Canada bans prayers at all city council meetings

April 17, 2015 • 9:00 am

Several readers, most of them proud Canadians, sent me links to articles about the new ruling of Canada’s Supreme Court: there will be no prayers uttered in city council meetings—anywhere in that big and diverse country. Although I’m sure that practice is nowhere near as pervasive there as it is in the U.S., it’s still a good sign, one that shows how serious Canada is about enforcing the separation of church and state. Now if they’d only stop kowtowing to First Nations practices to treat sick children with “traditional” medicine!

As the CBC reports,

Thou shalt not pray in council chambers.

At least not in the form of a public recitation to open meetings, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday, ending an eight-year legal case involving the right of city councillors in Saguenay, Que., to cross themselves and recite a 20-second Catholic prayer before official municipal business.

. . . Just as the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which formed the basis for the Supreme Court ruling, has a duty to ensure that no particular belief should be favoured or hindered, the court ruled that “the same holds true for non-belief.”

In effect, Mendes explained, the ruling means freedom of conscience and religion includes the freedom not to observe any faith.

Although the ruling is based on Quebec law, and concerned the city of Sangueney, it apparently applies throughout the country:

Although Wednesday’s decision was based on the Quebec charter, Mendes said it’s implicit that the ruling applies nationwide.

University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, whose work on freedom of religion was cited as part of the Supreme Court decision, said the same provisions under the Quebec charter would be reflected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms anyway.

“When the Supreme Court of Canada makes a determination, even when it relates only to a particular circumstance of the Quebec charter, the fact is it represents the legal perspective across the country,” Moon said.

This case has been going since 2007, when an atheist filed suit with the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal against the Sagueney City Council, whose members crossed themselves and recited a Catholic prayer before starting each session. They were ordered to stop the practice, but then appealed, and the appeal was upheld. The case then went to Canada’s Supreme Court, which overruled the appeal decision on Wednesday.  A very enlightened ruling (if you’re legally inclined, you can see the Court’s full judgment here).

In its decision on Wednesday, the court ruled that the recitation of the prayer infringed on freedom of religion rights by “profess[ing] one religion to the exclusion of all others.”

A “neutral public space,” the ruling said, must be “free from coercion…and is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity.”

But there are still a few problems:

1. The ruling doesn’t deal with the presence of religious symbols that still stand in public spaces. In the Sagueney City Council chambers, for instance, there remain a crucifix and a “sacred heart” statue!  Those will have to be subject to separate litigation, though I don’t see why they couldn’t have been included in the original complaint. Also, as the CBC notes, “A crucifix still overlooks the speaker’s throne in the Quebec National Assembly, though politicians including former Quebec Premier Pauline Marois have argued it is a cultural symbol, not a religious article.”  This “cultural symbol” stuff is simply ludicrous, as any religious icon could be construed that way. It’s simply a sleazy way to retain religious symbols.

2. The ruling doesn’t ban other forms of “reflection,” like nonsectarian invocations or the “moments of silence” that have been used in the U.S. to stand for prayers.  What I don’t get is why they need any of these things before starting public business. Let people reflect or pray on their own time!

3. The “neutral public spaces” required by the Supreme Court apparently don’t apply on the national level, where there are still public prayers. The CBC adds this: “While the city of Saguenay argued that even the House of Commons holds a prayer before its sessions, the court reasoned that such proceedings are likely subject to parliamentary privilege.”

Parliamentary privilege? What the hell is that? Apparently it’s the notion that the national legislature is exempt from the strictures that apply everywhere else.  That may be legally permitted, but it’s a hell of a bad example to set for the rest of the country.

69 thoughts on “Canada bans prayers at all city council meetings”

  3. OMFGA! This is just fantasimo!

    This is going to provide us with months and months of the finest entertainment that one could ever expect from the right-wing nutsophere. Oh, I can not wait for the first installment.

    I predict that Donahue, Hagee, Santorum and the Huckster will be the first out of the clown car to make their case that Canada should now embrace itself for all manner of horrifying events – hurricanes, earthquakes, pestilence – total destruction of Canada within a few weeks!

    Oh, there is gonna’ be some really, really good stuff comin’ our way! I can’t wait.

    1. I predict winter in Canada will be cold next year – gawd’s punishment for this offense against him/her/it.

  4. I think I’m okay with the “moment of silence” thing. Especially if the crowd is on the rowdy side, it doesn’t hurt to pause to calm things down and make sure all wits have been gathered.

    Invocations, on the other hand — even secular ones — have no place in such bodies. It’s just a specially-privileged opportunity for speechification.

    b&

      1. I agree. It’s kind of like being told to STFU en masse. ( though I did appreciate Ben’s idea of wit-gathering ( as opposed to nit-picking)).

      2. Curious — not what I would have expected. I’m guessing this might be in part because it’s been used as an excuse to attempt to sneak in a silent prayer under the radar, like that school principal from some time ago who proselytized at his students with his standard commencement speech?

        I’m a big fan of silence. I almost never have the radio on or anything like that, except on rare occasions that I’m actively paying attention to it. I’d welcome a short spell after the general hubbub and commotion of the yammering of everybody coming into the room and before having to pay attention to a single yammerer in particular. And I wouldn’t give a damn if other people around me were taking the time to have conversations with their imaginary friends.

        Again, of course, if somebody then wants to recount what they said in that conversation, I’ve no patience for that kind of bullshit.

        But the silence itself? What’s worng with that?

        b&

        1. If the person banging the gavel wants to pause a moment to gather their thoughts, I have no problem with that.

          But it’s a different matter to say “We will all now take a moment for silent reflection.” I can reflect quite well on my own, thanks. I didn’t come to a city council meeting to be told how and when to reflect.

          1. Or to watch elected officials “reflect” with head bowed and hands clasped.

          3. What about the common practice of a moment of silence to honor somebody recently dead? Would that bother you?

            If so, why? If not, what’s different about a non-specific moment of silence?

            b&

          4. But that’s not a common practice. If every city council meeting begins with a moment of silence for the recently dead, it’s time to move to a different city.

            Less flippantly, I do object to being asked for a public display of grief, but it happens seldom enough that I’m willing to let it slide.

          5. I guess the thing that I’m not “getting” from the pushback…is that these sorts of settings are rife with ritual and tradition. And, until recently, one of those traditions was the invocation of imaginary friends. That’s now mostly been replaced by simply shutting the fuck up for a moment — and everybody shutting the fuck up at the same time is about as harmless as any ritual can even hypothetically get.

            I don’t see humans doing without rituals in these sorts of settings. The moment of silence serves the function of having a ritual to satisfy those who inevitably yearn for such a thing…and it’s damn near impossible to pervert the silence itself into anything other than everybody shutting the fuck up for a moment.

            And it’s also a very natural thing for people to do. Before a musical performance begins, the conductor waits for the audience to shut the fuck up. In contemplative sports like golf, the player waits for everybody to shut the fuck up before taking a swing. Before you attempt something you’re unsure of, you’re likely to shut the fuck up, take a deep breath, and then dive in.

            I see this as something well worth embracing for its own sake as well as a prophylactic to prevent further intrusion of nonsense back into its place.

            But, obviously, there’re others who’d rather break the silence….

            b&

          6. I don’t see humans doing without rituals in these sorts of settings.

            Why not? Do you expect your lawyer to begin meetings with a meaningless ritual? Not at $400 an hour. Do you share a moment of contemplation with your dentist before the drilling starts?

            A secular city council meeting is a business meeting, not a wedding or a funeral. If someone needs a quiet interlude to settle their mind, let them take it before entering the chamber. But once inside, they have an obligation to get on with the city’s business as expeditiously as possible, without foisting their personal emotional needs on a captive audience.

            And again, waiting until you have the attention of the audience is different than telling them, once you have it, “Now we will all twiddle our thumbs for 30 seconds.”

          7. Something tells me we’re not going to see eye-to-eye on this…and I rather suspect that, at this point, our host would prefer…how shall I put it…?

            Ah, yes. A moment of silence from the both of us on the subject….

            b&

        2. I love silence. And if a meeting’s about to start, chances are I’m already being silent anyway.

          But I resent some jerk telling me and everyone else to do a little instant meditation just cuz he said so. No different from “let us pray” in my book.

          Just call the meeting to order, wait for the shuffling to subside, and dig into the agenda. Get off the power trip and don’t treat the audience like pre-schoolers.

          I am very, very sensitive to those who presume to manipulate group behavior.

    4. Especially if the crowd is on the rowdy side

      That’s what the gavel is for. If an extra moment is needed, it should be a moment of glaring at the miscreants who won’t shut up.

          1. It makes me want to run for council and win just so I could lead a moment of glaring.

            “As a strident, angry atheist, I will now lead you in a moment of glaring. Angrily glare for one minute at the person across from you.”

          5. Oh I’ve got my compaign all figured out – you could have that slogan with a bunch of cats (a glaring) staring at you in the poster.

          9. Now that was magnificent!!! Love The Four Last Songs, and Jessye. They should play that at the beginning- and end – of council meetings.

          10. No kidding. She could sing, Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star, and you wouldn’t hear anything more beautiful all week. But Strauss!

            Who needs the Christian Heaven when you’ve got that pairing right here an now?

            b&

  5. Well done Canada, a beacon of reason. If only we could do this in the UK.

    Instead we get Ministers claiming we are a ‘christian country’ and forcing it on the rest, when the numbers going to churches is only propped up by people wanting to go to ‘faith’ schools – blech!

    1. In the UK, a parliamentary bill has recently been passed that made it lawful not only to incorporate prayers as an official part of council meetings, but also as part of certain other local government business – namely, the Local Government (Religious etc. Observances) bill. This bill did not receive adequate scrutiny in its passage through Parliament. At the crucial Commons Committee stage, I do not recall a single valid argument being made in favour of the Bill. One of the committee members, Sir Gerald Howarth, used the ‘Christian Country’ argument (and others made similar claims). Some of the arguments were more deceitful than that. Is this what is allowed by ‘parliamentary privilege’?

      Links to the transcripts for each stage of the Bill’s passage through parliament, including the Commons Committee debate, are given at
      http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2014-15/localgovernmentreligiousetcobservances/stages.html

  6. Parliamentary privilege is the unqualified protection for members of parliament from prosecution or any legal action for what they say *on the floor of the house*. It is the purest protection for free speech.

    1. Let me add, having explained what it is, why I am appalled that JAC should denigrate it. For one thing, it means that in the house opposition members can challenge the government in any way on any issue, free of reprisals. In Canada there are some serious restrictions on free speech. To suggest that these should be applied to parliamentary debate must surely be based on a misunderstanding of its nature and importance.

      1. Parliamentary privilege is fine. It’s unfortunate that it should be used to protect these prayers, but it’s the prayers that set a bad example.

      2. “To suggest that these should be applied to parliamentary debate must surely be based on a misunderstanding of its nature and importance.”

        Well obviously Jerry’s “what the hell is that?” shows misunderstanding. Probably a lack of knowledge shared by the vast majority of non-Canadians here. Surely you could just explain it politely without any need to be appalled.

      3. I agree. Also it is part of the separation of powers, so parliament can determine its own rules without the courts interfering.

        Which is why the court would have deferred to parliamentary privilege.

        I would think the US would have something similar, maybe with different language.

        It is vital to have that level of free speech so that anything can be challenged or brought up for discussion without out fear of repercussion.

  7. There are some councillors in various cities that are saying they are going to do it anyway. So, in other words, you’re a councillor participating in public life that is deciding some laws should not be obeyed. We’ll see how well that goes.

    It’s easy to keep track of these things a well. One only needs to read the council minutes online for whichever city, town, county or municipality you are interested in, to see that that the meeting opens with a prayer.

  8. This is a wonderful ruling but it has come at a terrible time. There is a national election coming in a few months and the Conservatives will make hay with this. Our local MP will certainly work it to win. It could mean that the most regressive government in Canada in ages will get five more years to dismantle what Canada is.

    1. Of course ! Harper’s pet peeve for all the years he was in opposition and in a minority situation were “activist judges”. The SCOC have given him several set-backs in recent months and,being the kind of a–hole that he is, he’s undoubtedly seething. The next Federal Election will be most interesting !!

    2. I think many Canadians don’t really want prayers in government meetings. It’s speculation on my part, but I think the ones squawking are a vocal minority.

  9. This is a very interesting ruling because it develops the idea that a secular public space is the proper interpretation of a government which ” has a duty to ensure that no particular belief should be favoured or hindered”. Just like the U.S. Constitution.

    In Canada, this ruling asserts that “non belief” is also a belief that should be non-hindered. In the U.S., a recent court ruling declared that Secular Humanism (which calls for a secular public space) is a valid religious interest.

    It would appear it might be time to expand the new atheist agenda to fight for the secularization of the public space: no religious incursion in public spaces:

    No church bells ringing hymns; no religious literature distributed in schools or parks; no religious billboards; no religious iconography on public buildings; no religious monuments or displays in public parks. Perhaps not even religious monuments on private property which are placed to be conspicuous to public view.

    1. I think handing out religious literature in schools is on quite a different level to having monuments where they can be viewed by the public. The former is attempted brainwashing and invasion of personal space. The latter could be interpreted as no buildings that look like religious buildings at all, which I personally think would be infringing on freedom to worship.

  11. It’s a shame religious people can’t manage to follow the constitution without being compelled to by the court, and without trying on the dishonest “traditional” defence.

    1. That really is it, right there, isn’t it. Not to mention that they are usually the ones shouting “constitution” at the top of their lungs if it supports their current cause. They are so bloody disingenuous and dishonest it’d make you want to scream!

  12. Yet again, Canada proves to be a more rational country than its’ Southern neighbor.

    It is interesting that the further North one travels (in America/Canada as well as Europe) there coincides a seeming increase in rationality when it comes to religion.

      1. I don’t think there are many (any?) Native tribes who don’t believe in the supernatural. Damn, there goes my theory 🙂

    1. Sanguenay might be a Freudian-type slip with all the Catholic involvement. (Sanguine – blood etc.)

  14. Something such as this would never get anywhere in the U.S. Supreme Court. Especially since it is packed full of conservative catholic right wingers. Hell, there is probably not 5 states out of 50 that would even consider it.

    FFRF is probably the only and best we have for fighting the constant encroachment of religion into everything. Don’t forget to donate.

    1. FFRF is good, but they’re hardly the only organization fighting this fight. The ACLU has been doing it for nearly a century.

  16. the freedom not to observe any faith
    Can I construe this to mean that I don’t have to watch people crossing themselves and gazing skyward? Please ?

  17. Great!

    With good news like this, I might start threatening again to move to Canada when things don’t break my way politically down here.

  18. If you have to endure the ‘moment of silence’ thing then I think that the best response would be to bring a whoopee cushion.

  19. That’s obviously a good step and following the decision, the mayor of Ottawa immediately announced prayers would be curtailed before city council meetings.

    On the other hand, there should not be too much back patting until this is removed from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: …”

    1. That’s in the preamble IIRC and I loved it when Pierre Trudeau, a practising Catholic, said “I don’t think God gives a damn whether he’s in the constitution or not.”

Comments are closed.