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.

On The Record

Having accepted the evidence, without reciting it all here, The Fifth Column is going On The Record as recognizing that, among other things, Israel is committing genocide in Palestine.

I’m Supposed to Write a Blog Post Today

When I rebooted this blog in the fall of 2018 I made a commitment to post at least once a month and so far I have kept that promise to myself. However I have not posted yet this month and it has been over a month since my last post. But what to write about.

Our neighbours to the south in the United States seem to be going deeper into the abyss day by day. People blame Trump, people blame the system, people blame the voters. But what more can be said that has not been said before.

In the Middle East a brutal genocide is being carried on against the Palestinian people by a governing regime of a state that was founded by holocaust survivors. Whatever can one say about that.

And what can we say about the British Labour party going off the ideological rails.

In Canada the people united to keep the Maple MAGA Conservative Party out of power by electing a Liberal government led by a small c conservative who has been called a climate activist. And this government thinks the key to our future is in becoming a fossil fuel superpower. How does one react to that.

I am at a loss for words about what to say about these things so there is no blog today,

Is There Hope For Palestine

 I wrote this in November 2007 on the hope for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:

The solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept.

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation. (Source)

Considering the current circumstances, conventional wisdom would suggest hope for any solution may have been set back for decades, or centuries, unless the backlash from the rest of the world (apart from the United States), along with that of the Israeli people leads to the establishment of a progressive pro-Palestinian Israeli government, and by Pro Palestinian I mean one committed to the right of Palestinians to live and a Palestinian state to exist. Then maybe such a two state solution can become reality. After enough time to build trust it would ideally lead to a European Union type alliance between peoples that are natural partners, having lived peacefully together in the past and being genetically related . My preference, but who am I to say, would be for a single multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious secular state, because I believe religious based states are always a bad idea.

One might wonder if Hamas’s actions were based on a strategy of desperation, thinking that a massive terrorist attack would result in the expected disproportionate genocidal Israeli response, and hoping for a backlash from the rest of the world and the Israeli people, leading to change of government and policy in Israel. In effect, a sacrificing thousands of Palestinian lives (as Hamas certainly understands the power imbalance) in the hope of creating the conditions for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state as a result.

It has been difficult for people to say out loud one of the statements above, not because the facts do not justify it, but because most of the world does not want to believe it

Palestine – What If

 Balfour Declaration (November 2nd, 1917)

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."  (Source)

What if when the British left Palestine after World War I they had lived up to the words of the Balfour Declaration. What if they had given Palestine back to the Palestinians, Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Arab and Jewish, and established a secular government with freedom of religion with the condition that all Jews be allowed to immigrate and gain citizenship and no existing residents be displaced.

There is nothing in the concept of a Jewish homeland that says it has to be a theocracy or religious based state or that it be a segregated or apartheid religious state. What if that Jewish homeland was one where Jews, Muslims, Christians and others lived peacefully together. Even if the population became majority Jewish due to Jewish immigration I cannot help but think the history of the Middle East, and conceivably the world, would have been much different.

Obama Gets it Right on Palestine

President Obama understands what I wrote three and a half years ago, that ending the Israeli Palestinian conflict depends on recognizing that "the solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept".

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation.

Hard line Israelis, and their even harder line supporters in the United States, may not want to accept anything other than a solution dictated by Israel but the rest of the world knows, and President Obama understands, that Middle East Peace will require compromise, and while the hard liners may not want peace the rest of the world does.

Three Simple Reasons Why Israel Is Not A Terrorist State

1. They are the "good guys".

2. "God" is on their side.

and most importantly

3. They are on the "winning" side.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - Complexity and Simplicity

The complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be seen in it’s long history, yet it’s solution is a basically simple one.

The conflict started before the creation of the State of Israel following the Second world War (which was no doubt influenced by the treatment of the Jews by the Nazi regime).

Israel was created by the major powers stealing land from the Arabs and Palestinians which led to immediate war and conflicts which have continued ever since. These wars have led to Israel unilaterally stealing more land from it’s neighbouring countries leading to continuous Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.

At the moment the Palestinians are divided. Following the death of Yasser Arafat, a moderate Mahmoud Abbas, from the Fatah movement, was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority. Following that the more militant Hamas movement won the Palestinian Parliamentary elections, while Abbas remained President. Conflict arose between the two movements leading to Hamas officials being ousted from their positions in the Palestinian National Authority and Palestinian President Abbas issuing a decree outlawing the Hamas militia and executive force.

On the Israeli side there is conflict between those who believe Israel should exist in it’s original borders and these who believe in permanently annexing the lands taken from the Palestinians after the creation of the State of Israel.

At times the idea of peace between Israelis and Palestinians seems futile. But one only has to look to Northern Ireland and South Africa to see that the seemingly impossible is possible. In both these cases peace came about because both sides had the courage to talk to each other, rather than invoking the convenient excuse of “not negotiating with terrorists” even if each side considered the other to be terrorists. Who would have thought that black and white South Africans would come together to build a new country,

There is only one ultimate solution and it is essentially a simple one and the sooner both sides accept this the sooner a lasting peace can be established.

The solution essentially comes down to understanding the most and least that each side can accept.

We could argue forever whether the State of Israel should have been created the way it was but, as most Palestinians have come to accept, that is a historical fact that is simply not going to change. It has been a huge and difficult step for the Palestinians to accept that, after all it was their land that was stolen from them. But come to accept it they have. That is the most they can be expected to accept. The least they can be expected to accept is to have their own Palestinian State and have Israel give back the land they stole since the creation of the State of Israel with no exceptions. The original boundaries must be restored, including the status of Jerusalem at the time Israel was created.

The least that Israel can be expected to accept is to have their right to exist accepted by the international community, including Palestinians and Arab states. The most they can be expected to give up is all the land they stole after the creation of the state of Israel, a not unreasonable expectation.

The beauty of this solution is that it provides something that is acceptable to the moderate majority on both sides and thus reduces the ability of extremist to rally support, That is not to say that both Israelis and Palestinians will not have to deal with the extremists within their own ranks. The Palestinians have already shown they are willing to do that and without having to fight an external enemy at the same time, they can be more effective.

It also means Israelis and Palestinians will no longer have a need to fear each other and be enemies but can work towards being partners in the Middle East.

It is as simple (and as complicated) as that.