Random Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

I have been thinking about writing on freedom of religion for awhile but have not been able to develop a framework for my thoughts so I decided to just set them out randomly and see if they organize themselves.

Any rational person today considering the matter without knowledge or consideration of the history behind it, would wonder why the freedom to believe the fairy tales or myths of your choice should be a protected right while the broader concepts of freedom of conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression would cover it.

However the history behind freedom of religion goes back to when religion was inextricably intertwined with culture and was part of who people were. Freedom of religion was, and still is for many, the freedom to be who they are.

But that is not why we entrench the concept of freedom of religion. It is because for all of history people have been discriminated against and persecuted for their religion, persecuted to the point of genocide.

Which is why it has been entrenched in so many constitutions and declarations of human rights..

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 18

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 10

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

Article 21

Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Fundamental freedoms

2 Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Equality Rights

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15 (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

United States Constitution - First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

The first thing to be said about freedom of religion is that it is not a right that belongs to religious institutions but one that belongs to believers, a right to believe in and practice the religion of their choice without discrimination or persecution.

The second thing to be said is that that right is not absolute, otherwise believers could be sacrificing virgins or stoning non-believers to death in the name of freedom of religion. In Canada that restriction is set out in clause one of The Charter of Rights which states that the protected rights are subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

This however does not mean governments can pass laws whose only purpose is to discriminate against or persecute people based on their religion.

This is why Quebec’s law (Act respecting the laicity of the State) requiring that public servants or others serving the public like teachers must hide their religious affiliation while working required the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter of Rights.

The notwithstanding clause essentially says if a government finds the human rights included in the Charter of Rights inconvenient it can ignore them. It is essentially a get out of human rights free card. It is a provision that should never be included in a Charter of Rights and is a stain on Canada’s reputation as an advocate of human rights.

The notwithstanding clause was also used by Alberta to persecute transgender youth.

Section 33 – Notwithstanding clause

Provision

33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.

(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.

(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).

(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).

 

Also we need to recognize that some religious privileges are not based on freedom of religion. These include the treatment of confessions under the seal of confession as privileged communications and the practice of allowing churches to provide sanctuary to those wanted by the authorities, which are based on common law traditions.

Others such as the tax free status of religious institutions are simply government polices that can be changed.

In Canada the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance in December 2024 recommended that Canada “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.” However religious institutions could simply establish charitable foundations to do actual charitable work, but purely religious activities and proselytizing or attempting to convert people would not be considered a charitable purpose.

There is yet another religious privilege that is both unwritten and unspoken but just seems to be and that is the exemption of religious institutions from employment standards and gender equality laws.

Perhaps one of the most controversial aspects of freedom of religion are religious institutions claims that they should be exempt from hate speech legislation because religious texts or beliefs should not be considered hate speech. I would argue that using god as a defence for hate is indefensible.

The Canadian Criminal Code previously included an exemption for hate speech, "if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text." Bill C-9 which removed that exemption has passed the House of Commons and Senate and received Royal Assent on Thursday, June 18, 2026. (Globe and Mail article)

This may seem strange to Americans where freedom of speech is almost absolute except where money is concerned. While the United States does not have hate speech laws is does have libel and slander laws where people or corporations can sue for financial damages if they can show that someone’s free speech has affected them financially.

Freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion. No one should be forced to join a religion or participate in religious activities. Preferably, there should not be a state religion.

We cannot talk about freedom of religion and religious persecution without considering the current genocide taking place today in Gaza and the recent (and not so recent) attempts to redefine antisemitism to include any criticism of the Israeli government and in particular its genocide of the Palestinian people. This has even resulted in the designation of an anti-genocide organization as a terrorist organization. This, however, fits right in with declaring idea idea being anti-fascist as a terrorist organization. The world has truly turned upside down.

In conclusion, the bottom line on freedom of religion is that is is important to protect against religious discrimination and persecution but it is not a licence to violate the law, society’s values, or others’ human rights in the name of religion or god.

The Problem With E-Bikes and Ontario’s Solution

The problem with e-bikes is nobody knows what they are.

When I first considered getting an e-bike I was looking for something that was foremost a bicycle and could be used without the power assist on but have it available for difficult hills, high winds, or the end of extremely long rides. After trying out my wife’s I ended up purchasing a Norco Scene VLT and wrote a review of it which included:

Definitions first. How do I define e-bike. An electric motor assisted bicycle that can be pedalled easily without the assist turned on and that requires pedalling for the motor assist to function. Any so called “e-bike” that does not require pedalling to move (except when coasting) is a variation on an electric motorcycle or scooter.

To me an electric motor assisted bicycle looks like a bicycle and if it does not it probably is not an electric motor assisted bicycle. I use that term because I think that is a more accurate description of what we refer to as e-bikes (Class 1 according to the proposed new Ontario regulations discussed below). But that ship has not only sailed but it has sunk, as the term e-bike is firmly established in the public’s mind.

However the fact that there are no generally agreed union legal definitions of e-bikes has enabled manufactures and retailers, as well as much of the public, to call anything with two wheels and an electric motor an e-bike, including what are obviously motorized scooters or mopeds. I have even seen what looked like an enclosed golf cart marketed as an e-bike.

Regulators are finally starting to catch up and, surprisingly, the Ontario government is proposing a classification which essentially meets my definition but with some more detailed requirements, such as weight and maximum speed. They include a separate category for heavier e-bikes such as cargo bikes, which allow throttle control, but have the same maximum speed restrictions.

These bikes would be treated like bicycles but with a minimum age requirement of 16 years for riders.

The two separate categories allows jurisdictions that feel that the heaver class 2 e-bikes may not be appropriate for a particular location to still allow the lighter Class 1 e-bikes.

I have mixed views on the age restriction because treating proper e-bikes as bicycles would preclude an age limit, but at the same time I think all riders will use e-bike more effectively if they learn to use the gears on a regular bike first so they can use the gears and power assist together rather than simply relying on the power assist when pedalling gets a bit more difficult. As well, young healthy people today do not always get as much exercise as they should in our society.

Electric scooters and mopeds and anything else that is a motorcycle-style vehicle will require registration and insurance and drivers will have to have a motorcycle licence.

Hopefully this will keep those motor vehicles off of bicycle and multi-user pathways that they do not belong on and ease some of the public hysteria about actual e-bikes that has been the result of not understanding what an e-bike actually is, because there was no generally agreed upon definition.

According to the Government of Ontario (source):

The key benefits of an updated regulatory framework for e-bikes include:
• Improving safety by enabling requirements that reflect differences in e-bike speed, weight, and design,
• Providing greater clarity for riders, industry, municipalities, and enforcement,
• Modernizing the framework to keep pace with a rapidly evolving e-bike market; and
• Supporting the safe use of e-bikes as a sustainable transportation option.

The full Ontario government proposal is below: 

A review of the Ontario government proposal is also provided here (but note it is an e-bike retailer website).

For additional information I tried to find a review of all Canadian provinces regulations that was not associated with a retailer but was unsuccessful. These are some summaries provided by retailers:

E-Bike Laws in Canada 2026: Every Province and Territory Explained - Street Rides

Canadian E-Bike Laws by Province 2026: BC to PEI Complete Guide | FavoriteBikes

Understanding E-Bike Classes in Canada: Class 1, 2, and 3 Explained - Chain Reaction Bicycles Inc.

Bridlewood Flowers Slideshow

This is a slideshow of our Bridlewood flower garden in Spring of 2026.

 

How to Fight Fascism

When I first become politically aware during the 1960s it was not that long since World War II and The Holocaust and Fascism was seen as repugnant by almost everyone and not a view anyone would express publicly. Fascists existed in the shadows and recruited from amongst the unemployed and particularly disaffected youth whom they provided with a sense of community and someone to blame for their problems by means of propaganda.

With the arrival of the Internet I naively thought the fascists would lazily they move their recruiting there to where their prey would have easy access to information that would counter the fascists arguments.

In the 1960s we had right and left wing newspapers and radio and TV, but that was reflected in editorial policy. They all reported the same facts, just the interpretation was different. I did not foresee the increasing polarization of media and the trend of people to only watch or view media that spouted what they already had been convinced to believe.

Then came Fox News and others like it that were more propaganda outlets than news media, followed by social media such as Facebook and Twitter (later X), which discovered that designing their algorithms to promote disinformation and hate was very profitable. When Twitter became X under Elon Musk’s ownership the priority changed from profit to propaganda and the promotion of disinformation and hate and it became Fascism Central.

At the same time something was happening largely due to the legitimization of fascist ideas by these new media outlets that had garnered wide followings, that brought the fascists out of the shadows and into the mainstream of society and politics and into elected positions of power.

So what is the answer.

Some might suggest making fascism, fascist parties and expounding fascist ideas illegal, but we must remember whenever political parties and ideas are outlawed the left is always hit harder than the right. This also ignores the conflict with established civil liberties and human rights such as freedom of belief, expression, and association as provided in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These conflicts could have the result of what are usually considered progressive civil liberties organizations such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the American Civil Liberties Union defending the fascists, something they would no doubt exploit to their political advantage, not to mention the creation of political martyrs.

What is to be done ?

In today’s world where people close themselves off from anything that does not agree with their predetermined positions converting fascists is almost impossible. What we have to do is reach people before they are radicalized.

The best way to do that is to create a caring multicultural society like Canada's that values and promotes diversity, and inclusion, particularly in immigration, one that provides everyone with a liberal education that teaches and promotes critical thinking.

That is what is to be done – provide a better alternative before people can become propagandized by the hate mongers.

 

Postscript – I put in an unrelated "easter egg" link to see if anyone is actually clicking on the links.