CCLA Rights Watch
La veille sur les
droits et libertés

«Quebec’s Muslim community is perplexed after the Parti Québécois called into question the slaughtering of animals for halal meat.

The PQ claims the traditional religious ritual used to kill the animals flies in the face of Quebec values because it is inhumane, and could even violate public-health standards.»

«Halal, which in Arabic means “permissible” or “lawful,” is similar to Jewish Kosher tradition. The religiously sanctioned slaughter is legal and regulated under provincial laws and federal food-inspection standards.

Members of the Muslim community, however, say the PQ has mischaracterized the issue and is being unduly alarmist. The only difference between halal meat and the meat sold for general consumption, they say, is that the animals are first blessed before being slaughtered – in the same manner that other animals are slaughtered in the province.»

However Mr. Simard has a different opinion, he believes consumers need to be informed. He claims that halal meat is being sold in supermarkets and it is not being properly labelled as such.

He thinks halah meat slaugthering has now become a common praticse. He also believes that consumers should be informed because if they knew what halal meat entails, they wouldn’t purchase it.

The PQ would like to know precisely how many companies produce halal meat and how many companies sell it.

Mr. Ghalen, a representative of the muslim community, believes this is total disinformation and he believes all the facts that are mentionned are exagerated. He believes the controversy is based on false assumptions and the only difference between halal meat and non halal meat is that muslims say a prayer before slaughtering the animal.

Mr. Simard believes consumers should be informed of that eat and he claims halal meat process is cruelty to animals !!

Taken from : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/muslim-community-calls-pq-alarmist-over-halal-meat/article2369739/

Parents in Morinville, AB (northwest of Edmonton) are achieving results after a year-long battle for educational religious equality.  School division boundaries had left the community without secular education and the new bill, introduced to the legislature on Wednesday, intends to correct these boundaries and create a public school division in Morinville.

Schoolchildren in Morinville have only had access to schools directed by the Greater St. Albert Catholic Regional Division.  The school division refused parents requests for secular education, asserting that “the only education it would offer was one permeated by the teachings of Christ.”  Non-catholic students were required to receive report cards which graded them on their “growth in Christian values.”  Following this response from the school board, parents filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission which drew the governments attention to the issue.

If the bill passes, parents in the community will be able to send their children to a non-denominational school for the first time in decades.

Check out the Globe and Mail article here

”The Supreme Court of Canada has tightened the clamps on future claims that laws or educational programs infringe on an individual’s right to freedom of religion and conscience.”

In 2008, the Quebec government introduced a program that replaced religion classes with a curriculum covering all major faiths that are found in Quebec such as Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and aboriginal beliefs.

A couple had asked that their son be taken out of the mandatory ethics and religious program because it would make him confused about the Roman Catholic belief system he was being taught at home.

”The mother of the Grade 4 pupil said on Friday that the mixed messages of the Quebec program and have caused her son to question his faith at an age where he should be listening to parental instruction.”

She claims that : ”There is a time and place for everything, and this exposure should come later. Unless, of course, the entire point of the exercise is to sow doubt,” said the woman, who can be identified only as S.L. under a court order. “I want to assure you, I’m for openness, but I refuse to treat my faith as something freakish. Just how far do we have to go to call ourselves welcoming and tolerant?” ”

On the other hand Madame Justice Marie Deschamps, disagreed with the parents and claims that it is a healthy program that exposes childrend to vide variety of belief systems and it teaches them tolerance.

She believes that it exposes children to a reality of Canadian society that it is a multicultural society. She thinks children should be exposed to the different  belief systems of  Canadian citizens.

The court finally ruled that the parents could not challenge a program without furnishing tangible proof that it offends their belief system. The court decided to keep the program as it is and not to exempt the child from the course.

 Taken from : http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/mandatory-religion-course-doesnt-infringe-on-religious-freedoms-top-court-rules/article2341945/?from=sec434

The Supreme Court of Canada has sided with the provincial government and the earlier ruling by the Quebec Court of Appeal, rejecting an appeal from Quebec parents who claimed their children’s freedom of religion was being infringed, by having to complete an ethics and religious culture program implemented in the province’s schools in 2008.

The program, which was introduced to elementary and high schools by the provincial Education Ministry, replaced religion classes with a curriculum covering all major faiths found in Quebec culture, including Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and aboriginal beliefs.

The top court said that the appellants had not proven that the ethics and religion course infringed their freedom of religion, nor that the refusal of the school board to exempt their children had violated their constitutional rights.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/02/16/supreme-court-canada-religion-education-challenge.html

Last december a woman wanted to testify in court while wearing a niqab (face cover that shows only the eyes). She is accusing 2 males relatives of sexual assault, she is the complainant in the case and made the request to wear her niqad in court.

The defendants claim that they should her face for purposes of cross examination.

“A preliminary inquiry judge ordered that she remove her niqab before testifying, but an Ontario Superior Court judge later quashed that order.

The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently overturned the Superior Court’s order, set up a legal test for determining if the woman can wear her niqab, and sent the matter back to the preliminary hearing judge.

The woman appealed that decision to the country’s top court in Ottawa, contending her right to wear the niqab is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She wants the Supreme Court to send the matter back to the preliminary inquiry with an order that she be allowed to wear the niqab at the hearing and any trial that might follow.”

Her lawyer believes that institutions such as courts should take people as they are. She claims that there are many ways to asses demeanour such as  one’s voice and body language. Some say that banning the niqab in court could lead to fewer muslim women reporting on crime.

Taken from :

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/08/niqab-supreme-court.html

The conservative government has announced in december that it will prohibit muslim women from covering their faces during citizenship ceremonies.

The muslim canadian congress has met this news with an applause.

The immigration minister Jason Kenney has declared that the face veil goes against Canadian indentity and Canadian values to openness and equality. He believes that allowing women to cover their faces during theses ceremonies will prevent them from integrating into canadian society.

The Canadian Islamic Congress has seen this as an attack on religious freedom. They have said :

”“Those women have the same rights as other Canadian citizens. The laws apply to us equally,” Whida Valiante, the Congress’ national president told HuffPost. “If the Minister thinks that these women are not living by the very heart of our values, and just by taking the niqab off they will join the heart of our values, they already have. They went through the process of learning and making sure that they passed the (citizenship) exams. If their heart and soul was not there, why would they do all that?” ”

Mr. Kenney said that he has received complaints from citizenship judges saying thay they could not tell if a women was truly taking the oath.

Mr. Kenney goes as far as saying that the face veil is not a religious obligation and it should not be encouraged in canadian society.

This article demonstrates the different tensions between the integration and accomodation of religious groups and the religious freedom. Does religious freedom has limits ? Is an absolute right ? Is the governement entitled to put such limits according to the Canadian constitution ?

Does are questions that canadian citizens should ask themselves.

Take from : http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/12/12/new-niqab-rules-ban-citizenship-ceremonies_n_1143101.html?ref=canada-politics

In 2009, the Government of Alberta enacted Bill 44, an amendment to the Alberta Human Rights Act. As amended, the AHRA now prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, in line with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Alberta v Vriend, [1998] 1 SCR 493. However,  due to concerns that children would be exposed to “objectionable” perspectives on human sexuality and religion, the Stelmach government included in the legislation a “parental rights” clause that requires school boards to provide parents with advance written notice if these issues will be introduced in the classroom.

Now the Edmonton Journal reports  that in the past two months, at least five parents have lodged complaints under this provision with the Alberta Human Rights Commission against the St. Albert Catholic Regional Division and the Alberta Ministry of Education. These complaints come from Morinville parents who are upset because their children do not have access to secular education in their community – all public education is administered by the Catholic Regional Division. As a result, the parents claim that their children have been forced to undergo religious education. While parents have lobbied the government to address this issue, their concerns have largely been ignored.

Your can read more here.

The legislature in New Brunswick (along with PEI and Nova Scotia), still recites the Lord’s prayer at the beginning of provincial and municipal council meetings.  How does this coincide with the separation of church and state? Also, for religions other than Christian, does religious freedom not include the right to not have to sit through the Lord’s prayer? Read the rest of this entry »

Dernièrement, les célébrations entourant Noël sèment une controverse, particulièrement dans les pays multiculturels où plusieurs religions et différentes cultures se croisent comme le Canada. Les références à Noël devraient-elles être éliminées des espaces publics pour éviter le malaise de ceux et celles qui ne partagent pas cette croyance chrétienne? Que ce soit par politesse ou par rectitude politique, certains semblent croire qu’une telle élimination est nécessaire pour que les familles ne voulant pas célébrer Noël puissent échapper l’omniprésence des symboles de cette fête. En revanche, les familles chrétiennes revendiquent leur droit d’exprimer leurs croyances et de célébrer leur religion comme n’importe qui d’autre dans ce pays. Pour de plus amples renseignements, cliquez ici.

The city of Montreal was in court today to shut down a 30 year Hasidic Synagogue in Outremont because it’s operating in a residential zone. This has been causing a lot of tensions between Jews and non-jews in that area. Outremont is a predominantly jewish neighbourhood in Montreal.  The members of that synagogue say that they have been praying there for many years and they don’t understand the decision of the City to shut down the synagogue.

The jewish community are saying that this hinders their right to freedom of religion while the City is claiming that this is simply the application of a bylaw that doesn’t allow a commercial or religious building at that specific address. The city claims it has no intention to hinder the right to freedom of religion.

The hearing was postponed to next spring after the lawyer representing the congregation raised the issue of freedom of religion.

For the full story, click here.