09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

- 33 -articulated an expansive definition of freedom of religion, which revolves around thenotion of personal choice and individual autonomy and freedom. In Big M, supra,Dickson J. (as he then was) first defined what was meant by freedom of religion unders. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter, at pp. 336-37 and 351:A truly free society is one which can accommodate a wide variety ofbeliefs, diversity of tastes and pursuits, customs and codes of conduct. Afree society is one which aims at equality with respect to the enjoyment offundamental freedoms and I say this without any reliance upon s. 15 of theCharter. Freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignityand the inviolable rights of the human person. The essence of the conceptof freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as aperson chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fearof hindrance or reprisal, and the right to manifest religious belief by worshipand practice or by teaching and dissemination. But the concept means morethan that.2004 SCC 47 (CanLII). . . Freedom means that . . . no one is to be forced to act in a way contraryto his beliefs or his conscience.. . .. . . With the Charter, it has become the right of every Canadian to work outfor himself or herself what his or her religious obligations, if any, shouldbe. . . . [Emphasis added.]41 Dickson J. articulated the purpose of freedom of religion in Big M, supra,at p. 346:<strong>View</strong>ed in this context, the purpose of freedom of conscience andreligion becomes clear. The values that underlie our political andphilosophic traditions demand that every individual be free to hold and tomanifest whatever beliefs and opinions his or her conscience dictates,provided inter alia only that such manifestations do not injure his or herneighbours or their parallel rights to hold and manifest beliefs and opinionsof their own. [Emphasis added.]Similarly, in R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, at p. 759, DicksonC.J. stated that the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!