Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
I'd like to point out a 2004 SCC decision called Syndicat Northcrest v. Anselem. This wasn't the best decision in the world and it's not entirely on point since Ms. Muse brought a complaint under the Ontario Code and this deals with the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The court split 5-4, in part, over the extent to which a person's religious belief is consistent with religious practice. The majority didn't think it was crucial to examine this to the same extent that the minority did. Judging by your previous thoughts on the topic, jammies, I would guess you probably agree with the minority on this one. |
That's very interesting, and I *would* agree with the minority opinion - I find the following passage somewhat disturbing - "
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."
What this says, to me, is that the court can subjectively determine the "fact" of belief in a particular rite or observation without needing to refer to expert opinion, which is a dubious proposition at best. This position might be defined as "if you can convince us, we'll let it pass", whereas you would think the opinion of an actual practitioner, scholar and authority on the subject might carry a bit of weight in the matter.
Further, it opens up the idea that whatever you can personally cook up as your "deeply held spiritual belief" can exempt you from all kinds of obligations and regulations. I think the definition of "religion" should be much more narrow - like the Wikipedia one of "A
religion is a
social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as
prayer,
ritual, and
religious law." The key element being "social institution", which is markedly different from the concept of "personal religion".
Of course, what I think is irrelevant to the law of the land, but at least there is a significant minority on the Court that disagrees with this loose interpretation of "religious freedom". It would be interesting to see a few more cases (as we very well may) of this nature be tried to put this idea to the test in cases where it not quite so harmless as whether or not someone can erect a tent on their balcony.