Woman exempted from union membership due to religious beliefs

[Berkut]

What matters in these cases is not the subject of the belief, but the sincerity with which it is held.

A) People may have sincere non religious beliefs.

Non-religious beliefs are not generally considered to be protected in the same manner that religious views are held.

B) It is nearly impossible to challenge the sincerity of a religious belief without insulting the religion.  See the case of the Federal government in the case of mandatory vaccination.  People whose personal religious conviction were said to interfere with the mandate were excluded.  Which was another dumb decision to accommodate religious people.  Either we are all subject to the same rules, or we grant exemptions to everyone on the same basis, religion or no religion.

There is good historical precedent for what happens when the State decides to get involved in religious beliefs. It generally doesn't end well.

This is not black and white, and isn't going to be for some time, if ever.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

[Razgovory]

Otherwise it would make persecuting people for their religion easy.

Well I thought it was because in the 18th century the church had special rights and privileges and we decided to make things more equal by just giving all religions that same status. In the 21st century though, it does seem a little weird that just religions and not other types of philosophical considerations get those rights.

But maybe it is better this way. If you want to persecute people for their religion, I guess it is better to make it more challenging. Explain your thinking about this. Does the UK persecute people for their religion more than we do?

Or is this some kind of cheap shot at Quebec and Viper and I am taking you too seriously here 

My point is that you could make laws that specifically target religions (all school children must eat pork).  If you have religious opt outs it makes those sorts of laws pointless.

[The Brain]

A lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

The percentage of Swedes who are ultra-religious has been on the rise for decades. These days you have to tread carefully in Sweden and take religious views into account.

[crazy canuck]

A lot of the responses here IMO are overly legalistic and tone deaf to the practicalities of making a government work. There are some countries that are basically entirely atheist like the UK or Sweden, but in much of the world making some sort of accommodation with religious belief is a simple necessity of having a stable and secure society. When you can further that goal with what IMO are minor accommodations, limited in scope, that are vetted for sincerity and which do not infringe meaningful on a third party, I'm all for it. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

The thread is a discussion of a legal case 

[OttoVonBismarck]

It isn't interesting as a discussion of a legal case. There's probably forums for Canadian lawyers that would be able to weigh in more meaningfully than that--but this is an issue that affects everyone in every country, and it is entirely germane to bring up the societal viewpoint. It is unsurprising a lawyer wants to restrict every and all discussion to legalism, since that gives your class excess power (and this is actually a problem in society at large, too.) It is mostly irrelevant for society what the law is, what is relevant is how the law should be.

[crazy canuck]

It isn't interesting as a discussion of a legal case. There's probably forums for Canadian lawyers that would be able to weigh in more meaningfully than that--but this is an issue that affects everyone in every country, and it is entirely germane to bring up the societal viewpoint. It is unsurprising a lawyer wants to restrict every and all discussion to legalism, since that gives your class excess power (and this is actually a problem in society at large, too.) It is mostly irrelevant for society what the law is, what is relevant is how the law should be.

This isn't a question of legalism.  Rather a discussion of whether the case was rightly decided.  A side benefit of this discussion is the interesting ways in which the US approaches the question differently. 

If you think discussing those differences is not interesting - I don't agree.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The U.S. approaches it differently because we have different laws, it isn't a matter AFAIK of a difference in judicial philosophy so much as courts following the statutes. We specifically have legal apparatus that exempts people from certain things based on religious belief, some are individual carve outs in tax laws (like the 1965 provision for the Amish), and some are generalized from our "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (RFRA) which was passed in the early 1990s.

Prior to that there had been something called the "Sherbert Test", which held that strict scrutiny be used in evaluating if the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment had been violated. This test had been standard in jurisprudence for some decades, but the decision in Employment Division v. Smith was seen to have indicated a judicial erosion of the Sherbert Test, the RFRA was passed to codify the Sherbert test as part of statutory law.

[viper37]

Non-religious beliefs are not generally considered to be protected in the same manner that religious views are held.

I believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs.  You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.

There is good historical precedent for what happens when the State decides to get involved in religious beliefs. It generally doesn't end well.

This is not black and white, and isn't going to be for some time, if ever.

No, it is not black and white, but letting "religious freedoms" run amock is generally not a good thing.  The needle has got to be in the center.  Look, if an adult Jehovah's Witness does not want to receive a blood transfusion to save his/her life, I'm ok with it.  Anyone can refuse a blood transfusion at the hospital.  I could have a protection mandate specifying that some cares are not to be provided, religious or not.

But granting exemptions to laws, when such exemptions could become jurisprudence for the future, I don't think it's a wise thing.

[Berkut]

I'll worry about that once I think religious freedoms start running amok in Canada or the US.

[Barrister]

I believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs.  You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.

Section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights covers "freedom of conscience and religion".

As I understand it, the general sense in Canada is that s. 2(a) will cover someone's comprehensive value system, even if it does not arise from a religious belief.  For example if someone is a devout vegetarian and strong believer in animal rights, those beliefs would likely be protected under the Charter.  It likely doesn't cover something like "I don't believe in Covid vaccines".

But quick googling suggests there is no compelling SCC caselaw on the point.

[The Brain]

All coleslaw is compelling IMHO.

[Barrister]

All coleslaw is compelling IMHO.

Agreed.

[Jacob]

I hope there was a line of publications on legal matters that is called "Cole's Law".

Is there?

[crazy canuck]

I believe that non religious beliefs should get the same treatment as religious beliefs.  You either ignore both, or you give exemption to both.

Section 2(a) of the Charter of Rights covers "freedom of conscience and religion".

As I understand it, the general sense in Canada is that s. 2(a) will cover someone's comprehensive value system, even if it does not arise from a religious belief.  For example if someone is a devout vegetarian and strong believer in animal rights, those beliefs would likely be protected under the Charter.  It likely doesn't cover something like "I don't believe in Covid vaccines".

But quick googling suggests there is no compelling SCC caselaw on the point.

I will dig up some law on this when I have a chance - but you are essentially correct.