Is proselytizing a basic human right?

Former British prime minister Tony Blair addressed McGill students on Friday as part of his Faith and Globalization initiative, asking them, “Does religious faith become a means of providing civilizing values to civilization and thereby be a force of progress, or does religious faith become a badge of identity in opposition to those who aren’t of the same faith?”  That is, is the continuing proliferation of religious identities good, bad, or simply inevitable? He proceeded to say that he sees this as the dominant question of the 21^st century.

Previously, I have attempted to explore the limits of freedom of religion in Canadian and international law; I now return to this subject in order to consider the question of whether freedom of religion encompasses the right to proselytize one’s faith. While an exhaustive examination of the issue would doubtless require a far more detailed analysis than I am able to provide here, I hope to provide at least an overview of the relevant considerations.

Legislative provisions on religious proselytism vary widely from one country to another. Most western countries impose no specific constraints on proselytization, leaving its regulation to social norms of conduct or religious bodies themselves. A number of countries, such as Greece and Nepal, ban the activity outright and threaten transgressors with criminal sanctions. Many countries impose limits on who can proselytize: it is illegal for non-Muslims to…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Two Worlds Apart: Canada Supports the Rights of a Niqabi Woman while France Approves Law Banning the Niqab in Public

If there existed an award for Controversial Clothing Garment of the Year, surely the niqab would grab the prize for 2010.[1] The niqab took the spotlight earlier this year when Quebec proposed legislation that would prohibit the wearing of the niqab for an individual seeking a government service. After a pause of several months, the hearing on the proposed legislation resumed on Tuesday (19 October 2010), though this issue has temporary drifted away from national interest.

However, the niqab has been garnering increasing attention elsewhere. In the past two weeks, two important decisions were released concerning the niqab. On 13 October 2010, the Ontario Court of Appeal opined that a niqab woman’s right to wear to the niqab in a sexual assault trial must be given due consideration. A week earlier in France, the Constitutional Council gave its approval on the constitutionality of legislation banning the niqab in public spaces. Admitted, the two decisions do not touch on exactly the same matter. Nonetheless by contrasting the decisions, one starts to sense a “Canadian flavor” in they way our courts address controversial issue where freedom of religion is implicated. The Court of Appeal’s strong push for reconciliation of rights, as well as its interest in affording a niqabi woman substantive (over formal) equality, provides some indication that multiculturalism is actively playing a role in the way the Canadian…

Continue reading this entry ➔

What’s wrong with banning the niqab?

Let’s start with the obvious: it violates the religious freedom of Muslim women who choose to wear the niqab for reasons of faith. Even those who would defend a ban, such as noted constitutional lawyer Julius Grey, acknowledge that this would violate religious freedoms – however, freedom of religion in Canada is never absolute, and the question is whether or not the government would be able to adequately justify such an infringement.

It is widely speculated that Bill 94 – proposed legislation that would bar the niqab from being worn in government offices, hospitals, and schools in Quebec – will face fierce legal challenges despite the overwhelming public support it receives in Quebec and the rest of Canada. There are three principle avenues by which one might pursue a legal challenge to this legislation.

The first is to sue the government in Quebec Superior Court, invoking the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter stipulates that everyone is fundamentally entitled to freedom of conscience and religion, subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society (as determined using the two steps outlined in the Oakes Test).

The second avenue is to bring a complaint to the Quebec Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec…

Continue reading this entry ➔

Does international law adequately protect freedom of religion?

Freedom of religion is enshrined in a number of international instruments, most notably the 1976 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which defines it as the right to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice and to manifest it in private or in public, free of coercion, through worship, observance, practice, and teaching.

The UN General Assembly has passed a number of non-binding declarations affirming freedom of religion as a universal right, notably the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities.

Many countries guarantee religious freedoms through constitutional or legislative means. Canada in particular is known for its juridical emphasis, through liberal interpretation and strict enforcement, of the freedom of religion provided under s. 2(a) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

So it would seem that freedom of religion has come a long way in recent decades. However, despite broad acknowledgement that freedom of religion is a fundamental right, there are glaring discrepancies between the way in which international law protects the rights of religious groups and the way in which it protects those of women, children, ethnic groups, and others. As Chon and Arzt point out, no credible international mechanisms exist to address…

Continue reading this entry ➔