SCC: Freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter(s) of (Human) Rights and Freedoms

Larry Miller and the case against the niqab - Macleans.ca

Freedom of religion under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) consists of the freedom to undertake practices and harbour beliefs, having a nexus with religion, in which an individual demonstrates he or she sincerely believes or is sincerely undertaking in order to connect with the divine or as a function of his or her spiritual faith, irrespective of whether a particular practice or belief is required by official religious dogma or is in conformity with the position of religious officials. This understanding is consistent with a personal or subjective understanding of freedom of religion.  As such, a claimant need not show some sort of objective religious obligation, requirement or precept to invoke freedom of religion. It is the religious or spiritual essence of an action, not any mandatory or perceived‑as‑mandatory nature of its observance, that attracts protection.  

The State is in no position to be, nor should it become, the arbiter of religious dogma. Although a court is not qualified to judicially interpret and determine the content of a subjective understanding of a religious requirement, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant’s belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue. Sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief and the court’s role is to ensure that a presently asserted belief is in good faith, neither fictitious nor capricious, and that it is not an artifice. Assessment of sincerity is a question of fact that can be based on criteria including the credibility of a claimant’s testimony, as well as an analysis of whether the alleged belief is consistent with his or her other current religious practices.  

Since the focus of the inquiry is not on what others view the claimant’s religious obligations as being, but what the claimant views these personal religious “obligations” to be, it is inappropriate to require expert opinions. It is also inappropriate for courts rigorously to study and focus on the past practices of claimants in order to determine whether their current beliefs are sincerely held. Because of the vacillating nature of religious belief, a court’s inquiry into sincerity, if anything, should focus not on past practice or past belief but on a person’s belief at the time of the alleged interference with his or her religious freedom.

Anglo rights: what is to be done

we first learn English at home

we master it in THE ANGLO SCHOOLS

Quebecnocentrism

Ethnocentrism a la Quebecois:
Francosupremacy

Catholaicite

etc.
 

Conservatives, Quebecers most biased, poll finds | Toronto Star

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/19/conservatives-quebecers-most-biased-poll-finds.html

A majority of Conservative voters and people from Quebec — almost six in 10 — have “unfavourable feelings” for at least one religious or ethnic minority group, according to a new poll.

The telephone survey by Forum Research found that, overall, 41 per cent of Canadians feel unfavourable about at least one of the following groups: Muslims, First Nations, South Asians, Asians, Jews and black people.

Regionally, 57 per cent of respondents from Quebec felt unfavourable toward at least one of the groups, followed by 45 per cent from Alberta, 39 per cent from Atlantic Canada, 35 per cent from British Columbia and about one-third from each Ontario, Manitoba/Saskatchewan.

Globe editorial: The state has no place in the turbans of the nation - The Globe and Mail

Globe editorial: The state has no place in the turbans of the nation - The Globe and Mail

William Johnson: What counts as history in Quebec

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/william-johnson-what-counts-as-history-in-Quebec

What these eminences stated in 1992, the Supreme Court of Canada would also state in 1998. But Quebec’s textbook, dated 2009, distorts history and law to legitimate unconditional secession.

Recalling Lévesque’s 1980 referendum, the textbook omits the fact that a veto was promised to the rest of Canada. 

Then, revisiting the 1995 referendum, it ignores the fact that Parizeau intended, with the merest majority, to overthrow the Constitution, even though the question was confusing and, as polls showed, most voters assumed that Quebec would remain in Canada. 

Then, Stéphane Dion’s Clarity Act of 2000, setting federal conditions for negotiating secession, is discussed with no reference to the Supreme Court’s decision on the conditions for secession. 

And there are more examples of bias. This is history?

Don Macpherson: What's wrong with Quebec's proposed new electoral map

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/don-macpherson-whats-wrong-with-quebecs-proposed-new-electoral-map

You can’t please everybody, as we are reminded every time Quebec’s electoral representation commission proposes to re-draw the boundaries of the 125 provincial ridings to reflect changes in the distribution of the population.

This time around, the loudest complaints have come from Québec solidaire MNA Manon Massé.

Massé has been leading what so far has been an unsuccessful legal as well as political campaign to preserve her riding of Sainte-Marie—Saint-Jacques in south-central Montreal.

Chris Selley: Charles Taylor … niqab defender?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/chris-selley-charles-taylor-niqab-defender

Nor was there anything disreputable about Messrs. Bouchard and Taylor’s undertaking, which was to travel around the province and listen to Quebecers of all stripes vent their various cultural angsts, from the very theoretically legitimate (there’s a reason people would object to cops wearing niqabs) to the thoroughly bizarre (the mortal threat of unlabelled halal chicken). You can’t sneer such worries away, much as urban elites try. The Bouchard-Taylor report is in the main a sober call for calm and unity, an assurance that Quebec is not reasonably accommodating itself toward theocracy. And while forcing agents of the state to wear a non-religious uniform might run afoul of the Supreme Court — which settled turban-wearing cops a quarter-century ago — it’s not inherently outrageous ... 

But they must have known, from their observations and their travels, that Quebecers tend to be less resolutely secular than preferentially secular — particularly suspicious of Islam and particularly respectful of ostensibly “cultural” Christianity. Pauline Marois epitomized a very popular version of secularism that leaves in place a crucifix hanging over the speaker’s chair in the National Assembly that was installed in 1936 by noted non-secularist premier Maurice Duplessis. Ms. Marois’ “values charter” at least had the decency to target all religious symbols in the public sector; now Premier Philippe Couillard, channelling Mr. Harper, proposes to ban both giving and receiving public services with a covered face because “certain principles have to be clarified;” because “I think this is a line in the sand for many Quebecers and Canadians.” How convenient that it only affects the world’s least popular religion! ...
Of course, leaving those insecurities alone more or less entirely worked out rather well for Canadian politics for a very long time. That’s a pretty good option, too.

‘We are beginning to overcome the divisions’ in Quebec, Charles Taylor says of reasonable accommodation | National Post

‘We are beginning to overcome the divisions’ in Quebec, Charles Taylor says of reasonable accommodation | National Post

Nine years after signing a report that called for a ban on religious symbols worn by public servants in positions of “coercive” authority -— police and judges — McGill philosophy professor Charles Taylor says times have changed and Quebecers have changed along with them, and that he no longer endorses the recommendation.

In an open letter published Tuesday in La Presse, Taylor, who with sociologist Gérard Bouchard co-chaired a commission on reasonable accommodation of cultural communities in Quebec, wrote that his support for the measure was never more than qualified, but added that at the time, “to not impose these restrictions would have shocked public opinion to the point of jeopardizing our proposal for open secularism.”

But Taylor writes now that “things have very much changed since then, and that’s more than just my opinion.”

Angus Reid: Could our national leader be: _____? Most in Canada, U.S. say they’d vote for more diverse candidates - Angus Reid Institute

Could our national leader be: _____? Most in Canada, U.S. say they’d vote for more diverse candidates - Angus Reid Institute

Could the PM be monolingual? English Canada says ‘yes,’ Quebec says ‘non’

Visible religious symbols have long been a source of contention in Quebec, which perhaps explains why two-in-three say they could not support a party led by a person who wears a religious head-covering:

[PQ's Charter of "Secular" Values] is clearly unconstitutional, but could still become law - The Globe and Mail

Quebec’s secular charter is clearly unconstitutional, but could still become law - The Globe and Mail

By contrast, the PQ argues that preventing public servants from exercising religious freedom at work is part of a broader secularism or “state neutrality” with respect to the state’s role vis-a-vis religion. This is a perversion of the principle of the separation of church and state, which is normally regarded as preventing government from imposing particular religious doctrines on citizens (such as requiring children to say the Lord’s Prayer at school). Instead, the PQ government proposes to strip citizens of any overt religious identification when working in the public sector. That is a far cry from a “neutral” state objective.

As an entirely symbolic enterprise, the legislation should fail on the first step of the judicial test for determining whether an infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is “reasonable in a democratic society,” which states that the government requires a substantial and pressing objective when it seeks to limit a right. In a case on prisoner voting rights, the Supreme Court majority made it clear that objectives which are symbolic in nature are “problematic” and noted that a legislature “cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny.”

Globe editorial: It’s time for Quebec to kill Bill 62, and stop targeting religious minorities

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/its-time-for-quebec-to-kill-bill-62-and-stop-targeting-religious-minorities/article34073614/

The murder of six Muslim men praying in a Quebec City mosque on Jan. 29 has provoked a watershed moment in the thinking of Quebec politicians, intellectuals and the public at large. Where Muslims were once an easy target for nationalist populists and radio shock jocks, now it is not quite so easy to stigmatize them for the sake of votes and ratings.

That’s a start. But there is still a stain on the province – one last official vestige of the fear-mongering that flowed from Quebec’s post-9/11 debate over the accommodation of immigrants and religious minorities. That is Bill 62. It needs to die, and now is the moment to kill it.

The mosque attack prompted an unprecedented show of grief and solidarity among Quebeckers of all beliefs. Premier Philippe Couillard spoke emotionally of the “demons” in Quebec society. Nationalist politicians, including Parti Québécois Leader Jean-François Lisée, acknowledged the need to tone down their anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Line between religious heritage and discrimination unclear despite ruling against city council prayer

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/line-between-religious-heritage-and-discrimination-unclear-despite-ruling-against-city-council-prayer

By saying “not all” are in breach of the duty of neutrality, the implication is that many are. Gascon goes on to quote favourably a passage from the 2008 Bouchard-Taylor report on religious accommodation: “(We) must avoid maintaining practices that in point of fact identify the state with a religion, usually that of the majority, simply because they now seem to have only heritage value.”

And yet when the court had an opening to make a statement about two such symbols — the crucifix and the statue of Jesus with a glowing red heart found in two locations where Saguenay council meets — it declined. The Court of Appeal had declared the symbols were mere historical artifacts stripped of their religious meaning for most residents. The Supreme Court dodged the question by finding that the human-rights tribunal that originally heard the case and ordered the removal of the crucifix and Sacred Heart statue had no jurisdiction to consider the symbols.

Professors question health of academic freedom at McGill after Potter resignation

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/professors-question-health-of-academic-freedom-at-mcgill-after-potter-resignation

A CAUT official said the association received information from within McGill alleging ‘political pressure (was) placed on the institution to get rid of Potter’

Quebec and the Constitution: A timeline of dead ends

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard wants to reopen the constitutional debate. Here’s a timeline of previous attempts.
 
http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-and-the-constitution-a-timeline-of-dead-e

Globe editorial: Why did McGill fail to defend Andrew Potter’s academic freedom?

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/globe-editorial-why-did-mcgill-fail-to-defend-andrew-potters-academic-freedom/article34411662/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

'Unless McGill offers a viable explanation, or Mr. Potter himself clears the air, the logical conclusion is uncomfortable: McGill professors can write whatever they want, as long as their views are palatable to Quebec’s establishment. There can be no harsher condemnation of a university. Or of a society, for that matter.'

Ask the CCLA: Do I have to show my face? When? | Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Ask the CCLA: Do I have to show my face? When? | Canadian Civil Liberties Association

Generally, a person’s right to express their religious beliefs by wearing a religious article of clothing is protected and should be accommodated. For the purposes of identity and security however, it may sometimes be necessary for a woman to remove her niqab, though significant efforts should be made to ensure that any interference with religious freedom is as minimal as possible. Whether or not asking a woman to remove her niqab is a justified or reasonable restriction of her Charter protected religious freedom depends largely on the purpose of the request and the surrounding context.

CCLA (Via The Globe And Mail): When religious freedom should take a back seat to equality rights

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-religious-freedom-should-take-a-back-seat-to-equality-rights/article25784108/

In my view, both rights are fundamental for a society to be grounded in respect for human dignity. Indeed, in Canada, both rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – but the Charter, which applies to government action, would not directly apply to a commercial airline.

How far do we go to accommodate a sincerely held religious belief when it comes into conflict with the equality rights of someone else? If all rights are equal and there is no hierarchy, do we figure out these questions on a case-by-case basis? In Canada, decision-makers have ruled against a bed-and-breakfast owner who refused to rent to a gay couple. But some may ask, what about religious freedom? What about the innkeeper’s rights?

Personally, I don’t think that in a public or commercial space the religious beliefs of one person can be used to deny, or relegate (intentionally or not) as inferior, the equality rights of someone else. Religious freedoms are writ large and people are free to believe what they wish, and to act as they wish, short of causing harm to another. Gender segregation can and is upheld in private religious institutions freely attended by individuals – but in public spheres we must be vigilant about upholding the equality rights of all. If we wouldn’t tolerate the refusal to sit beside a racialized person, we shouldn’t tolerate sex discrimination, either.

Bill 60 (Charter of Quebec Values): CCLA Hearings Brief

CCLA’s Opposition to the Quebec Charter of Values: Read our Brief « Canadian Civil Liberties Association

CCLA has submitted a brief to the Quebec National Assembly’s
Committee on Institutions’ as part of its general consultation and
public hearings on Bill 60.  Bill 60, or the Charter affirming the
values of State secularism and religious neutrality and of equality
between women and men, and providing a framework for accommodation
requests, is a deeply troubling law that would infringe basic
rights and cannot be justified in a free and democratic society.  In our
submissions, CCLA argues that the Bill infringes freedom of religion,
freedom of expression and the right to equality and to be free from
discrimination.  CCLA also points out some concerning inconsistencies in
the proposed law which would have a disproportionate impact on
individuals from minority religious groups and, in particular, women
from these groups.  We are urging the Quebec government not to move
forward with the proposal and hope to have an opportunity to address the
Committee in person in their public hearings, which are scheduled to
start in mid-January, 2014.

The stats bear it out: In Quebec, trust is low - Macleans.ca

The stats bear it out: In Quebec, trust is low - Macleans.ca

Two scholars on trust dig into the data to see what they believe Andrew Potter got right

—and wrong—about Quebec

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings

Mayor Jean Tremblay of Saguenay argued reciting prayer respects Quebec’s Catholic heritage

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/supreme-court-rules-against-prayer-at-city-council-meetings-1.3033595

The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled the municipal council in the Quebec town of Saguenay cannot open its meetings with a prayer.

In a unanimous decision today, the country's top court said reciting a Catholic prayer at council meetings infringes on freedom of conscience and religion.

The ruling puts an end to a eight-year legal battle that began with a complaint filed by atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular-rights organization against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay.

Don Macpherson: The Charter of Pants encourages discrimination

https://www.pressreader.com/canada/montreal-gazette/20131109/281981785351833/TextView

But maybe the strongest kick was to the Quebec human-rights commission.
The rights watchdog had called Drainville’s original proposal not only a “clear break” with the province’s own charter of rights but also a violation of international standards for the protection of minority rights.
Drainville’s response was to add a new restriction in the rights charter: rights must be exercised with a “proper regard” for “the primacy of the French language.”
That has nothing to do with “secularism,” the supposed objective of the Pants Charter. But apparently, if the PQ was going to encourage discrimination against minorities, it didn’t want to overlook anybody.
And it’s slipped a poisoned pill to the official opposition Liberal party. Now the Liberals, whose leader Philippe Couillard had vowed to let the original proposal pass only “over my dead body,” will expose themselves to the accusation of being “against French” if they filibuster against the Pants Charter.

Jedwab: France’s ‘beautiful notion’ of secularism is not a model for Quebec

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/frances-beautiful-notion-of-secularism-is-not-a-model-for-quebec/article14678810/

For a romantic getaway you can’t beat France. It’s a great place to visit, but as a member of a religious minority it doesn’t appear these days to be the best place to live. 

Quebec Premier Pauline Marois recently pointed to France as a model for Quebec (and presumably for all of Canada) in its approach to diversity. The French national doctrine of secularism seems to be a source of inspiration for the Premier’s proposed Charter of Values.

 While cautiously acknowledging imperfection in the French system, Ms. Marois prefers it to the British approach to diversity which she recently characterized as a source of severe social unrest and violence. While presumably not wanting to comment on the Quebec debate during a visit to the province last week, French Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici described French secularism as a "beautiful notion" that creates unity – not division. The terms he used resemble those being employed by the Quebec government to describe its Values Charter. The Quebec government conveniently chooses to ignore the deep inter-ethnic divisions around the Charter debate as reflected in public opinion surveys ...

Pro-Charter of Quebec Values rally in Montreal draws several hundred supporters

Pro-Charter of Quebec Values rally in Montreal draws several hundred supporters

"I respect everybody and what they do when they go to the synagogue or when they go to a mosque, that's their (business)," she said. "But I don't think it belongs in the public space." ...

Marchers carried cutout fleur-de-lis and Quebec flags. They carried signs that read "'we're born naked and everything else is superfluous" and "secularism that's open to closed religions doesn't work." ...

"For me the freedom of religion should not surpass liberty of expression and if we can't have political badges at work, why should we be allowed religious symbols?," Chantraine said. "It should be the same for everyone." ...

Patrick Lagace: Quebec has a strange view of secularism

Quebec has a strange view of secularism - The Globe and Mail

The Quebec Soccer Federation announced last week that it won’t allow turbans on its soccer pitches because, well, FIFA’s Rule 4 on equipment doesn’t explicitly allow turbans on soccer fields.

FIFA’s Rule 4 also doesn’t “allow” players to wear gloves in freezing late October games. It doesn’t “allow” women to wear headbands for their ponytails. Still, you’ll find players wearing gloves and headbands without the QSF invoking Rule 4 to ban them.

 Apparently a recent FIFA ruling that lets Muslim women wear the hijab on the pitch wasn’t enough to convince the QSF that the spirit of the rules is tolerance ...

Jedwab: Religious accommodation survey promoted intolerance

http://www.pressreader.com/canada/montreal-gazette/20130528/281904475713770/TextView

MONTREAL — Is the Marois government moving toward requiring that a teacher of the Jewish faith in a Jewish private school remove his kippa?

That might sound preposterous. But a survey last March commissioned by the Quebec Ministry of Democratic Institutions and Active Citizenship (as it is called) asked Quebecers the following question: “If the Government of Quebec decides to prohibit wearing religious attire would you agree or disagree that such a measure be applied to employees of private elementary and secondary schools?”

In preparation for this fall’s tabling by the government of what it is now calling a Charter of Quebec Values (a reworking of the original plan for a Secularism Charter), the survey also asked whether a similar ban on religious signs and symbols should be extended to health institutions — and more specifically to doctors and nurses.

Don Macpherson: The wrong kind of Quebecers | Montreal Gazette

Don Macpherson: The wrong kind of Quebecers | Montreal Gazette

The concern was not about what people do. It was about what they are, about a characteristic they cannot change. The implication was that there aren’t enough of the right kind of people in Quebec, and too many of the wrong kind.

To put this in perspective, it’s hard to imagine mainstream politicians and commentators saying in 2017 that there are too many Jews in Quebec. But it was socially acceptable for them to say there are too many non-francophones.

It was a divisive message, telling the majority, once again, that its identity is threatened by enemies in its midst. And it told the linguistic minorities that it’s not enough to learn French and use it. Our simple presence here is the problem.

How a snowstorm exposed Quebec's real problem: social malaise - Macleans.ca

How a snowstorm exposed Quebec's real problem: social malaise - Macleans.ca

The issues that led to the shutdown of a Montreal highway that left drivers stranded go beyond mere political dysfunction

Julius Grey is anti-hate speech law

Supremes decided only the most extreme speech is hateful e.g., incitement

(a la Keegstra)

unpleasant, hurtful speech is not illegal (Beaubien Quebec)

mock, disapprove if you like

'the only proper answer to poor speech is more and better speech'

comedy exists to find a line, and jump over it

The Holocaust is not an excuse for censorship

Cult MTL | Montreal bleeds money on the Grand Prix

Cult MTL | Montreal bleeds money on the Grand Prix





For years we’ve been told that Montreal Grand Prix brings enormous
economic benefits to the city despite the hefty price tag —
$18.7-million in subsidies from three levels of government in 2015.


Turns out that’s about $10-million more than the tax benefits,
according to a study by the KPMG accounting firm conducted on behalf of
the Montreal International Jazz Festival, La Presse reports.


In comparison, the government tax take of Jazz Fest activities — many
of which are free to the public — were estimated to be more than double
the subsidies, $8.3-million on grants of about $4-million a year.

William Johnson: ‘Conditions gagnantes’ – the NDP dilemma

‘Conditions gagnantes’ – the NDP dilemma - The Globe and Mail

This was not a new posture for the NDP. In 2006, the party held its convention in Quebec City and adopted as official policy the so-called “Déclaration de Sherbrooke.” It committed the party to many demands made for years by Quebec’s provincial politicians but that had been rejected by the Liberals of Pierre Trudeau. 

The NDP accepted special status for Quebec under the name of “asymmetrical federalism.” Quebec was to exercise powers not available to other provinces: “The NDP believes that asymmetrical federalism is the best way to consolidate the Canadian federal state with the reality of Quebec’s national character. That means that Quebec has to have specific powers and room for manoeuvring.” 

The NDP also accepted unconditionally Quebec’s right to secede unilaterally by obtaining a majority vote on a question of its choosing: “The NDP recognizes Quebec’s right to self-determination, which implies the right of the people of Quebec to decide freely its own political and constitutional future. This right can be expressed in various ways and can go as far as achieving sovereignty.” 

In the Commons, the NDP has supported subjecting federally regulated industries in Quebec to the Charter of the French Language, in violation of the Official Languages Act. [1] It opposed the right to accede to English-language public schools in Quebec obtained by a sufficient stay in non-subsidized private English schools – a right recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. [2] It opposes the nomination to the Supreme Court of Canada of anyone who is not fluently bilingual. [3] And it opposes changes to representation in the Commons according to population that would mean more seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, if that would have the effect of diminishing Quebec’s present proportion of seats [4].

NOTAS BENEFICIALES:

[1] symbolic pandering; the bill does not change the legislation, nor open the constitution;[2] hateful pandering: the number involved are small now; but it opens the school system slightly to rich non-anglos , too;[3] useless pandering; bilingualism will be even more important than judicial competence;[4] anti-democratic: contra one man, one vote.

Translator: From 1960s Ball Park French, to English, to 2010s OQLF French

Get 'em while they're hot!

biftek a la Hambourg = hamburger = hamburger (prev. hambourgeois)
saucisse fumee = hot dog = hot dog
frites = French fries = (pommes de terre) frites
liqueur = soft drink = boisson gazeuse
cacahuetes = peanuts = arachides
patate chips = potato chips = croustilles