Ontario Allows Students to Opt Out of All Religious Activities in Catholic Schools

An interesting column in the Toronto Star last week discussed the recent ruling by an Ontario trial court that a student attending a publicly-funded Catholic school could opt out of all religious activities.  The ruling was based on an interpretation of the province's Education Act.  The school argued that the student should be required to attend Catholic services held in the school's auditorium and other religious activities, even as it reluctantly allowed the student to opt out of religious instruction courses.  The case is an important one for the future of publicly-funded Catholic schools in Ontario, which have long been a site of controversy.  The judgement will presumably be appealed.

Relevant Posts on Religion Clause Blog

It's been a busy couple of weeks and I haven't managed to update this blog, but here's some links to some very interesting posts on blasphemy and secularism on Howard Friedman's always-excellent Religion Clause Blog:

*  Atheist parents in Ontario have a hearing before the province's Human Rights Tribunal on a claim of religious discrimination.  The parents were refused permission by a school to distribute a book on free-thought to 5th grade students in the same way that Gideon Bibles are distributed (here).

*  In Russia, Orthodox Christian activists vandalized Moscow's Erotic Art Museum (here).

* French tourists were convicted and given suspended sentences under a Sri Lankan law prohibiting insults to religion.  The tourists had taken photos of themselves pretending to kiss Buddha statutes (here).

* Pakistan arrested an illiterate Christian girl for blasphemy, but the country's Prime Minister called for caution in applying the laws and for a full investigation of the incident.  Accounts differ, but according to some reports the girl is 11 or 12 years old, may suffer from Down's Syndrome, and inadvertently burned some pages of the Qur'an along with some other papers (here).

Controversy Over Islamic Prayers at Ontario School

The Toronto Star has published multiple articles recently over a controversial practice at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto. The school has set aside the cafeteria after lunch on Fridays to be used for Islamic prayers. The prayers take place during normal school hours, but are not delivered or supervised by school employees. Supporters argue that is a reasonable accommodation for Valley Park's large Muslim student population (which used to leave school grounds for Friday prayers), while critics argue that public schools must remain secular and that the prayers reinforce sex discrimination, as female students sit behind male students, and menstruating girls are expected to observe but not participate.

Teen Soccer Referee Expelled for Wearing Hijab in Quebec

Several media outlets have reported the recent story of a Quebec girl forced to quit her volunteer position as a soccer referee due to a Quebec soccer federation/FIFA rule prohibiting hijabs on the field. The decision has been defended as necessary due to a general rule prohibiting participants from displaying commercial, political, and religious messages.

In my opinion, this decision is unwarranted and discriminatory. A reasonable accommodation could easily be made in this case to allow this girl and other young Muslim females to enjoy soccer without being forced to choose between it and their sincere religious beliefs. To my mind, FIFA's interest in enforcing common attire rules is outweighed by society's interest in fostering religious inclusion, much like Sikh members of the RCMP are allowed to wear turbans while on duty.I don't know if public accommodation laws are applicable to this soccer federation, but if so, this girl would seem to have a strong claim.

Quebec Daycares Face New Rules Around Secular Content

According to the Toronto Star, a controversy has recently arisen in the province of Quebec over new regulations that forbid religious instruction in publicly-subsidized daycares.

Dutch Politician in Toronto Calls for Ban on Muslim Immigration

Last Monday's National Post carried a story about a speech given before a Toronto audience on the subject of Islam and immigration by Dutch politician Geert Wilders. According to the article, Wilders, a controversial figure, stated that "Our Western culture is far superior to Islamic culture . . . and only once we are convinced of this will be able to defend our civilization." Wilders went on to call for the suspension of immigration of Muslims into Western countries, including Canada. The article also carried comments from a band of protestors outside the speech, who labelled Wilders' comments hate speech.

National Post Interview with New Quebec Archbishop

Last week the National Post published a short but interesting interview with the new archbishop of the Archdiocese of Quebec, Gérald Lacroix. The focus of the interview was on whether/how the Catholic Church in Quebec could increase regular attendance. Lacroix responded that he didn't believe increasing numbers was the goal, but that instead his focus was on reaching out to and enriching the lives of the faithful.

"Church-State Relations in Canada (1604-1685)"

Cornelius Jaenan, Church-State Relations in Canada (1604-1685), Volume 34, CCHA Study Sessions, pp. 9-28 (1967).

This article from 1967 argues that there is a dearth of research into church-state relations during the New France era of Canadian history. After a brief and somewhat unfocused overview, it then discusses ten aspects of this history that are said to warrant further investigation. Each aspect receives a few paragraphs of attention, and the article concludes with an impressive list of sources in footnotes. The topics discussed are:

1) The role of clergy in colonial administration.

2) Some cases which tested the power of the clergy to interfere in state matters.

3) The problem of "precedence" (standing in the community according to rank, honorifics, & prestige). Jaenan notes that "[i]n the late 1640's there was already interminable wrangling over precedence in processions, distribution of blessed bread, receipt of the communion, disposition of soldiers at church parades, and in placement of pews."

4) Naming of a Bishop.

5) "Frenchification of the Indians". Jaenan states that "[t]he missionaries, as cultural ambassadors, often failed to distinguish between Europeanization and evangelization, between cultural assimilation and Christianization."

6) The role of religious rivalry between Catholic sects.

7) The treatment of Protestants. Adherents of "the pretended Reformed religion" received hostile treatment in the colony, and lacked the right to practice their faith freely.

8) Tithing and Parochial Organization

9) Fur Trading & Brandy Trafficking.

10) Morality. Jaenan states that "The state supported the church in matters of censorship of reading matter; observance of holy days; attendance at mass; control of rumblings of witchcraft, crimes of violence, blasphemy, and seditious talk; combatting begging, prostitution and secret assemblies. The general impression one obtains of the colonists is that while independent and self-assertive, they were generally devout and much attached to various pious practices."

In conclusion, the author argues that "New France was neither a tyranny nor a theocracy" and that "[a]lthough the church affected everyday undertakings, and it was associated with every major decision to be made, it did not overshadow, in practice, environmental materialistic considerations and influences."

Saguenay Mayor Fights for Prayer at Council Meetings

On Friday, National Post reported that the mayor of Saguenay, Quebec, is seeking donations from the public in order to fund his appeal of a human rights tribunal decision that forbade him from opening council meetings with prayer and displaying a crucifix in the council meeting room. Mayor Jean Tremblay, described in the article as a devout Catholic, has opened a toll-free telephone line for donations.

Quebec Legislature Excludes Kirpans

During a hearing by a committee of Quebec's legislature on reasonable accommodations for religious minorities, members of the Sikh faith wearing kirpans were excluded from entering the building. Kirpans are ceremonial daggers worn by orthodox Sikhs and have been the cause of controversy in Canada in recent years. However, an increasing number of public spaces (schools, trains, and Federal buildings) have accommodated the religious practice. See Religion Clause Blog for more.

Secularism on the Rise With Youth in Canada

Yesterday's Globe and Mail has an interesting article on the rise of secularism among young people in Canada. According to the article, statistics indicate that "[m]ore than half of Canadians in the 15-to-29 age cohort either have no religion or never attend a service of worship" and the percentage that say religion is "very important" to them has declined significantly in the past decade and now sits at just 22 per cent. The article includes several interviews with non-religious young persons and is part of a "Future of Faith" series.

Centre for Inquiry Plans New Skeptical Bus Ads

The Toronto Star reports that, on the heels of last year's controversial advertising campaign ("There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.") the Centre for Free Inquiry plans to launch a new campaign in Canada that takes a skeptical approach to several religious and paranormal topics. The new ads will read "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence: Allah, Bigfoot, UFOs, Homeopathy, Zeus, Psychics, Christ". The ads will roll out first on Toronto transit vehicles before spreading to other Canadian cities.

"Living Together With Disagreement: Pluralism, the Secular, and the Fair Treatment of Beliefs in Canada Today"

Iain T. Benson, Living Together With Disagreement: Pluralism, the Secular, and the Fair Treatment of Beliefs in Canada Today, Presentation to the Chester Ronning Centre for the Study of Religion and Public Life, University of Alberta (2010). Available on SSRN.

In this paper, Iain Benson reiterates his long-standing belief that the Canadian legal system has done a disservice to the role of religion in the public sphere by creating a regime where "secularism" is akin to official atheism instead of being "properly understood [as] a realm of competing faith/belief claims[.]" (p. 7) Benson illustrates his argument with long discussion of two cases: Chamberlain v. Surrey School District (which involved whether books that portrayed same-sex relationships as normal could be taught in schools over the objections of religious parents) and Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers (which involved whether the graduates of a conservative religious teachers' college that opposed homosexuality should be certified to teach in public schools). A major theme running throughout this work is a perceived clash between religious freedom and the rights of GLBT individuals, with Benson coming down on the side of the former in every instance. In the second part of the essay, Benson criticizes liberalism's supposed tendency to become a totalizing force that excludes genuine diversity of thought and belief for a homogenized "tolerance" that (in his view) seems to privilege the values of certain minorities (and their "sexual dogma") over those of mainstream faith communities. Benson has made similar arguments elsewhere, such as in Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion, and Public Policy.

I don't find Benson's arguments particularly convincing and he occasionally assumes the position of a heavily-put upon minority and slips into a sarcastic, almost snide tone that is dismissive of GLBT individuals and what I believe are their legitimate demands for equal protection under the law. (see, e.g., p. 21) Benson is nowhere near as strident as many conservative Republicans writing during the U.S. culture wars, but he does seem to imply that GLBT individuals are the biggest threat facing the maintenance of "traditional" values in Canada.

Classroom Bible Distribution Stirs Controversy in Waterloo

The National Post has an interesting story about a school board in the Waterloo region of Ontario voting to allow the Gideons to distribute Bibles to children in the classroom. Students who want to receive the Bibles have to have a permission slip signed by their parents, but the practice has created controversy and may be challenged in court.

"Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion, and Public Policy"

Douglas Farrow, ed., Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society: Essays in Pluralism, Religion, and Public Policy (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2004)

Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society is a 2004 collection of nine essays about a wide variety of topics within the general category of the relationship between religion and government. The essays are more in the vein of philosophy and ethics than legal scholarship, and with an exception or two tend to have a pro-religion bent. Four of the essays are very Canadian-focussed, but the others are general enough that the collection is useful to non-Canadians interested in religion and secularism.

"Religion in the Public Realm" by H.R.H. Prince El Hassan Bin Talal is a short essay written from a Muslim perspective. The author argues that, contrary to to its reputation, Islam is compatible with democracy and pluralism and is undergoing "a gradual but nonetheless thoroughgoing process of evolution that is changing our religion as comprehensively as any revolution[.]" (p. 8). It's hard to make a persuasive case for such a controversial claim in just 8 pages, and therefore the essay is heavy on assertion and light on evidence or analysis.

"Freedom of Religion and the Rule of Law: A Canadian Perspective" is an important essay as it was written by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin. She addresses what she believes is the dilemma facing all liberal democracies: how to reconcile an individual's deep-seated commitment to religious principle with society's obligation to enforce the rule of law. (p. 16) McLachlin maintains that it is the responsibility of courts to find "in the comprehensive claims of the rule of law, a space in which individual and community adherence to religious authority can flourish." (p. 20) A discussion of the courts' treatment of religious freedom in Canada follows, and McLachlin makes no apologies for that responsibility being in the hands of the legal system. The essay doesn't tread a lot of new ground or offer new insight on how religious freedom issues should be resolved--it all comes down to "balancing" in McLachlin's mind. (p. 22) What is interesting, however, is her strong defense of courts as the institution to do that balancing.

In "A Response to Chief Justice McLachlin", Jean Bethke Elshtain challenges the view that courts are the proper forum for the resolution of religious freedom issues. Elshtain maintains that such issues should be resolved by "citizens, variously located, through a culture of democratic argument: citizens engaging one another and sorting things out, as often they will, in a rather untidy, rough and ready way." (p. 39) In this view, courts should serve only as a last resort with the democratic process fails.

William Galston's "Religion and the Limits of Liberal Democracy" is a short but interesting essay that argues against "civic totalism": the idea some liberals have of "public institutions as plenipotentiary and civil society as a political construction possessing only those liberties that the policy chooses to grant and modify or revoke at will." (p. 42) Unfortunately, there's little discussion of how things would change if "civic totalism" were abandoned.

"Human Dignity and the Social Contract" is an essay by David Novak that argues "only religious people in a democratic society have sufficient reasons for ensuring the limitation of the normative reach of that society." (p. 63) Without traditional communities founded on religion, Novak argues that the state would become totalistic because only religious people have sufficient faith and belief in the rightness of their principles to resist the ever-expanding reach of government. According to Novak, neither "civil religion" nor the "social contract" are adequate to sustain democratic principles in the absence of traditional faith communities. Novak, however, fails to explain why so many countries throughout history with traditional faith communities have displayed little respect for democratic freedom, nor how his argument can be reconciled with democratic Western Europe, where traditional faith communities have shown some dramatic losses in influence in recent decades.

Jean Bethke Elshtain returns with another essay titled "Persons, Politics, and a Catholic Understanding of Human Rights". Elshtain argues that human rights claims are fundamentally ineffective against a totalizing state unless such rights are conceived of as being anchored in religious principle. (p. 80) According to Elshtain, "Human dignity is lodged in the fact that human beings are creatures of a certain sort, creatures in fact who derive their dignity directly from God, whose personhood is a capacity for communion with God." (p. 80) The argument is interesting, but it crucially depends on the facts: has the Catholic Church been an inspiration or an obstacle to modern human rights movements? In my view, the Church's record is decidedly mixed.

Iain T. Benson's "Considering Secularism" is an analysis and critique of how the Supreme Court of Canada has deployed the term "secularism" in its judgments. According to Benson, the Court implies that "secularism" is a doctrine of neutrality towards religion, when in fact history shows that the term has its origins in the "anti-religious aspects" of G.J. Holyoake's philosophy. Benson advocates the "religion-inclusive" word "secular" over "secularism", (p. 98) but a major thrust of his essay seems to be dismay over the Court's openness to GLBT rights when such rights apparently clash with the values of traditional religious communities.

"Birth, Death, and Technoscience: Searching for Values at the Margins of Life" is an interesting essay by Margaret Somerville on the difficulties of resolving moral questions in a diverse society lacking uniformly held values. Somerville discusses several dilemmas that occur at the "margins of life": genetic screening, cloning, stem cell research, and euthanasia. Somerville adopts a fairly conservative tone in the essay and is far more concerned with the risks posed by new technologies than the potential benefits. She argues that religion can and should be an important player in the debate.

H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.'s "Taking Moral Difference Seriously: Morality After the Death of God" begins with a persuasive account of how "first-order consensus" on moral principles is impossible in modern liberal democracies. Engelhardt says that instead of trying (and inevitably failing) to reach such a consensus, we should acknowledge the problem and then work on how "to collaborate in the face of moral difference." (p. 117) Thus, "[i]nstead of directing ourselves to the goal of a consensus universally imposed through the force of law, we should envisage policy approaches that can encompass a plurality of peaceable moral visions, allowing uncoerced collaboration in the face of real moral diversity." (p. 121) It's not exactly clear to me what this would look like in practice, though it seems to imply a more "hands-off" libertarian approach to moral issues.

Douglas Farrow's "Of Secularity and Civil Religion" is an odd essay that includes a long and discursive discussion of Rousseau before moving on to (in my view) a legally naive discussion of how the inclusion of the phrase "Whereupon Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" in the Charter's Preamble somehow protects the nation and its government from becoming truly "secular".

On the whole, I have to politely disagree with Witte's blurb on the back cover that "[n]o one can read this book without being shaken, and edified." I may have been mildly "edified" about fairly standard moderate-conservative views about the role of religion in society, but I can attest, under oath, I was never "shaken." Recognizing Religion in a Secular Society is a solid and useful collection of essays on a topic that has received a lot of attention in recent years.

"Separating Church and State Our Tradition"

This column originally appeared in a November, 2006, issue of the The Windsor Star.

------------------------------

Separating church and state our tradition

Jeremy Patrick, Special to The Windsor Star

Published: Monday, November 27, 2006

Is the separation of church and state Canadian? Much has been written recently about the increasing influence of the "religious right" in Stephen Harper's Conservative government. The commentators share a fear that decisions affecting all Canadians are increasingly being made on the basis of religious faith rather than sound public policy. In the United States, controversies over the proper relationship between religion and government are often settled by judicial invocation of the "separation of church and state" reflected in the American Constitution's Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains no such clause, however. Although it guarantees an individual's freedom of religion, it does not explicitly forbid the state from endorsing or supporting a particular religion (or religion in general). During the last federal election, Harper stated that "the separation of church and state is an American constitutional doctrine, not part of Canada's legal or political tradition." This simply isn't true. Indeed, Canada has a long history of separating church and state in most contexts.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the government provided extensive privileges to certain religious denominations. The Church of England, for example, received special favouritism in political appointments, the selection of legislative and military chaplains, and marriage laws. In Quebec, the Roman Catholic Church was closely enmeshed with the provincial government. However, these close links between religion and government slowly fell away. The enormous controversy over the Clergy Reserves is a good example of this trend. In the Constitutional Act of 1791, one-seventh of all public land in Upper and Lower Canada was allotted for the support of Protestant clergy. Income from this land, comprising almost two and half million acres, was channeled solely to the Church of England. Not surprisingly, this provoked intense jealously among other religious denominations, and the controversy was seen as a contributing cause to the failed rebellion of 1837. To placate some of the denominations, the Reserves were partially opened to other denominations in 1840. According to the great Canadian religious historian John Moir, even the mere existence of the Reserves in this form led to a 'bitter and noisy' dispute, and after several more years of controversy, the Reserves were finally abolished in 1854.

The disentanglement of religion from government did not occur overnight, it was a gradual process that is still going on today. However, the proclamation of the Charter in 1982 sped up this process. Although theCharter doesn't have an "Establishment Clause" per se, the courts have used other provisions of the document to reach the same effect. For example, the courts have held that the Federal Sunday Closing Act was unconstitutional because it had a religious purpose; that public schools could not teach Christianity or begin the school day with recitations of the Lord's Prayer or Bible verses; that legislatures cannot begin their meetings with sectarian prayers; and that property disputes between competing factions of a church must be resolved by secular principals.

There are still some remnants of an earlier age, but they appear to be of the relatively minor, non-coercive type of symbolism that in the United States is referred to as "ceremonial deisms." For example, the Canadian national anthem makes reference to a deity, the House of Commons opens with an avowedly non-denominational prayer, and the Queen, formal head of state, is required by English law to be Protestant. Otherwise, with one exception, it's hard to think of any legislation or practices in Canada that would constitute a clear violation of the American Constitution's Establishment Clause as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The major exception, of course, is the existence of publicly funded religious schools in Ontario. Since Confederation, the Constitution has guaranteed the right of Catholic schools in the province to receive support from the government. This is clearly not a minor "breach" in the "wall" between church and state. However, even this link between church and state is allowed only because it is specifically guaranteed in the Constitution. Otherwise, the Charter'sguarantee of religious freedom and equality would probably be applied by the courts to invalidate the practice. The recent voluntary decisions to end public support of religious schools in Newfoundland and Quebec are simply further examples of the ongoing trend to separate church and state in Canada.

New controversies always affect how the state views its role vis-a-vis religion. Should Sharia law be enforceable? Can courts force an Orthodox Jewish husband to ask for a religious divorce?These are all questions that will have to be answered in the future. What's clear is that the country's legal and political history demonstrate that the separation of church and state is a Canadian value, not just an American one.

Jeremy Patrick is an Assistant Professor in the American-Canadian joint degree program at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. His article "Church, State, and Charter: Canada's Hidden Establishment Clause" is forthcoming in a comparative law journal.

"When Multiculturalism Doesn't Work"

The Globe and Mail had this interesting article on Friday on the topic of religious accommodation in Quebec, a province where conflicts between minority religious groups and the government have been especially acute.

Although I'm sympathetic to the argument that religions shouldn't receive "special rights" or "special exemptions" from generally applicable laws, I tend to believe in the doctrine of reasonable accommodation for two main reasons: (1) legislation will always tend to accord with the religious beliefs of the majority of the population (e.g., mainstream Christians in Canada rarely need religious accommodation) and (2) forcing individuals to choose between sincerely held religious beliefs and participation in civic society (schools, employment, etc.) is unconscionable. Thus, I think Sikh police officers should be able to wear turbans on duty, Orthodox Jews should be accorded flexibility on work holidays, etc., assuming of course that in each case no undue hardships would be created.

I would naturally extend this principle to apply to similar sincerely held beliefs of a secular nature (e.g., vegetarianism, pacifism, and others).

"Des crimes religieux: aux confluents du droit pénal et de la liberté de religion"

Marie-Pierre Robert, Des crimes religieux: aux confluents du droit pénal et de la liberté de religion, 50 Les Cahiers de Droit 663 (2009).

This article, which I would roughly translate as Religious Crimes: The Intersection of Criminal Law and Freedom of Religion,* is a Canada-focussed piece about the nature of secularism and how that principle relates to criminal laws that seem to have a religious motivation for their existence. The discussion of secularism in Canada is interesting, and the article concludes that, despite the lack of an explicit textual guarantee in the Charter, the courts have furthered the view that the state should treat religious subjects in a neutral, non-preferential manner. As Robert says, "All the necessary ingredients of securalism are present. Secularism exists in fact and in law, but this secularism is not proclaimed." (p. 672)

After a general discussion of secularism in Canada, the article moves on to distinguish two types of laws originally motivated by religious beliefs: those which have clear secular purposes and which do not discriminate on the basis of religious belief (laws against murder, theft, etc.) contrasted with laws that originally had a discriminatory religious purpose that can not be justified today (polygamy and blasphemous libel). Canada's hate propaganda law, interestingly enough, is deemed acceptable because it protects all religious and non-religious persons, whether belonging to a majority or minority faith.

Much of the article is devoted to examining the case for holding polygamy and blasphemous libel laws unconstitutional. Robert argues that Canada's long-standing ban on polygamy was originally motivated not by a desire to protect vulnerable women and girls (the rationale most often given by supporters of the ban today), but by animus towards American Mormons who were starting to cross the border in larger numbers. She argues that the ban on blasphemous libel was motivated by a desire to protect Christianity, and that the law does not protect religious minorities ("Why criminalize blasphemous libel? To protect the Christian religion, that's it" at p. 687). I tend to think the motives behind Canada's 1892 blasphemous libel law are perhaps more complex, and that the question of whether the law protects religions other than Christianity is an open one.

Although I don't anticipate seeing the blasphemous libel provision litigated anytime soon, it will be quite interesting to see the results of the B.C. reference over the constitutionality of polygamy bans.

* All quotations here are my translation, and apologies for any mistranslations or misunderstandings of the original French text.

Columnists Duel Over Honour Killings in The National Post

Today's National Post has an interesting debate between Tasha Kheiriddin and Marni Soupcoff over whether so-called "honour killings" should be the subject of special attention in the Canadian Criminal Code. Exactly what constitutes an "honour killing" is difficult to define, but the controversy seems to stem from cases where men kill their daughters or wives over perceived shame and insults to respect and decency, which may include dating men of another religion or dressing in Western-style clothing.

Kheiridden argues that honour-motivated murder should be added as an aggravating factor during sentencing, along with current aggravators such as domestic violence, gang activity, and terrorism. She argues that "knowing that a sentence for honour killing would carry a harsher penalty would send a clear message to potential perpetrators that these crimes will not be tolerated".

Soupcoff, on the other hand, comes out against any special provision in the Criminal Code for honour killings. She argues that current prohibitions on murder are sufficient, and that there would be no additional deterrent effect for adding aggravating factors: "If a man who is about to murder a daughter for disrespecting her family is not dissuaded by the general prohibition on homicide, will he suddenly change his mind if he learns of a legislative revision to the aggravating-factors sentencing portion of Criminal Code section 718?"

I'm on Soupcoff's side here, as I think aggravating factors (and most other tinkering with the Criminal Code) have no additional deterrent effect. The vast majority of non-lawyers don't even really know what aggravating factors are, or specifically which ones are and are not included in the Criminal Code. They just know that murder is bad, and pre-meditated murder is worse. The empirical research I've seen seems to make it clear that fine gradations in the criminal law have no additional deterrent effect.

National Post on "God and the Charter"

On Saturday the National Post published a long editorial titled "God and the Charter". The editorial defends the portion of the Preamble to the Canadian Charter that states the country is founded upon "principles that recognize the supremacy of God" (and "the rule of law"). According to the editorial, the clause is recognition of an "anti-totalitarian principle" that reminds Canadians of a source of authority other than the state.

Legally speaking, I last looked into the meaning of the preamble a few years ago for my article "Church, State, and Charter: Canada's Hidden Establishment Clause". At that time, it was clear the courts had almost entirely ignored the Preamble, but it's very possible things have changed since then.