Three cheers for the Supreme Court of Canada

[thejazz97]

Technically, wouldn't this be against the fundamental freedom of expression? thelawdictionary.org defines it as

Also known as freedom of speech. Includes free press. The right to say what one wants through any form of communication and media, with the only limitation being to cause another harm in character or reputation by lying or misleading words.

Essentially, anything goes except if it falls under slander or libel. This isn't slander.

Prayer in a meeting isn't going to cause harm in character or reputation. It made one person uncomfortable; it wasn't to the detriment of S' character.

You said that religious symbols don't bother you - as long as they're not in your government. They're not. They're in the municipal government of Saguenay. Why not let the council or even the town hold a vote?

[Lockout Casualty]

Doing more reading on the subject, I found this article interesting and thought provoking.

Could court decision barring prayer from Quebec council affect Parliament?

TORONTO – The Supreme Court of Canada told a Quebec town Wednesday its councillors couldn’t pray before council sessions. But Canada’s parliamentarians recite a prayer before each session in the House of Commons.

Could today’s ruling put an end to that prayer? The ruling won’t have a direct effect, banning prayer and religious symbols in government institutions across the country, but as York University law professor Benjamin Berger said in an interview Wednesday, it will certainly lead to questions.

“I think there’s little doubt that this decision makes the practice of the House of Commons subject to renewed and interesting kinds of scrutiny,” he said.

The Supreme Court said Wednesday in a unanimous decision that beginning city council sessions with a prayer infringes on freedom of conscience and religion enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, putting an end to a nine-year legal battle filed by atheist Alain Simoneau against Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay.

But an almost identical prayer is said before House of Commons sessions. The House of Commons prayer was actually used in defence of the Saguenay prayer, but ultimately the argument was rejected.

The lawyer representing Mayor Tremblay suggested the two prayers were, in essence, the same. And they are; there’s very little difference between the two.

The context is different

“I think there’s no doubt that people will take Saguenay, the decision in the Saguenay case, and look afresh at a number of different practices in our public space perhaps including Parliament in its own opening prayer, but the context is very different,” Berger said.

The context issue led the Supreme Court to refuse to pass judgment on the parliamentary prayer in its ruling Wednesday.

Municipal councils, as opposed to the House of Commons, make a variety of decisions that impact individual lives closely and so the separation between decision-maker and citizen is significantly closer than that of parliamentarian and constituent.

“So the worry, potentially, at a city council meeting, is that because people are coming before the city council with specific worries about particular things happening in their lives,” Berger said.

“It’s especially important that people have a sense of inclusion and neutrality from the decision maker.”

And the same holds true for the House of Commons; it must remain neutral.

But Members of Parliament are also afforded parliamentary privilege, which, if the prayer were challenged in court, could be utilized to keep it around.

Parliamentary privilege allows some things in Canada’s Parliament, like its internal workings, to be isolated from the judicial branch; the prayer could fall under that privilege, Sarah Whitmore, a lawyer with Torys LLP in Toronto said.

But the government must be neutral, right?

The Supreme Court ruled that Canadian society has given rise to a “concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”

That includes the beliefs of non-believers.

“The state must instead remain neutral in this regard,” the judgment said. “This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.”

Part of this neutrality is allowing non-believers, or people who don’t believe in the majority’s religion, from having to publicly declare their non-belief by stepping out of the room to avoid a prayer, Whitmore said.

“The two rights need to be balanced. So the right you might have to practice your religion and to pray, needs to be balanced against someone else’s right not to have to pray.”

‘A continued erosion’

The ruling is similar to an historic ruling which removed prayer from public schools. Wednesday’s ruling doesn’t say anything new on the subject, but instead reinforces previous decisions.

“[The ruling is a] continued erosion of religious practices from our public institutions and a move away from simply including these practices because they have historically been included as a matter of so-called tradition,” Whitmore said.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1940626/could-court-decision-barring-prayer-from-quebec-council-affect-parliament/

In short, the SCC has no jurisdiction over federal and provincial parliaments due to parliamentary privilege, and the practice may continue in Saskatchewan and elsewhere.

However, the ruling makes it clear that prayer is "in breach of the state’s duty of neutrality", and that begs the question - should our parliamentarians thsemselves choose to drop the practice to be more in line with the spirit of the nation? That is, do they have moral standing to continue a practice that, in an identical context, was found to be in breach of the state's duty? As the reason the SCC could not force its ruling upon federal and provincial parliaments being lack of jurisdiction, I think it is the responsibility of our parliamentarians to stop this practice themselves.

I would like to hear some thoughtful explanation for why such exclusionary practices should continue, if anyone is so inclined.

[Duodenum]

So what's going on? Is it just Christians that they're targeting with this? Because this happened in Alberta, and I feel like it would happen everywhere else, too:

Kind of oddly hypocritical IMO that Alberta's forcing the ability of public prayer at a school and Quebec's taking it away for town meetings.

Also, you know that this country was founded on a Bible verse, right?

There's a distinct difference between the populace and those that represent government.

The populace have a right to freely express their religion, government representatives also have this right as long as it's not during governing procedures.

[Realtor Rod]

Isn't telling them they cannot pray also intolerant? Seems like an unnecessary conversation.

Solution : if you would like to pray, go in that room there before we start.

[viking mama]

Hey Lock-out! It'd take too much work, in the time I have here, to edit your post responding to mine. So here it goes.

In the instance before them, the supreme court saw that the city Council in question was in the habit and procedure of beginning their meetings in a systematic/ritualistic way,...by opening with 'Catholic' prayer, which is 'set prayers' by the way, and not ever-changing spontaneous words by the individual that is offering-it-up.

^That practice/procedure does seem to favor and elevate 'one' group over another. BUT - if the opportunity were given to each 'elected ' councillor, on a rotating basis to open the meeting with some brief words of inspiration - as they saw fit themselves...then perhaps when a 'catholic' councillor had his/her turn, they could choose to do likewise. The supreme court would likely see NO problem with that,...as a matter of 'free speech'.

If the city in question, chose to elect a "wiccan' member to council and that person chose to reverence or refer to their faith or practice in their opportunity to offer 'opening' remarks in some way...so be it! They would all remain accountable for all of their remarks and words and values before their constituents and their fellow city-council members....just as they are for their work habits and voting-records.

BTW: Purging all religious influence from our institutions, money, business-language, or culture satisfies 'WHO' exactly? Personally...I think it's a foolish dogma and a rape of all that makes our nationhood so gloriously rich. Just because some people in the world choose to pervert what's best about religious practices or spiritual pursuits,...does not mean we all NEED to toss the babies out with the bathwater, per se.

And - I'll trust a community, in our great multii-cultural nation of Canada, to elect officials with the sensitivity to give a free 'speech', a 'blessing' or offer-up a 'prayer' with some sensitivity,...or just as with Rob Ford,...they will face the consequences of their actions - politically. The supreme court is supposed to be about more inclusion, openess, honesty, and honoring choices...and NOT about establishing something akin to Russia's anti 'gay-propaganda-speaking' legislation.

I don't know about you - but I'd rather see our politicians and post-secondary teachers have the right to reveal a little bit more about themselves, rather than force them to secret some of their dearest motivations or the building-blocks of their truest selves away. I appreciate getting something more to help me choose an advocate for my values or to help me make more informed choices. What do you have to say to that, behind your secret-identity on this anonymously fed social-media fan-board?

[Lockout Casualty]

Hey Lock-out! It'd take too much work, in the time I have here, to edit your post responding to mine. So here it goes.

In the instance before them, the supreme court saw that the city Council in question was in the habit and procedure of beginning their meetings in a systematic/ritualistic way,...by opening with 'Catholic' prayer, which is 'set prayers' by the way, and not ever-changing spontaneous words by the individual that is offering-it-up.

^That practice/procedure does seem to favor and elevate 'one' sectarian group over another. BUT - if the opportunity were given to each 'elected ' councillor, on a rotating basis to open the meeting with some brief words of inspiration - as they saw fit themselves. Then perhaps when a 'catholic' councillor had his/her turn, they could choose to do likewise. The supreme court would likely see NO problem with that,...as a matter of 'free speech'.

If the city in question, chose to elect a "wicken' member to council and that person then chose to reverence or refer to their faith or practice in their opportunity to offer 'opening' remarks in some way...so be it! They would all remain accountable for all of their remarks and words and values before their constituents and their fellow city-council members....just as they are for their work habits and city-council voting-records.

BTW: Purging all religious influence from our institutions, money, business-language, or culture satisfies 'WHO' exactly? Personally...I think it's a foolish dogma and a rape of all that makes our nationhood so gloriously rich. Just because some people in the world choose to pervert what's best about religious practices or spiritual pursuits,...does not mean we all NEED to toss the babies out with the bathwater, per say.

And - I'll trust a community, in our great multii-cultural nation of Canada, to elect officials with the sensitivity to give a free 'speech', a 'blessing' or offer-up a 'prayer' with some sensitivity,...or just as with Rob Ford,...they will face the consequences of their actions - politically. The supreme court is supposed to be about more inclusion, openess, honesty, and honoring choices...and NOT about establishing something akin to Russia's anti 'gay-propaganda-speaking' legislation.

I don't know about you - but I'd rather see our politicians and post-secondary teachers have the right to reveal a little bit more about themselves, rather than force them to secret some of their dearest motivations or the building-blocks of their truest selves away. I appreciate getting something more to help me choose an advocate for my values or to help me make more informed choices. What do you have to say to that, behind your secret-identity on this anonymously fed social-media fan-board?

No, I'm certain the SCC would indeed see a problem in that. First, your position assumes that the representatives are actually representative of the populace at large, which they are not. If you read the last article I posted here, it states, “It’s especially important that people have a sense of inclusion and neutrality from the decision maker.” Now there is of course a chance that a Wiccan or a Satanist might get elected, but it's highly unlikely to happen if they disclose their beliefs. As such, your proposal would accommodate those within the legislature (as everyone would get a turn), but it would leave their constituents with unconventional beliefs without equal representation, and even hinder the chances at re-election of those individuals whose faiths go against the mainstream.

The other issue is the number of faiths that would have to be considered under a plan to accommodate all faiths. There are hundreds and thousands of religions and denominations that it is, in my opinion, an unreasonable solution to rotate through them all. For one, there would be inherent responsibility to represent every color and shade, but also to represent those faiths present members may be opposed to, even hostile. I don't think it's reasonable to force a Christian MP to recite a Satanic prayer with the aim of being neutral and representative.

Lastly, it would still waste public resources on a sectarian activity, which I, as a tax paying Canadian, am opposed to. I would like to be represented, and it would not be possible in such a circumstance.

The only logical solution I see is that there should be no recognition of religion in the state. And as the judge states, “Barring the municipal council from reciting the prayer would not amount to giving atheism and agnosticism prevalence over religious beliefs. There is a distinction between unbelief and true neutrality. True neutrality presupposes abstention, but it does not amount to a stand favoring one view over another.” The highest court, unanimously, seems to agree with me.

So what is your solution for Wiccans that can't gather enough support in a predominantly Christian nation? Humans are not rational beings, and a solid platform never triumphs over people's beliefs. Not only that, but openly professing one's Wiccan beliefs would indeed hinder one's ability to be elected in this majority Christian nation. So even if a Wiccan were to get elected, the Wiccan would have to keep their faith secret as to not jeopardize their chances, and when in legislature, the opportunity to offer a prayer would be a non-starter. This further supports that government should make no recognition of religion.

As for the rest, I hesitate to address it and give this hyperbolic rhetoric (in other words drivel) credence. Comparing this to Russia's anti-gay laws? Ridding us of Christian overtones in government is raping what makes this country rich? You can't be serious...

I don't know about you, but I don't see anyone preventing our politicians and teachers from revealing a little bit more about themselves. They just can't pray on the tax payer's dime and time and exclude those who don't want to partake. And unless they're Christian, I don't think exposing oneself as anything else would go over very well for a teacher or politician in places like Abbotsford. I can already see the pitchforks and torches at the mention of a Satanist politician or teacher. However, if we don't normalize religion as part of the state, everyone is still free to expose their faith as they see fit to help them get elected, everyone has an equal chance at being elected, even Satanists by means of avoiding the topic altogether, and most importantly everyone's ability to vote with their conscience is preserved.

What do you have to say to that, behind your secret-identity on this anonymously fed social-media fan-board?

[Lancaster]

When did this country of tolerance become a country where a differing point of view, opinion, religious value, etc... as long as they're not hurting anyone, no longer tolerated?

[Lockout Casualty]

When did this country of tolerance become a country where a differing point of view, opinion, religious value, etc... as long as they're not hurting anyone, no longer tolerated?

You mean to ask when this country became so wonderfully tolerant as to recognize the rights of those who aren't Christian. Right?

[Dral]

 

You mean to ask when this country became so wonderfully tolerant as to recognize the rights of those who aren't Christian. Right?

 

I almost imagine you banging your head against the keyboard reading some of these replies...

[RUPERTKBD]

   

I almost imagine you banging your head against the keyboard reading some of these replies...

Me too. I was reading some of the comments that Lockout was responding to and I'm absolutely convinced that they didn't actually read his posts.

Lotsa TLDR folks ITT, apparently...

[Lockout Casualty]

   

I almost imagine you banging your head against the keyboard reading some of these replies...

Yeah, it's pretty disheartening.

Yet I'm still riding the happy wave that our Supreme Court, staffed mostly by Harper no less, can look at issues clearly and make the correct ruling. Secularity in this country must be preserved and strengthened, and the highest court in the land agrees!

Really hope parliaments across the nation take this ruling to heart and drop their exclusive practices.

[thejazz97]

.

[Mustapha]

While I agree with the OP regarding the Court's decision, I think it will take some time before many people truly understand the freedom that separation between church and state really brings.

I expect the apathy towards Christianity to increase dramatically over the course of the next 30 years.

My concern these days is Islam....just ask anyone living in the UK or France.

[etsen3]

I consider myself closer to an athiest than anything else, but the amount of religion described in the OP would not make me uncomfortable. Perhaps the issue isn't religion but the oversensitivity of certain people. How does it hurt "S" in any way if others say a few words and do some arm motions? Suck it up man!

I've volunteered at a Christian hospital where there was much more overt Christian symbols and paraphernalia. Didn't bother me.

I too am not offended by other peoples' religious symbols, but the law is the law. To me this is more about the constitution and the separation of church and state, rather than not offending people. You have to remember that the people that tend to fight hard for prayer and other religious traditions in public/government are the type of people who also tend to believe say things like "we have to get back to being a Christian nation". It's important to maintain an atmosphere of neutrality in government. As sort of an extreme example, imagine going into the NHL office and seeing a bunch of Rangers jerseys hanging up everywhere, with no other jerseys hung up everywhere.

If they wanna pray on their own somewhere else before the meeting, fine, but government officials must learn to check their religious beliefs at the door when serving the public.

[thejazz97]

If they wanna pray on their own somewhere else before the meeting, fine, but government officials must learn to check their religious beliefs at the door when serving the public.

Not beliefs necessarily, but it's traditions that affect other people that is the concern here.

[vancouvercanucks2010]

Guess what, nobody is banning Catholicism. In Canada, including Quebec, it is unconstitutional for the state to favor one religion over others. Unless you want to make a case for why tradition should trump our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I'd be highly amused to read it.

You raise a good point. I just think this is waste of time for the court to vote on such a small issue. As a religious person, they can pray to whatever God they believe in, even Satanist can pray to Satan if they choose to. As an atheist, they can use that time to either mediate, or just relaxed for a bit. How long is the prayer section going to last anyways? 2-3 minutes? I just think the court has better things to do than that.

[Salmonberries]

The right never to be offended is an important one.

I have had my feelings hurt before and it was, well it was damn hurtful.

[Salmonberries]

[thejazz97]

You raise a good point. I just don't think this is waste of time for the court to vote on such a small issue. As a religious person, they can pray to whatever God they believe in, even Satanist can pray to Satan if they choose to. As an atheist, they can use that time to either mediate, or just relaxed for a bit. How long is the prayer section going to last anyways? 2-3 minutes? I just think the court has better things to do than that.

20 seconds.

[thejazz97]

.