UNIT 7: INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE RIGHTS

8. Balancing Rights in a Pluralist Society

Hutterites at Air Show, Dawson Creek B.C.
©Courtesy Bill Pope

Conflicting Rights

According to Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's multicultural heritage must be preserved.

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

The unique nature of people from various cultures must be considered. For example, under Section 2, Hutterites- like all religious groups-have the right to practise their religion.

What happens when certain individual and collective beliefs conflict with equality rights, economic freedom, and collective security?

Example: Hutterites

In 2003, the Alberta government enacted a law requiring photographs on all driver's licences. When the law came into effect, approximately 300 members of several Hutterite colonies had drivers licences without photos.

For more information about the Hutterites, watch the 27 minute NFB movie filmed in 1964. It's streamed online here: " The Hutterites ".

People in some Hutterite colonies believe that having their photograph taken violates one of the central rules of their religion. Their interpretation of the biblical second commandment "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" includes photography. Not all Hutterites share this belief, as you saw on page 7.1.3.

Soon after the law came into effect, a member of the Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, east of Lethbridge, was stopped by police. His driver's licence did not have his photo on it, and he was fined for not having a valid driver's licence. The Wilson Hutterite colony took the government to court, and the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench struck down the regulation, ruling that the photo requirement violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Appeal upheld that finding in a 2-1 decision. The case then went to the Supreme Court of Canada where it was overruled in 2009.

Please watch the following video explain cultural pluralism:

Other Cases

There are other examples of conflicts between religious beliefs and government legislation. For example, in public, women in some Muslim sects cover their heads with a hijab (head scarf), or they cover themselves more fully with a niqab (a head covering that leaves only the eyes exposed), or cover themselves completely with a burka. In 2010, the provincial government of Quebec tabled Bill 94 that would ban the niqab-or any face covering-to people delivering or receiving public services in courts, hospitals, schools, and licensing bureaus.

This is a symbol of affirmation and respect-first of all, for ourselves, and also for those to whom we open our arms. This is not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us.... An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state.

According to Premier Jean Charest

In 2019, the Quebec government went further, passing a law banning all religious symbols. Under Bill 21, public workers in positions of authority (including police officers, lawyers, and teachers) are not allowed to wear any religious symbols while at work, no matter the size. This bill, known as the "Act Respecting Laicity of the State", affirms that Quebec is a non-religious state, and that public employees are therefore not allowed to wear religious symbols, such as hijabs, burkas, or crosses. The Quebec government used the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when creating this law. This means that it is not possible to challenge the law on the basis of it violating the Charter.

Read "Restrictions on Religious Symbolism" on pages 390 to 392 of your text Perspectives on Ideology.

As you read, think about the following questions:

What is more important, rule of law or freedom of religion?
To what extent should equal treatment under the law take precedence over collective religious beliefs?