Assault on freedom of religion? (Canada).

Ottawa--On May 17, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in a case concerning Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C. When this evangelical Christian university applied for provincial certification of its education program in 1996, the B.C. College of Teachers (BCCT) turned it down, on the ground that the code of conduct students at TWU have to subscribe to--which forbids sexual relations before marriage, among other things--discriminates against homosexuals. Two lower courts ruled in favour of TWU, and the BCCT then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, by an 8-1 margin, saying that this was a question of human rights, not essentially of educational matters, and that the right to religious freedom and to determine one's moral conduct have been recognized "long before the advent of the Charter and have been considered to be legal issues."

William Sammon, counsel for the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB) in its intervention in the hearing, said that the ruling "underlines the fact that we've got freedom of religion in Canada and that it's a charter-protected right." "This is not about gay rights at all," he added. "This decision is really about religious freedom and the right to hold religious views."

The CCCB itself said that the ruling was a "much needed reminder that freedom of religion is a fundamental human right...guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Byfield

In an amusing column in the Edmonton Sun, Ted Byfield said that this decision showed that conservative Canadians are finally learning how to moan. This Christian institution, he summarized, must be allowed to graduate certifiable teachers even if it requires them to pledge themselves to Christian morality. The B.C. Teachers' College was horrified by this requirement, thinking, how can teachers who had sworn to live non-adulterous, non-homosexual lives possibly be expected to run open-minded classes in public schools after they had been trained into this bigotry? But the teachers' college could not produce one instance in which a graduate of TWU had been accused of classroom bigotry. So the Supreme Court ruled against them, producing a judgment so much at odds with what the Court has been doing in recent years that it is clear that the "moans" of conservatives over what the Court has been doing in the past two decades has had an impact. His conclusion was, "So let's keep right on moaning."

Hunter

Retired law professor Ian Hunter took a more serious view of the ruling. He contends that the jubilation over the TWU victory ought to be muted. The Court, he says, gave a minimalist view of religious freedom: students can retain their religious beliefs when they are on campus as long as they do not try to air them off campus.

The proper place to draw the line, the Court ruled, is generally between beliefs and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. Suppose a teacher in a public school, when asked, points out that the Bible teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. The Supreme Court left no doubt that such a situation is forbidden: acting on beliefs is a very different matter from belief itself. Then it becomes discrimination.

If a teacher in the public school system engages in this "discriminatory" conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT.

So Hunter concludes, "You are free to be hearers of The Word but not doers; you may render unto God when on campus, but only to Caesar off campus" (Globe, May 31, 2001).

Miller/Benson

In Lex View #46, published by the Centre for Cultural Renewal (Suite 510, 130 Albert St., Ottawa, K1P 5G4), B.C. lawyers Brad Miller and lain Benson take a different view. They consider that "The Court displays a sensitive understanding of the purpose of religious institutions, and attempts to ascertain and balance the true needs of the public education system together with freedom of religion."

They emphasize that none of the other eight justices agreed with the lone dissenter, Mine L'Heureux Dube, who maintained that only "equality' was relevant to defining the public interest in this case. She argued that the equality provisions concerning homosexuals were not being observed and that the appeal, therefore, should be accepted and TWU censored.

The Court's majority, on the other hand, rejected this view. They strongly affirmed the place of religious groups and institutions in Canada. Evaluating policy according to one single criterion only, they said, would produce absurd results. So, Miller and Benson say, the Court corrected a widespread flaw in contemporary Charter adjudication which has been consistently worded to the disadvantage of persons of religious faith.

The Court, they say, ruled that the Constitution as a whole provides a sketch of how Canadians have chosen to order public life; each section of the Charter must be defined in relation to a context which takes into account our history, philosophy, and religious principles. Without understanding the value of religious practice or exercise of conscience, the BCCT could not understand the purpose of the community standards code, and therefore its value. Students go to TWU seeking a particular religious environment which supports their desire to mature in their Christian faith, and the majority on the Court understood this point well. A forced merger of respect for homosexual or lesbian persons and respect for human dignity would go against the mainstream views of every major world religion. The maxim that one can love the sinner but reject the sin remains the reality in Canada and has not been found to breach the provisions of Canadian constitutional arrangements.

If the Miller/Benson interpretation is correct, religion still belongs in the Canadian marketplace, and those who want to make it a private affair are in the wrong.

Reality

The bimonthly publication of REAL women, Reality, also presents an analysis (May/June 2001). Its unsigned opinion, probably written by lawyer Gwen Landolt, emphasizes, like Professor Hunter, the court's distinction between belief and conduct, and that freedom to hold a belief is broader than the freedom to act on that belief. The author calls this "troubling," and sees it as the "disturbing part of this decision," indicating perhaps that "religious beliefs are a private matter only, and that they may not be applied in one's public actions or expression" (as in a classroom).

The magazine suggests that the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal's condemnation of evangelical printer Scott Brockie, who refused to print homosexual literature, is a direct application of this nefarious view.

Saskatchewan, PEI

One may add that two other recent (both June) decisions by one-person Human Rights Tribunals further bolster the view that Canadians are on the verge of losing freedom of religion.

In Saskatchewan Mr. Hugh Owens and the Saskatoon newspaper Star-Phoenix were given a hefty fine for referring in a newspaper advertisement to biblical passages in condemning sodomy. (See columnist Rory Leishman on page 8)

In Prince Edward Island a couple with a Bed and Breakfast facility in their home were fined for refusing lodging to homosexuals. They have decided to close the facility, thus being deprived of income.

All three Human Rights Tribunal rulings are intolerable and directly contrary to the common good. The rulings should be appealed and the perpetrators dismissed.