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.

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.

In the United Kingdom Peaceful Protest Is Now Terrorism

From Democracy Under Fire:

Here’s one example of the intimidation of peaceful protest by the young that is happening all over Britain. Nicky Wishart is a 12-year-old self-described “maths geek” who lives in the heart of David Cameron’s constituency. He was gutted when he found out his youth club was being shut down as part of the cuts: there’s nowhere else to hang out in his village. He was particularly outraged when he discovered online that Cameron had said, before the election, that he was “committed” to keeping youth clubs open. So he did the right thing. He organized a totally peaceful protest on Facebook outside Cameron’s constituency surgery. A few days later, the police arrived at his school. They hauled him out of his lessons, told him the anti-terrorism squad was monitoring him and threatened him with arrest.

The message to Nicky Wishart and his generation is very clear: don’t get any fancy ideas about being an engaged citizen. Go back to your X-Box and X-Factor, and leave politics to the millionaires in charge.

Original Source: Johann Hari - The Independent

Legalizing Spousal Rape In Afghanistan – Not So Foreign to Canadian Law

As the CBC reports, Afghanistan's proposed law to legalize spousal rape, or to put it in other terms “make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex”, has rightly been widely condemned.

However, we would be wrong to characterize this as some sort of Islamic barbarism foreign to western civilizations.

Indeed, as the Globe and Mail reports, the same provision existed in Canadian law up until 1983.

Indeed, the concept has had a long history in the jurisprudence of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth countries, Canada and the United States, as the following articles record:

Historical Development of the Offence of_Rape (Bruce A. MacFarlane, Q.C. Deputy Minister of Justice Deputy Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba)

Making Marital Rape A Crime: A Long Road Traveled, A Long Way to Go (Lynn Hecht Schafran, Director, National Judicial Education Program; Stefanie Lopez-Boy, Program Associate, National Judicial Education Program; Mary Rothwell Davis)

It took a long time to banish from the law books of the west, It should not be allowed to be put on the law books of Afghanistan at a time when Canadian soldiers are dying there, supposedly in the name of women's rights and human rights.

Dion to Liberals: We Don't Tell It As It Is

We knew that before but now it's official.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said he disagreed with Dallaire's choice of words, and hinted the senator could be disciplined.

"This is a matter to deal with the (party) whip, and we'll deal with that," Dion told reporters.

This is about what we have come to expect from the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Abstainers.

Do You Hate Young People

Do young people annoy the hell out of you. Then you need the Mosquito Youth Repellent. The Mosquito, created by Welsh inventor Howard Stapleton, emits a pulsing noise above 16,000 hertz that capitalizes on the fact most humans can catch the mind-numbing frequency only between the age of 13 and 25.

Bureaucrats from the City of Montreal are studying whether the device could legally be used to clear young drug dealers and bums from scary city tunnels, but the machine is already a hit among some West Coast businesses.

"It's awesome," said Lisa Deacon, manager of the 57 Below Bar and Liquor Store in New Westminster, B.C. The bar was one of the first North American businesses to try the device, in 2006. It turns on at night and keeps away all the young punks who hang out at the SkyTrain station."

Two Mac's convenience stores in Victoria have used the Mosquito to clear out drug dealers while two others in Richmond, B.C., have used the squealing machine to clear massive crowds of teenagers.

I thought the “no teenagers allowed” signs I have seen in coffee shops were abhorrent enough. The mentality that the future leaders of our communities and our country are all punks and drug dealers and “bums” is disgusting.

It is one thing for ignorant business people to somehow think attacking their future customers would be a good thing. It is a completely different thing for public officials to consider such a discriminatory attack on young citizens.

This device, and the mentality behind it, calls for the addition of age to the prohibited grounds for discrimination in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all federal and provincial human rights legislation.

Multiculturalism and Reasonable Accommodation - It’s as Canadian as a Kilt or a Hijab

When you invite friends over do you ever serve food that their religion forbids them to eat. If you go to a wedding of someone of another faith do suggest they should be married in a “Canadian” church. If neighbours invite you to a cultural celebration do you complain about their foreign customs. Of course not, because that would be impolite and certainly not the Canadian way. That is essentially the spirit of “reasonable accommodation” practiced at the personal level.

So why does something that is so natural on a personal level become so controversial on a societal level.

Recent census results indicate that currently there are just over one million aboriginal people in this country. The rest of us are immigrants, or descendants of immigrants. We come from all over the world and we are what makes Canada the wonderful country that it is.

Certainly, due to history, certain groups have become more dominant and certain customs more ingrained in our way of life than others. For example we have a government based on the British Parliamentary system and Christian religious holidays enshrined in statute law. But we are also strengthened by adding the customs of newer Canadian to our way of life.

Canada is a multicultural country that is only strengthened by the many customs and cultures of the people that immigrated to this country to become Canadians. Multiculturalism means that not only do we allow immigrant groups to maintain their customs but also share them with them.

So what is “reasonable accommodation”. Leonard Stern, writing in The Ottawa Citizen, said it best:

Ode to a sales clerk

The Border on CBC

I watched the first episode of The Border last night and I was impressed. It was hard to watch because even though you know it’s fictional you know it is also based on reality. The reality in the case of government anti-terrorism activities is that you do not know who the bad guys are. It is hard to cheer for the “good guys” when they may be railroading some innocent Canadian because of ethnicity or religion.

Of course this is television so everything is going to be simplified and exaggerated but nonetheless it was a compelling story with compelling characters. One might question whether the episode’s hero going against his Ottawa bosses was realistic, but then I wake up and read about Linda Keen this morning. These people do exist and they make great real Canadian heroes.

The show ends after vindicating the innocent Canadian by reminding us that real terrorists are out there and we have to fight terrorism while respecting all Canadians civil liberties and human rights.

Now to find out more about the “rogue American agent” in next week’s episode.