Don’t relegate religion to secondary tier of protection, say faith groups

Earlier this year, the justice minister introduced Bill C-51 to clean up the Criminal Code. Included in the bill was a clause that removes section 176, the special criminal-law protections for religious worship services. This move has caused great concern among a broad swath of religious leaders across the country. An open letter was delivered to the justice minister last week, signed by 66 Canadian faith leaders from the Sikh, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Buddhist traditions. What follows is the text of the letter. A list of its signatories can be viewed at ARPAcanada.ca/interfaith-letter. Dear Minister, At a time of growing concern about intolerance toward religious groups in Canada, Parliament’s duty to ensure the protection of faith communities is especially critical. As faith leaders, we are deeply concerned with Bill C-51’s proposed removal of section 176 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which provides specific protections for these communities. The stated intent of Bill C-51 is to remove Criminal Code provisions that are redundant or obsolete. However, other laws that address assault, public disturbance, threats or trespass do not offer the same degree of protection as section 176. Nor do they recognize the unique character and nature of religious gatherings and the unique character of offences directed against religion. It has been argued before the Justice Committee that the category “clergyman or minister” used in section 176(1) excludes non-Christian religious leaders. Although there appear to be no instances where judges have interpreted 176(1) in this way, we would suggest that the language be amended to make it clear that all religious leaders engaged in officiating a religious service are protected under 176(1). Religious freedom has been given explicit and singular protection under the law, and is regarded rightly as a uniquely important and foundational element of our entire human rights system. The removal of section 176 would relegate religious freedom to a secondary consideration, indistinguishable from other concerns involving public safety. The removal of section 176 would erode protection for religious freedom in Canada, and would stand in stark contrast to the explicit protection enshrined in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR). These international covenants were drafted in recognition of the 20th century having seen a correlation between violations of religious freedom and some of the worst violations of human rights ever recorded. Religious freedom is known as the first freedom, because where it flourishes, all other freedoms flourish. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while giving specific protection to freedom of conscience, thought, belief and opinion, also ensures explicit protection of religious freedom under Section 2(a). The Criminal Code should not be amended to do otherwise. The removal of section 176 would send the wrong message in our current climate. According to a Statistics Canada report released in June 2017, 35 per cent of hate-motivated crimes reported in 2015 were motivated by hatred of religion. Police-reported crimes motivated by hate against the Muslim population rose 61 per cent in 2015, with hate crimes also on the increase against Catholics. Crimes against the Jewish population in Canada accounted for 13 per cent of all hate crimes. These statistics are very troubling to all faith communities. A reading from the Torah in a synagogue, a prayer service in a mosque, a song in a Sikh temple, a worship service in a church, or a religious procession in a public space: each of these is a communal event that involves an encounter with the transcendent. An attack against a religious assembly or the deliberate assault of a religious official outside a house of worship is a different kind of offence from other public disturbances, assaults, threats or incitement to hatred. An offence against a people at worship reverberates through the community and touches every member. An offence against one particular person or community at worship has an impact on all religious adherents. Section 176 is not obsolete or redundant. In a climate of increasing incidents against faith communities across Canada, and in view of the role of the Criminal Code in serving as a deterrent and educational guide to society, we believe it is essential to maintain the specific protections that section 176 affords to religious gatherings and to those who lead them. Retaining section 176 will ensure that the fundamental right to freedom of religion is protected, and that respect for the religious practices and observances of others remains a recognized Canadian value. As faith leaders, we urge Parliament to protect the integrity and security of public religious expression, and amend Bill C-51 to retain section 176 of the Criminal Code. Further, we recommend that Parliament amend section 176(1) so as to ensure explicit protection for all religious officials. André Schutten is legal counsel and director of law and policy with the Association for Reformed Political Action. The Hill Times

Don’t relegate religion to secondary tier of protection, say faith groups

On freedom of religion, Poland remembers the mistakes of the past as it watches the horrors of the present

Remembering the Québec City mosque attack and taking action against Islamophobia

The online harms call is coming from inside the House

On freedom of religion, Poland remembers the mistakes of the past as it watches the horrors of the present

Canada needs a modern, national health data architecture

To address online harms, Canada must commit to digital media literacy

A cure for multiple sclerosis could be just around the corner

Renewable energy is the way to go, says letter writer

Supporting local broadcasters is critical for our democracy

Call to action doesn’t legalize corporal punishment, says academic

Call religious extremism what it is: terrorism

House Justice Committee to mull revival of controversial hate-speech provision, as it shifts focus away from SNC-Lavalin

Pittsburgh synagogue attack exposes threat of online hate

Fine line between hate and terrorism: murder is murder

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Don’t relegate religion to secondary tier of protection, say faith groups

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter