Academic

Chiodo on R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd

By Lawrence Solum

Suzie Chiodo (University of Western Ontario Faculty of Law) has posted Big M, Little Freedom: Accommodating Religion in a Secular Society on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

By seeing religion as an aspect of life instead of a framework of existence, Canadian courts have committed some fundamental errors in balancing religious freedom with other rights. Such pitfalls must be avoided if the protections for religious freedom (section 2(a)) and equality regardless of religion (section 15) in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are to retain any kind of meaning. These pitfalls include:

? The limitation of religion to the private sphere;
? Ranking freedom of religion below other equality rights such as sexual orientation;
? Using section 2(a) to impose freedom from religion, rather than freedom of religion;
? Assuming that ?secular? means non-religious or religiously neutral.

Landmark cases such as R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. and Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem have established several tests to guide courts in their consideration of religious freedom. When taken in conjunction with the preamble to the Charter, and the protections in sections 2(a) and 15, courts and human rights tribunals can avoid the above errors and ensure the preservation of freedom of religion together with other fundamental Canadian values.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on July 08, 2009 (boomark / email).