In my last article I talked about how the Quebec Court of Appeal decided that religious practices were acceptable in public, as long as no one was forced to participate, and no one was forced against participating. I also talked about how the Quebec Court of Appeal said that symbols are symbols, and everyone in Canada is free to treat symbols as religious, not religious, or anything else, and they could do so publicly and privately. In this article, I will talk about what happened at the Supreme Court of Canada, and the consequences.
The Supreme Court decided that Canadian society has adopted the concept of what they called “neutrality.” The state must remain “neutral.” It must not favour nor hinder any particular belief and the same holds true for non-belief. The Supreme Court said that the State had a duty of “religious neutrality.” The Supreme Court went on to say that a “neutral” public space must be free from pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities. As you can see, the Supreme Court used the word “neutral” a lot.
The Supreme Court decided that, by reciting prayers and having the religious symbols at city hall, the City of Saguenay favoured one belief to the exclusion of all others. The Supreme Court went on to say that barring the municipal council from reciting prayers would not amount to giving atheism or agnosticism prevalence over religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that municipalities should not be allowed to recite prayers at Council meetings.
While I was on municipal council from 2000 to 2006, we routinely held a prayer before each Council meeting. Clergy from every church in Amherstburg attended on a rotational basis and lead a prayer. You could participate or you could just remain quiet and observe. In 2015, the Supreme Court ordered that it was unconstitutional, and that is why, all across Canada, municipalities stopped praying at public meetings.
For 400 years, Canada and Canadians permitted and protected religious expression in both the private and the public realm. This decision from the Supreme Court of Canada is important. It effectively changed 400 years of Canadian legal practice. Now the public space must remain "neutral," whatever that means. And figuring out what that means is going to take some time. For example...
The Supreme Court decided that Canadian society has adopted the concept of what they called “neutrality.” The state must remain “neutral.” It must not favour nor hinder any particular belief and the same holds true for non-belief. The Supreme Court said that the State had a duty of “religious neutrality.” The Supreme Court went on to say that a “neutral” public space must be free from pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities. As you can see, the Supreme Court used the word “neutral” a lot.
The Supreme Court decided that, by reciting prayers and having the religious symbols at city hall, the City of Saguenay favoured one belief to the exclusion of all others. The Supreme Court went on to say that barring the municipal council from reciting prayers would not amount to giving atheism or agnosticism prevalence over religious beliefs. The Supreme Court decided that municipalities should not be allowed to recite prayers at Council meetings.
While I was on municipal council from 2000 to 2006, we routinely held a prayer before each Council meeting. Clergy from every church in Amherstburg attended on a rotational basis and lead a prayer. You could participate or you could just remain quiet and observe. In 2015, the Supreme Court ordered that it was unconstitutional, and that is why, all across Canada, municipalities stopped praying at public meetings.
For 400 years, Canada and Canadians permitted and protected religious expression in both the private and the public realm. This decision from the Supreme Court of Canada is important. It effectively changed 400 years of Canadian legal practice. Now the public space must remain "neutral," whatever that means. And figuring out what that means is going to take some time. For example...
Here is a woman wearing a hijab, recognized around the world as a religiously-prescribed form of headwear for practicing Muslim women. The hijab is unquestionably and most certainly a religious symbol. Is she allowed to wear this to work at a publicly-funded school when she is working as a teacher? Or must she remove it because it's a religious symbol in a public neutral place?
Here is a picture of the cross on top of Mount Royal in Montreal. The cross on top of Mount Royal was put up in 1924 in a public park. It is one of the most enduring symbols of the City and even appears in the city's advertising and various city promotional materials. Is it a symbol of Montreal's heritage? Or is it a religious symbol in a public neutral place?
And just to complicate matters further, I invite you to read (or try to interpret) the Supreme Court's decision in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys. That case involved an individual student and a school board. The student was a genuine practitioner of the Sikh religion. The student carried a "kirpan" or knife on his person at school. The kirpan is integral to an orthodox Sikh person's religion.
The school board did not allow weapons at school (for obvious reasons). The school board tried to ban the kirpan, and even offered to allow the student to wear a symbolic one, perhaps made of wood or plastic. The student felt a symbolic knife would not comply with his religious obligations. The student brought the dispute to court, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled as follows:
The school board did not allow weapons at school (for obvious reasons). The school board tried to ban the kirpan, and even offered to allow the student to wear a symbolic one, perhaps made of wood or plastic. The student felt a symbolic knife would not comply with his religious obligations. The student brought the dispute to court, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled as follows:
In the end, even though the school board was justified in trying to guarantee a safe environment for its students, the Supreme Court decided that the student's religious right to wear a kirpan was so important that the school board could not limit the student's right to carry a real kirpan.
Keep in mind this is the same Supreme Court that told the City of Saguenay to stop praying in public, take down the statue of the Sacred Heart and remove the crucifix from public rooms.
Think about those two decisions. On the one hand, a religious statue must be removed. On the other hand, a religious weapon must be allowed.
Keep in mind this is the same Supreme Court that told the City of Saguenay to stop praying in public, take down the statue of the Sacred Heart and remove the crucifix from public rooms.
Think about those two decisions. On the one hand, a religious statue must be removed. On the other hand, a religious weapon must be allowed.