Dear Editor,
Recent pledges by the President that he will not impose his religion on anyone and that he will be guided by events in other countries is quite a welcome remark in view of the history not only of Guyana but of Western civilization.
If he is looking for guidance he can find it in a decision of The Supreme Court of Canada dated April 15, 2015.
Alain Simoneau, an atheist and resident of Saguenay, Quebec, and a regular at council meetings objected to the practice of the recitation of Catholic prayers by the mayor and councillor. A sacred heart statue and a crucifix also adorned the walls of council.
This he testified, caused him to experience feelings of isolation and exclusion thus violating his right to freedom of religion and conscience as outlined in both the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
With the help of Movement laique quebecois he took his grievances to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal which agreed with him. However the Quebec Court of Appeal felt otherwise. It reasoned that prayers expressed universal values and that the sacred heart statue and crucifix were works of art and not religious. The Supreme Court of Canada in a unanimous decision rendered on April 15, 2015 ruled that the practice of reciting any form of prayer at the start of council meetings constituted a violation of Charter rights.
In doing so the highest court in the land rejected the argument the prayers were justified on the basis of tradition and that council’s attempt at reasonable accommodation by inviting those with objections to leave the chambers during prayers and then re-enter, far from tempering the discrimination only exacerbated it. This identifies and stigmatises the non-believer. Quebec has a long tradition of the Catholic and Anglican churches being quite influential in government policies and practices, but the court felt it was time to change a practice even though it was followed since the nineteenth century.
Justice LeBel writing for the court, stated that Canadian society has given rise to a concept of neutrality, according to which the state must not interfere with religion and beliefs. This requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief or non-belief. The Canadian cultural landscape includes many traditional and heritage practices that are religious in nature. Sponsorship of one religious tradition by the state in breach of its duty of neutrality amounts to discrimination against all other such traditions as it creates a distinction, exclusion or preference that has the effect of nullifying or impairing the right to full and equal recognition and exercise of freedom of conscience and religion. The court looked at the purpose and effect of the practice and opined that even a non-denominational prayer is a religious practice that excludes atheists and agnostics and the interference is more than trivial or insubstantial. Any form of religious expression under the guise of cultural and historical reality or heritage breaches the duty of neutrality.
Furthermore the expression “Supremacy of God” in the preamble of the Charter cannot be relied on to deny the guarantees expressly provided in the Charter.
Pursuit of the ideal in a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs, thus preserving the multicultural nature of Canadian society. In response to the argument that this would now give atheists and agnostics preference the court stated that “True Neutrality presupposes abstention, but it does not amount to a stand favouring one view over another.” Some public bodies have replaced their prayers with a moment of silent reflection to show respect for cultural diversity.
Any country, in particular the Western democracies that are member states of the United Nations, may now have to remind themselves of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states in part “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion…” Finally, if they profess to be secular and have a constitutional document protecting freedom of conscience and religion this decision may guide them towards that long elusive ideal of separating Church from State.
Yours faithfully,
Ramnarine Sahadeo
