free to practice religion or to ignore it, and are free to establish media organizations with or without religious content. Canadian religious institutions generally benefit from charitable organization status, which allows supporters to benefit from tax deductions for their financial contributions.

There have however in recant year been serious changes to the Canadian legal system that have been seen by some as an attack on freedom of religious belief.

These are:

The House of Commons and the Senate in May 2004 passing Bill C-250, which added "sexual orientation" to the "hate propaganda" section of the Canadian Criminal Code, thus making it illegal for people to propagate hate based on sexual orientation. This did not include clergymen however.

And

The Supreme Court of Canada in December 2004 replied to the federal government's draft legislation that would legalize gay marriage nationwide. The Court ruled that the federal government has the exclusive authority to define marriage, that same-sex marriage was constitutional and was far from violating it, in fact "it flowed from" it, and that religious officials can't be forced to perform gay weddings.

Contents 1 Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada 2 Free speech 3 Education and religion 4 Comments from federal government officials 5 Other forms of alleged discrimination or threats to religious freedom 6 Legal precedents supporting religious freedom in Canada 7 See also 8 Footnotes

[edit] Religious freedom regarding homosexuality views in Canada

Many monotheistic religions in Canada (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) have sacred texts that have sections that declare sexual relations between people of the same sex as forbidden. For example, the Koran (7:80-81, 26:165) and the Bible (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:9-10, etc.) explicitly forbid homosexuality. Conflicting verses do exist and at least one speaks positively about homosexual love (Samuel 1:26).In resent years however the official view on homosexuality has become more tolerant with a clear distinction between members of the religion be they Christian,Jew or Muslim and thoughs outside most treat the physical act as a sin but not the temptation to do so and accept that all people are sinners.These groups council there members to treat thoughs outside there religion with respect in keeping with gods love till they accept gods plan for then no religious group advocates any acts of discrimination. This view however does not extend to same sex marriages which is seen as going against there belief that god plan should include naturally born children. To date there has been no attempt by the government to force religious group to perform same sex marriages.

[edit] Free speech

In reason years the bible itself has been brought under scrutiny with the Hugh Owen case, a Saskatchewan prison guard, who published an advertisement in the Star-Phoenix, a newspaper in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The ad referenced Bible verses related to homosexuality (without quoting them) and drew a line through an image representing a gay couple. A complaint was lodged with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Board of Inquiry. The Board ruled against Owen and that decision was also upheld by a lower court. For a time, this set the only legal precedent in Canada for parts of the Bible being deemed as hate literature. On 13 April 2006 the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal overturned the previous decisions, but warned that Bible verses could still be deemed as hate literature depending on how they are used.^[1]

[edit] Education and religion

Canada has an inconsistent approach to religious education. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. More recently however, with a growing level of multiculturalism, particularly in Ontario, debate has emerged as to whether publicly funded religious education for one group is permissible. Newfoundland for example, withdrew Catholic funding in 1995. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.

Canadian public school systems are under pressure to promote LGBT-rights or sex education topics. The trend started in 2002, when the Supreme Court ruled that Surrey, British Columbia schools can not select library books that exclude LGBT-related publications.^[2] It has now evolved into a full scale re-write of curriculums. The most visible example of this is the BC Government appointment of Peter and Murray Corren, a gay advocacy couple, to edit public school cirruculums. The Correns had previously filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the omission of LGBT-related topics in school curriculums is a form of discrimination. Rather than fight the case, the Government of BC quietly signed a six-page "legally binding" contract in April 2006 transferring an undisclosed amount of control to the Correns to amend the K-12 curriculums relating to sexual orientation issues. There was no public debate on the appointment of the advocacy couple to amend the curriculums. Partial details of the contract were disclosed by newspapers a couple of months after the appointment. The couple has told newspapers that they also intend to limit the ability of parents to have their children "opt-out" of learning about "healthy lifestyles" and "healthy relationships". It is not clear what impact this might have on faith-based schools, which are required by law to teach the same curriculum as public schools.^[3]

Similarly, in many cases it is no longer possible for parents to have their children "opt-out" of sex education. Cheryl Howard, of Courtenay, British Columbia, was informed that her home-schooled children would not graduate unless they were taught a sex education course. She filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal, which was denied.

In some cases, religious schools have been unable in enforce their moral codes. In 2002, Monsignor John Pereyma Catholic High School in Whitby, Ontario lost a court battle to enforce its code of conduct, when they sought to prevent student Marc Hall from bringing a gay date to the school prom.^[4]

[edit] Comments from federal government officials

Some comments from government officials regarding religion have concerned some religious believers.

• During the Canadian federal election, 2000, Liberal Hedy Fry, then current Member of Parliament for Vancouver Centre, said Stockwell Day will "abuse his political power by making all Canadians believe, as he said, that Jesus Christ is the God of the whole universe ... I say that is an insult to every Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, everybody else who believes in other religions." While it is unclear if Day actually made the comment, Day is a former assistant pastor. Fry's remarks were viewed as anti-Christian by the some in the Christian community while spokepersons from some non-Christian religious groups rejected Fry's comments.^[5]
• In 2004, Liberal Senator Laurier LaPierre responded in an e-mail to a Christian regarding the then proposed hate crime Bill C-250, with various comments, including the deathwish "God! you people are sick. God should strike you dead!", and commented on the Bible by saying "In a book that is supposed to speak of love and you find passages of hatred: You should be ashamed of yourself of reading such books!" The senator later issued an apology.^[6]
• In 2005, Pierre Pettigrew, the Liberal government's Minister of Foreign Affairs, said the Roman Catholic Church should "keep its nose out of the government's same-sex marriage legislation ... I find that the separation of the Church and the state is one of the most beautiful inventions of modern times."^[7]

[edit] Other forms of alleged discrimination or threats to religious freedom

• In 2002, the Rainbow Harmony Project (a choir that supports LGBT persons) filed a complaint against Camp Arnes of Manitoba, after the camp denied them access. As a result, the camp was blacklisted by the Winnipeg One School Division. The school division went on to ban a group of Mennonite camps, Camps with Meaning, for related reasons.^[8]

• Some practices of very small religious minorities have always been restricted. For example, polygamous marriages have always been illegal in Canada, regardless of religious beliefs. This limitation applies to a very small minority of religious believers in Canada who endorse the practice. Mainstream religious leaders support the ongoing criminalization of polygamy as their moral beliefs are opposed to those of the smaller religious minority. Authorities do not strictly enforce the applicable laws, as has often been the case in Bountiful, British Columbia. On January 12, 2006, the Department of Justice (Canada) released a study, authored by 3 law professors at Queen's University, recommending that Canada repeal the laws that make polygamy a criminal offense. ^[9]

See related article, Polygamy and religion.

• Jehovah's Witness parents refused a blood transfusion for their 1-year-old daughter. The baby was made a ward of the state in order to administer blood transfusions. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this was a legitimate limitation on religious freedom.
• Bhinder and CNR Mr. Bhinder lost his challenge to the CNR policy that required him to wear a hard hat. Mr. Bhinder was a Sikh whose religion required that he wear a turban. 1985

[edit] Legal precedents supporting religious freedom in Canada

• In 1955, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Chaput v. Romain, regarding Jehovah's Witnesses, that different religions have rights, based upon tradition and the rule of law. At the time, no statutes formed the basis for this argument.^[10]
• While actually striking down the Lord's Day Act, in a 1985 Supreme Court case involving Big M Drug Mart, Chief Justice Brian Dickson said that religious freedom in Canada at least includes freedom of religious speech, including "the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination."

See full article, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd.

• In 2000, Rev. Ken Campbell successfully defended against an Ontario Human Rights Commission complaint filed after he placed an advertisement in the Globe and Mail newspaper where he protested a Supreme Court of Canada ruling calling for Alberta to amend the Human Rights Code regarding LGBT issues. The ad began with "Supreme Court has no business imposing 'bathhouse morality' on the churches and in the living rooms of the nation." Two years later he successfuly defended against a complaint filed at the BC Human Rights Tribunal for the same advertisement, with the decision stating "The essence of Mr. Campbell's defence is that the publication... is an expression of his Charter-protected rights to express his religious beliefs; that is, a finding of discrimination would impair both his freedom of expression and his freedom of religion."^[11]
• In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the British Columbia College of Teachers was wrong to withhold accreditation of Trinity Western University's teacher education program on the basis that their moral code contained provisions banning certain LGBT activities.^[12]

See full article, Trinity Western University vs. British Columbia College of Teachers.

• In 2004, Robert Allen lost a case he brought against the Council for the Corporation of the County of Renfrew, where Allen attempted to prevent the council from opening each meeting with a prayer. The court found in favour of the council.^[13]
• In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of Jews seeking to build a succah hut despite a condominium agreeement that prohibited the action.^[14]
• In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Sikh children can wear a kirpan to school based on freedom of religion. In 1995, the Supreme Court had ruled that Sikhs officers were exempt from the requirement to wear Mountie hats.

See full article, Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys.

• The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the exemption for Sikhs from wearing the "Mountie hat" as part of the RCMP dress requirements. 1995
• Central Alberta Dairy Pool v. Alberta an employee who was required by his religion to take Easter Monday as a holy day. As this is not a statutory holiday, his employer required that he work that day or lose his job. The Supreme Court of Canada found that the employer should have accommodated the employee's religious practices.The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there is a duty to accommodate religious practices under human rights legislation. 1990
• Peel Board of Education v. Ontario Human Rights Commission An Ontario school board developed a "zero tolerance" for weapons in its schools. This had an adverse impact on Kalsa Sikh men who are required by their religion to carry a kirpan, a ceremonial dagger. A Kalsa Sikh teacher brought a complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code and was successful. The school board challenged this to the Ontario Divisonal Court on the basis that their was a threat to public safety. The Divisional Court ruled that the threat to public safety from Sikhs was minimal and the discriminatory impact of the ruling on this religious group was significant.

[edit] See also

religion and homosexuality

demographics of Canada

homosexuality and Christianity

Chris Kempling

Dianne Haskett

[edit] Footnotes