＜奨励論文＞

多様な価値観に曝される学校−カナダにおける宗教と教育をめぐる憲法学的一考察−
山

本

健

人

1. はじめにᩍ⫱̿࡜ࡾࢃࡅබᩍ⫱̿ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍⓗከᵝᛶ࡜ᅜᐙࡢࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࠖࢆࡵࡄࡿ㆟ㄽࡢ୺ᡓሙ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊṔྐⓗ࡞⫼ᬒ࡜῝ࡃ⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸ࡿၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ
࡟ (1)ࠊ⌧ᅾ࡛ࡶࠊ᐀ᩍⓗከᵝᛶ࡜ዴఱ࡟ྥࡁྜ࠺࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺㞴ၥ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ᭱ࡶㄽதⓗ࡞㡿ᇦࡔ࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (2)ࠋᮏ✏ࡣࠊࡑࡢ୰࡛ࡶ᐀ᩍ࡜ᩍ⫱࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟㛵ࢃࡿၥ㢟ࡀதࢃࢀࡓ஧ࡘࡢ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ุỴࢆ᠇ἲᏛⓗ࡟ศᯒࡋࠊձ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢព࿡࡜ࠊղከᩥ໬♫఍࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡢᅾࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ୍➃ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍ
ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ⓗ࡜ࡍࡿࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ࡛ࡣࠊ1982 ᖺࡢᶒ฼ཬࡧ⮬⏤࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢝ࢼࢲ᠇❶ (3) ࡀಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆᐃࡵࡿࡶ
ࡢࡢࠊ࠸ࢃࡺࡿᨻᩍศ㞳࡟㛵ࡍࡿつᐃࢆᣢࡓ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛ࠊ᠇ἲୖࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡣಙᩍࡢ
⮬⏤ಖ㞀ࡢࢥ࣮ࣟࣛࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡿ (4)ࠋࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࠖ࡟ࡣࠊ኱ࡁࡃศࡅࡿ࡜ࠊ޽
ࠕᅜࡀ୍ᐃࡢࢧ࣮ࣅࢫࢆᥦ౪ࡍࡿሙྜ࡞࡝࡟ࠊࡑࢀࡀ᐀ᩍ࣭㠀᐀ᩍࢆၥࢃࡎᖹ➼࣭බṇ࡟⾜ࢃࢀࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎ㸦᐀ᩍ࡜㠀᐀ᩍࠊ᐀ᩍ㛫ࡢᖹ➼㸧࡜ࠊ޾ࠕᅜࡀ᐀ᩍάືࠊ᐀ᩍ࡬ࡢ᥼
ຓࠊ㛵୚࣭ᖸ΅࡞࡝ࢆ㏻ࡌࠊ᐀ᩍ࡜⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎ㸦ᅜᐙ࡜᐀ᩍࡢศ
㞳ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣබඹ✵㛫ࡢ㠀᐀ᩍ໬㸧ࡢ஧ࡘࡢ⌮ゎࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡿ (5)ࠋࡇࡢⅬࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕ୰❧ᛶࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢ࠿ࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡜ࡍࡿゎ㔘ࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸦࡜ࡾࢃࡅ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ㸧ࠊࠕୡ಑୺⩏
㸦secularism㸧ࠖ࡜ࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶ㸦religious neutrality㸧ࠖࢆཝᐦ࡟༊ูࡋ࡚⏝࠸࡚࠸࡞࠸
ሙྜࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ࠶ࡽ࠿ࡌࡵᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡃࠋ

2. チェンバレン判決
஧ࡘࡢ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ุỴࡢ୍ࡘࡀࠊ2002 ᖺ࡟ୗࡉࢀࡓࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ㸦Chamberlain– 13 –

v. School District No.36㸧(6) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ௳ࡣࠊṇ㠃࠿ࡽ᠇ἲゎ㔘ࡀุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓ஦౛࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡀ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿ஧ࡘࡢၥࢆ⪃࠼ࡿୖ࡛㠀ᖖ࡟㔜せ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ2 − 1．事実の概要
ᮏ௳ࡢ୰ᚰⓗၥ㢟ࡣࠊࣈࣜࢸ࢕ࢵࢩ࣭ࣗࢥࣟࣥࣅ࢔ᕞࢧ࣮ࣞᏛᰯ༊ࡢᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍㸦௨ୗࠊࠕᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࠖ
㸧ࡀࠊྠᛶࡢ୧ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘ࢆᥥ࠸࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮⏤࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ3 ෉ࡢ⿵ຓᩍᮦ (7) ࢆㄆྍࡋ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡓỴᐃࡀṇᙜ࠿ྰ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡀ 3 ෉ࡢ⿵ຓᩍᮦࢆㄆ
ྍࡋ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊࢧ࣮ࣞᏛᰯ༊ෆࡢᏛᰯ࡟Ꮚ࡝ࡶࢆ㏻ࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿぶࡢ࠺ࡕࠊ᐀ᩍ
ⓗ࡞⌮⏤࠿ࡽྠᛶឡ࡞࠸ࡋྠᛶࡢ୧ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘ࢆㄆࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸⪅ࡢせồ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊᙼࡽ࡟㓄៖ࡋࡓ࡜࠸࠺஦᝟ࡀ࠶ࡿ (8)ࠋࣈࣜࢸ࢕ࢵࢩ࣭ࣗࢥࣟࣥࣅ࢔ᕞࡢᏛᰯᩍ
⫱ἲ (9) ࡣࠊ85 ᮲ (2)(b) ࡛ࠊᕞࡢᩍ⫱ᢸᙜ኱⮧࡟ᩍᮦࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿᶒ㝈ࢆ୚࠼ࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍࡟⿵ຓᩍᮦ (10) ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿᶒ㝈ࢆ୚࠼࡚࠸ࡓࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊ㑅ᣲ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ࡤࢀࡿ௦⾲ᶵ㛵ࡢ୍✀࡛࠶ࡿࠋᗂ⛶ᅬཬࡧᑠᏛᰯ 1 ᖺḟ࡟㐺⏝ࡉࢀࡿ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡢ୰࡟ࡣࠊࠕᐙ᪘
⏕άࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿෆᐜࡀྵࡲࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡇ࡛ࡣࠕᵝࠎ࡞ᙧែࡢᐙ᪘ࢆㄆ㆑ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࠖࡶ
ᩍ⫱┠ⓗ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࢧ࣮ࣞᏛᰯ༊ࡢᗂ⛶ᅬᩍㅍ࡛࠶ࡗࡓࢪ࢙࣮࣒ࢬ࣭ࢳ࢙ࣥࣂࣞࣥ㸦James Chamberlain㸧Ặࡣࠊᙜヱ࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡢ⿵ຓᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ 3 ෉ࡢ⿵ຓᩍᮦࡢ౑⏝ࢆồࡵࡓ࡜ࡇࢁࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍࡟ࡼࡗ࡚୙チྍࡢỴᐃࡀୗࡉࢀࡓࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢ
ྜ⌮ᛶࢆதࡗࡓࠋ

2 − 2．法廷意見の概要
࡭ࣦ࢓࣮࣭࣐ࣜࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ㸦Beverley McLachlin㸧㤳ᖍ⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ἲᘐពぢࡀᇳ➹ࡉࢀࡓ (11)ࠋ
ᙼዪࡣࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢỴᐃࡢጇᙜᛶ࡟㛵ࡋᮏ௳࡛ࡣࠊձᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡀᏛᰯἲୖࡢ⩏ົ࡟๎ࡗࡓỴᐃࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࠿ࠊղᙜヱỴᐃࡀ᠇ἲୖࡢᶒ฼ࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺஧ࡘࡢ
୺ᙇࡀ࡞ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊձࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋ࡚ฎ⌮ࡍ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦paras.1-3㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢ⾜ᨻ⿢㔞ࡢ⾜౑ࢆᑂᰝࡍࡿᡭἲ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊྜ⌮ᛶࡢᇶ‽㸦standardof reasonableness㸧̿࠸ࢃࡺࡿุ᩿㐣⛬⤫ไࡢᡭἲ̿ࢆ⏝࠸ࡿࡢࡀ㐺ษ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿ
㸦para.8㸧(12)ࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢุ᩿㐣⛬ࡢ㐺ษࡉࡀၥࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࡀࠊ୺せ࡞
ⅬࡣࠊᏛᰯᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕୡ಑ᛶࠖࢆせồࡍࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ 76 ᮲ࢆ㐺ษ࡟⪃៖ࡋࡓ࠿࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ㤳ᖍ⿢ุᐁࡣࠊࡲࡎᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ 76 ᮲ࡢព࿡ࢆ☜ㄆࡍࡿࠋࡍ࡞ࢃࡕࠊᩍ
⫱ጤဨ఍࡟ࡣࠊᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ 76 ᮲࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ
ࠕཝ᱁࡟ୡ಑ⓗ࡛ࠊ཯᐀ὴⓗ࡞ཎ⌮㸦strictly

secular and non-sectarian principles㸧࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚⾜ືࠖࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄢࡏࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ
Ꮫᰯᩍ⫱ἲࡢせồࡍࡿୡ಑୺⩏ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ෆ㒊ࡢ༠㆟ࡸỴᐃࡢ㐣⛬࡟᐀ᩍⓗ㛵ᚰ஦ࡢᒃሙᡤࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡋ࡞࠸ࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡣุ᩿㐣⛬࡟ぶࡸᙜヱࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ࡢ᐀ᩍⓗぢゎࢆᣢࡕ㎸ࡴᶒ฼ࢆᣢࡘࠋࠕ᐀ᩍࡣேࠎࡢ⏕άࡢ୙ྍḞࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࡢ– 14 –

࡛ࠊ఍㆟ᐊࡢࢻ࢔ࡢ๓࡟⨨࠸࡚ࡃࡿ㸦be left at the boardroom door㸧࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ
࡞࠸ࠖࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ
ࠕୡ಑୺⩏ࠖࡣࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ෆࡢ࠶ࡿ᐀ᩍⓗぢゎࢆࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕
ෆࡢูࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࡢ㸦᐀ᩍⓗ㸧౯್ほࢆ㝖እࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟⏝࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆチࡉ࡞࠸ࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡣぶࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ㛵ᚰ஦࡟ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࡀࠊࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࢆࡶࡗ࡚ࢥ࣑ࣗ
ࢽࢸ࢕ࡢ௚ࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮ࢆᢅ࠺᪉ἲ࡛࡞ࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦para.18-19㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ᙼዪࡣࠊࠕᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ࡟ࡼࡿୡ಑୺⩏ࡢᙉㄪࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡀከᵝ࡛ከᩥ໬࡞♫఍࡛࠶ࡾࠊ
ྜ⌮ⓗ㓄៖㸦accommodation㸧ࠊᐶᐜࠊከᵝᛶ࡬ࡢᑛ㔜࡜࠸࠺౯್࡟ࡼࡗ࡚⤖ࡧࡘ࠸࡚࠸
ࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇࢆ཯ᫎࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞౯್ࡣࠊᖹ➼࡜ᑡᩘὴࡢᶒ฼࡜࠸࠺ᡃࠎࡢ᠇
ἲࡢࢥ࣑ࢵࢺ࣓ࣥࢺࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿ㸦para.21㸧ࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢỴᐃࡢㄗࡾࡢ୍ࡘࡣࠊᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ࡟ࡼࡿࠕୡ಑୺⩏ࠖࡢせồࢆ⪃៖ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢኻᩋ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊྠᛶࡢ୧
ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘࡟㐨ᚨⓗ࣭᐀ᩍⓗ࡞ᠱᛕࢆᢪࡃぶࡢពぢࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚⾜ືࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊྠᛶࡢ୧ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘ࡢᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀࠕᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࢩࢫࢸ࣒ࡢ୰࡛ᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࢆཷࡅࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺฼┈ࢆ⪃៖ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦para.58㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥࡣࠊᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡀ 3 ෉ࡢ⤮ᮏࢆ᤼㝖ࡍࡿỴᐃࢆࡋࡓ㝿࡟᥇⏝ࡋࡓホ౯ᇶ‽࡟ࡶㄗࡾࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡣࠊྠᛶࡢ୧ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᗂ
⛶ᅬඣࡸᑠᏛᰯ 1 ᖺḟࡢᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊከࡃࡢሙྜ࡛ࠊᐙᗞ࡛ᩍ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜
࡜Ꮫᰯ࡛ᩍ࠼ࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡜ࡢ㛫࡛୙୍⮴ࢆ㉳ࡇࡋࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࢆΰ஘ࡉࡏࡿࡓࡵࠊᖺ㱋࡟୙┦ᛂ࡞ෆᐜ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࠕㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴㸦cognitive dissonance㸧ࠖ(13) ࡣࠊከᩥ໬♫఍࡛࠶ࡿ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚᪥ᖖⓗ࡟㉳ࡇࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࢀ⮬యࡀ᤼㝖ࡢ⌮⏤࡟࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺㸦para.65㸧ࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᙜヱ⤮ᮏࡢᣢࡘᙳ㡪ຊࡣࠊᩍᐊෆ࡟ᐇ㝿࡟ྠᛶࡢ୧ぶ࠿ࡽ࡞ࡿᐙ᪘ࡢᏊ࡝ࡶࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜௨ୖࡢ㒊ศ࡟㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡣࠕᐶᐜࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊᐶᐜࡢၥ
㢟ࡣࠕᖖ࡟ᖺ┦ᛂ㸦age-appropriate㸧ࠖࡢၥ㢟࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦para.69㸧ࠋࡇࡢⅬࡣࠊᮏ✏ࡢ᰾ᚰⓗၥ㢟ࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊ2 Ѹ 3 Ѹ 2㸬࡛ヲࡋࡃ᳨ウࡍࡿࠋ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ⿢ุᐁࡣࠊ୺࡟ᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍ࡢỴᐃࡀᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲࡢせồ࡟ᚑࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜ࢆ⌮⏤࡟ࠊᙜヱỴᐃࢆ୙ྜ⌮࡛࠶ࡿ࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࠊᙜ⿢ุᡤࡢ♧ࡋࡓᇶ‽ࡢୗ࡛Ỵᐃࢆ෌⪃ࡍࡿࡼ࠺ᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍࡟࿨ࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦paras.73-74㸧ࠋ

2 − 3．分析
2 − 3 − 1．世俗主義の意味と宗教的中立性の核心ࡲࡎࠊᮏุỴࡀᣢࡘࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢព࿡࡟㛵ࡍࡿㄽⅬ࡬ࡢ♧၀࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡋࡼ࠺ࠋ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࡿἲᘐពぢࡣࠊࣈࣜࢸ࢕ࢵࢩ࣭ࣗࢥࣟࣥࣅ࢔
ᕞࡢไᐃἲ࡛࠶ࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ 76 ᮲ࡢつᐃࡍࡿࠕୡ಑୺⩏ࠖࡢព࿡ࡣࠊከᵝ࡞౯್ほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࢆࡶࡗ࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿ࡜ุ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ᐀– 15 –

ᩍࡣேࠎࡢ⏕άࡢ୙ྍḞࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ఍㆟ᐊࡢࢻ࢔ࡢ๓࡟⨨࠸࡚ࡃࡿ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࠊබⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨻ⟇Ỵᐃ㐣⛬ࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ᐀ᩍⓗ⪃៖ࡀධࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆチᐜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋຍ࠼࡚ࠊᙼዪࡣࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⌮ゎࡀ᠇ἲࡢࢥ࣑ࢵࢺ࣓ࣥࢺࢆ཯ᫎ
ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡋࠊࣁ࣮࣡ࢻ࣭࢟ࢫࣟ࢘࢕ࢵࢡ㸦Howard Kislowicz㸧
ࡣ௨ୗࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ
ࠕ᐀ᩍ࡜ࡢࡘ࡞ࡀࡾࡀ඲ࡃ࡞࠸ࡇ
࡜ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚㏻ᖖᐃ⩏ࡉࢀࡿࠕୡ಑ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡢព࿡ࡀࠊ
ࠕᐶᐜࡢ౯್ࠖ࡟ኚ໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࠕୡ
಑ࠖࡣࠕ௚ࡢ౯್ほࢆ᤼㝖ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡟࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋゝ࠸᥮࠼ࢀࡤࠊ
ࠕୡ಑ⓗ࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡣࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞࠸ࡋ㠀᐀ᩍⓗ࡞⪃࠼࡟㛵ࡍࡿᐶᐜ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠊ࡜ (14)ࠋ
ࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥࡣࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࢆ⏝࠸࡞࠸ࡀࠊ
㏻ᖖࡣ㠀᐀ᩍࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠕୡ಑୺⩏ࠖࢆࠊከᵝ࡞㸦᐀ᩍⓗ㸧౯್ほ࡟ᑐࡍࡿࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜఩⨨௜ࡅࡓࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙ࡜᐀ᩍࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ୧⪅ࢆศ㞳ࡍࡿ᪉ྥᛶࢆ⌮᝿࡜ࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓ࡜࠸ࡗ࡚ࡼ࠸ࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡑ࠺ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊᅜᐙ࡜᐀ᩍࡢ㛵ಀ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡞㛵ࢃࡾ᪉ࡀチᐜࡉࢀࠊ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺
࡞㛵ࢃࡾྜ࠸࡛࠶ࢀࡤチࡉࢀ࡞࠸ࡢ࠿ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡿࠋࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࡸࠕከᵝᛶࡢ౯್ࡢᑛ㔜ࠖࠊࠕྜ⌮ⓗ㓄៖ࡸᐶᐜࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓほᛕࡀࡑࡢ⥺ᘬࡁࢆࡍࡿᣦ㔪࡜࡞ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᮏ
ุỴ࠿ࡽࡔࡅ࡛ࡶ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊಶูලయⓗ࡞᳨ウࢆᚲせ࡜ࡍࡿࠋᮏ✏࡛ໟᣓⓗ࡞᳨ウࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࡀࠊᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡀ୰❧࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆồࡵࡿࢣ࣮ࢫ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⡆༢࡟᳨ウࡋ࡚࠾ࡁࡓ࠸ (15)ࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ࢣ࣮ࢫࡀࠊᮏ᮶ⓗ࡟ࡣ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶ࡟㛵ࡍࡿ୺せ࡞ၥ㢟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୰❧ᛶ⌮ゎࡢ᰾ᚰⓗ࡞㒊ศ࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑ ࡢ ௦ ⾲ ⓗ ࡞ ࢣ ࣮ ࢫ ࡣࠊ ࢪ ࣝ ࣂ ࣮ ࣂ ࣮ ࢢ ุ Ỵ㸦Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of

Education㸧(16) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ௳࡛ࡣࠊ࢜ࣥࢱࣜ࢜ᕞࡢබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡛ᮅ♩ࡢ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ࢟
ࣜࢫࢺᩍⓗ࡞࠾♳ࡾ㸦Lord's Prayer㸧ཬࡧ⪷᭩➼ࡢᮁㄞࡣࠊ᠇❶ 2 ᮲ a 㡯࡛ಖ㞀ࡉࢀࡓಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆไ⣙ࡋࠊ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡢୗ࡛ṇᙜ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓ (17)ࠋ࢜ࣥࢱࣜ࢜ᕞ᥍ッᑂ⿢ุᡤ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊᩍᐊ࠿ࡽ㏥ฟࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡸỿ㯲ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡞࡝ࡢච㝖ᥐ⨨㸦opt-

out㸧ࡣチྍࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞࠾♳ࡾࡣ᐀ᩍⓗᐇ㊶ࢆ┤᥋ⓗ࡟ᙉไࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
࠸ࡀࠊච㝖ᥐ⨨ࡶࠊࡑࡢࡼ࠺࡞࠾♳ࡾࢆඹ᭷ࡋ࡞࠸⏕ᚐ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣࠊච㝖ࡢせồࢆࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ࠊࡑࡢຠᯝ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊබⓗ࡞ᶵ㛵㸦ᩍᖌ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⮬㌟ࡢ᐀ᩍࢆᭀ㟢ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᙉ
ไࡉࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢὀ┠ࡍ࡭ࡁุỴࡀࠊ࢝ࢼࢲேᶒ᧦ㆤ༠఍ุỴ㸦Canadian

Civil Liberties Assn. v. Ontario㸧(18) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏ௳࡛ࡣࠊ୍㐌㛫ࡢ࠺ࡕ 2 ᅇࠊ30 ศࡢࠕ᐀ᩍᩍ⫱ࠖ࡟᫬㛫ࢆ๭ࡃࡼ࠺せồࡍࡿ࢜ࣥࢱࣜ࢜ᕞつ๎ࡣࠊ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍⓗಙ௮ࢆ⏕ᚐ࡟ᩍ࠼㎸ࡴ㸦indoctrination㸧࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࢆ᭷ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊࡑࢀࡺ࠼ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆไ⣙ࡋࠊ᠇❶ 1᮲ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡶ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡉࢀࡓࠋ࢜ࣥࢱࣜ࢜ᕞ᥍ッᑂ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ᐀
ᩍᩍ⫱ࢆ⾜࠺∾ᖌࡀࠊࠕ᐀ᩍࢆẚ㍑ⓗ࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿ⣲㣴ࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ドᣐࡀ࡞࠸୰
࡛ࡣࠊࡑࡢつ๎ࡢ┠ⓗࡣ㹙᐀ᩍࡢ㹛ᩍ࠼㎸ࡳ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
㸦ᣓᘼෆ➹⪅ࠊ௨ୗྠࡌ㸧ࠋᙜヱつ๎ࡣ⏕ᚐ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᐀ᩍᩍ⫱࠿ࡽࡢච㝖ࢆチྍࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊᙜヱつ๎ࡢᩍ࠼㎸ࡳⓗ࡞┠ⓗ࡞– 16 –

࠸ࡋຠᯝࡣࠊච㝖ᥐ⨨ࢆタࡅࡿ࡜࠸࠺஦ᐇ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ኚ᭦ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋච㝖ࢆᮃࡴ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⏕ᚐࡣࠕ㠀࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍᚐ࡜ࡋ࡚ࢫࢸ࢕ࢢ࣐໬ࡉࢀࠊᨭ㓄ⓗ᐀ᩍࡢ࣓ࣥࣂ࣮࡛࠶ࡿ
ᙼࡽࡢ௰㛫ࡢ⏕ᚐ࠿ࡽษࡾ㞳ࡉࢀࡿࠖ࡜ุ᩿ࡋࡓࠋ
ࡇࢀࡽ஧ࡘࡢุỴ࡛ࠊ⿢ุᡤࡣࠊ≉ᐃࡢ᐀ᩍࢆ᫝ㄆࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢ᐀ᩍࢆಙࡌ
ࡿࡶࡢ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᤼㝖ࡢ࣓ࢵࢭ࣮ࢪࢆ㏦ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢไ⣙ࡔ࡜ㄆᐃࡋࠊච㝖ᥐ⨨ࢆタࡅࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ⿢ุ
ᡤࡀࠕᙉไࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࢆ౑࠺ࡓࡵࠊᵓ㐀ࡀぢ࠼㞴࠸ࡀࠊࡑࡇ࡛ၥ㢟࡜ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࡣࠊ
᐀ᩍⓗᑡᩘὴࡀࠕᙜヱ♫఍࠿ࡽࡢ᤼㝖ࠖࢆឤࡌࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿ (19)ࠋᐇ㉁ⓗ࡟ࡣࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࡸࠕከᵝᛶࡢ౯್ࡢᑛ㔜ࠖࢆࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸᐀ᩍ࡜ᅜᐙ࡜ࡢ㛵ࢃࡾྜ࠸ࢆಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤࡟㐪཯ࡍࡿ࡜ุ᩿ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴྠᵝࠊከᩘὴ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢேࠎ࡟
ከᩘὴࡢᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡸᇶ‽ࢆㄢࡑ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡾࠊṇᙜ࡞⌮⏤࡞ࡃබⓗ⏕άࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙ㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠㄪࢆせồࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊุ౛ࡀ୍㈏ࡋ࡚チᐜࡋ࡚ࡇ࡞࠿ࡗࡓ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡀ☜ㄆࡉࢀࡿࠋ

2 − 3 − 2．認知的不協和という日常ḟ࡟ࠊ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ⿢ุᐁࡀࠊࠕㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࠖࢆከᩥ໬♫఍ࡢ᪥ᖖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸᳨࡚ウࡍࡿࠋࡸࡸ㛗ࡃ࡞ࡿࡀࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿุ♧ࢆᘬ⏝ࡋ࡚࠾ࡇ࠺ࠋ

ࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ෆ࡟␗࡞ࡗࡓᐙ᪘ࣔࢹࣝࡀከᩘᏑᅾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ࠶ࡿᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡣࠊ
ᚲ↛ⓗ࡟࠶ࡿぶ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡣㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡞࠸ᐙ᪘ࣔࢹࣝࡢᏊ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋࡑ
ࡢࡼ࠺࡞Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ࡟ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᐙ᪘ࣔࢹࣝ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚㆟ㄽࡍࡿᶵ఍ࢆ୚࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊ
௚ࡢᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡍࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୙༠࿴ࡣ㑊ࡅࡽࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࡶࠊ᭷ᐖ࡞ࡇ࡜࡛ࡶ࡞࠸ࠋከᵝ࡞⏕ᚐ࠿ࡽᵓᡂࡉࢀࡿබ❧Ꮫᰯࢩࢫࢸ࣒࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡣ᪥ࠎࠊㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟ฟ఍࠺ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᙼࡽࡣࠊᙼࡽ
ࡢࢡࣛࢫ࣓࢖ࢺࡸᩍᖌࡽࡀࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡀ㣗࡭࡚ࡣ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸㣗࡭≀ࢆࣛࣥࢳ࡟㣗࡭࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢ࠿ࡅࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡋࠊ͐⮬ศࡓࡕࡀ╔⏝ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⚗Ṇࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⾰᭹ࢆ╔࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࡋࠊ͐᐀ᩍⓗ࡞൤ᘧࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࡢࢆぢࡿ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸͐ࠋ
ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ฟ఍࠸࠿ࡽ⏕ࡌࡿㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࡣࠊከᵝᛶࡢ࠶ࡿ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ༢࡞ࡿ⏕άࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡑࢀࡣࡲࡓᡂ㛗ࡢ୍㒊࡛ࡶ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞⤒㦂ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝
ࡶࡓࡕࡣ⮬ࡽࡢ౯್ほࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡀ௚⪅࡟ඹ᭷ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆㄆ㆑ࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ
㸦para.65㸧ࠋ࠸ࡃࡽ࠿ࡢㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀᐶᐜࡑࢀ⮬య࡟కࡗ࡚
࠸ࡿࡶࡢࢆᏛࡪࡓࡵ࡟࡯ࡰ㛫㐪࠸࡞ࡃᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ͐ᐶᐜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫࡪ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜
ࡣࠊᡃࠎࡢぢゎ࡜௚⪅ࡢぢゎࡢ୍⮴࡟౫Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࠊᡃࠎ࠿ࡽᑛ㔜ࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸
࠺௚⪅ࡢᶒ฼ࢆᏛࡪࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡿࠋᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡣࠊᐙᗞ࡛ᩍ࠼ࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿぢゎ࡜ࡣ␗– 17 –࡞ࡗࡓぢゎ࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜࡞ࡃࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᏛࡪࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸㸦para.66㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࡢ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ⿢ุᐁࡢุ♧࡟ࡣࠊࡲࡎ஦ᐇㄆ㆑ࡢ࡛ࣞ࣋ࣝࠊከᩥ໬♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࡀ᪥ᖖࡢฟ᮶஦࡛࠶ࡾࠊᅇ㑊୙⬟ࡢ⌧㇟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
ࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊᐶᐜࡸ௚⪅ࡢᑛ㔜ࢆᏛࡪࡓࡵ࡟ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿ
࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡀㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ⌮⏤࡟ࡋ࡚ࠊ⿵ຓ
ᩍᮦࡢㄆྍࢆᣄྰࡍࡿࡢࡣㄗࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢุ♧࡟ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆㄆ▱
4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡉ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺つ⠊ⓗࣞ࣋ࣝࡢ୺ᙇࡀྵࡲࢀࡿ࠿ࡣࠊᚤጁ࡞࡜
ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ3 㸫 3 㸫 2㸬࡛෌ࡧᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡜ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ
ࡇࡢㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࢆ᪥ᖖ࡜࡜ࡽ࠼ࡿ⪃࠼᪉ࡣࠊᏛᰯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗࢩࣥ࣎ࣝࡢ╔⏝࡟㛵ࡍࡿၥ㢟̿᠇ἲᏛ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠕࢫ࣮࢝ࣇၥ㢟ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡼࡃ▱ࡽࢀࡿၥ㢟 (20)̿࡟ࡶ୍ᐃࡢ
♧၀ࢆࡶࡓࡽࡍ࡜⪃࠼ࡽࢀࡿࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ (21)ࠊࡲࡓ᪥ᮏࡢ᠇ἲᏛ࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊබ❧Ꮫ
ᰯ࡟㏻࠺⏕ᚐࡢࢫ࣮࢝ࣇ╔⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵࡿ࡭ࡁ࡜ࡍࡿぢゎࡀᨭ㓄ⓗ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࡀࠊᩍᖌࡀ㌟࡟╔ࡅࡿሙྜ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᚲࡎࡋࡶពぢࡀ୍⮴ࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ (22)ࠋࡇࡢⅬࠊㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࢆ᪥ᖖ࡜᝿ᐃࡍࡿ❧ሙ࠿ࡽࡣࠊࣜࢳ࣮ࣕࢻ࣭࣒࣮ࣥ㸦Richard Moon㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ (23)ࠊᑠᏛᰯࡢᩍᖌ࡞࡝ࠊᮍࡔே᱁ⓗ⮬ᚊࡢᙧᡂࡀ୙༑ศ࡞⏕ᚐ࡟᥋ࡍࡿ⫋࡟࠶ࡿே≀㸦බᩍ⫱ࢆᢸ࠺ᩍဨ㸧࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ୍ぢࡍࡿ࡜᐀ᩍⓗࢩࣥ࣎ࣝࢆ㌟࡟ࡘࡅࡿ࡭ࡁ
࡛࡞࠸࡜࠸࠺つ⠊ࡀᡂࡾ❧ࡘࡼ࠺࡟ࡳ࠼ࡿࡀࠊᐇ㝿࡟ࡣᙜヱ⏕ᚐࡽࡣᵝࠎ࡞ᩥ໬ࡀΰᅾ
ࡍࡿከᩥ໬♫఍ࡢ୰࡛ᡂ㛗ࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ࠿ࡽࠊᵝࠎ࡞᐀ᩍⓗࢩࣥ࣎ࣝࢆ╔⏝ࡋࡓே≀࡜ࡢ᥋ゐ࡟ࡼࡿ่⃭ࢆ᪥ᖖࡢ⏕άࡢ୰࡛ཷࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊᩍᖌࡀᨵ᐀ࢆಁࡋࡓࡾࠊ
⮬㌟ࡢ᐀ᩍࢆᩍ࠼㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡣၥ㢟ࡔࡀࠊᩍᖌࡀ᐀ᩍⓗࢩࣥ࣎ࣝࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜ࡑ
ࢀ⮬యࡢᙳ㡪ࡣࡉ࡯࡝኱ࡁࡃ࡞࠸ࠋࡲࡓࠊᐶᐜࡢ⢭⚄ࢆ㌟࡟௜ࡅࡿࡓࡵ࡟ㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡞ࡽࠊᩍᖌࡢࢫ࣮࢝ࣇࡢ╔⏝ࢆㄆࡵࡿ᰿ᣐ࡜ࡶ࡞ࢁ࠺ (24)ࠋ

3．SL 判決ᮏ✏ࡀὀ┠ࡍࡿࡶ࠺୍ࡘࡢ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ุỴࡀ 2012 ᖺ࡟ୗࡉࢀࡓ SL ุỴ㸦S.L. v.

Commission scolaire des Chênes㸧(25) ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᮏุỴ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊࢳ࢙
ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛♧ࡋࡓ⌮ゎࢆ᠇ἲゎ㔘ࡢᩥ⬦࡛᫂♧ࡋࠊࡑࢀࢆࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࠖࡢᴫᛕ
࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃ⩏ࡋ᥇⏝ࡋࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊᮏุỴࡢ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍ࡜
ᩍ⫱ࢆࡵࡄࡿ୍㐃ࡢὶࢀࡀ㛵ಀࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡓࡵࠊࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⡆༢࡟ゐࢀ࡚࠾ࡃࡇ࡜
࡟ࡍࡿ (26)ࠋࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࡣࠊ1960 ᖺ㡭ࡲ࡛㠀ᖖ࡟᐀ᩍⓗ࡞ᕞ࡛࠶ࡾࠊ୺࡟࢝ࢺࣜࢵࢡࡢ
ᩍ఍࡟㛵㐃ࡍࡿᶵ㛵࡟ࡼࡗ࡚Ꮫᰯᩍ⫱ࡀ⟶㎄ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡓࠋࡇࡢ≧ἣ࠿ࡽࡢኚ໬ࡣ 1960ᖺ௦࡟ጞࡲࡗࡓࠕ㟼࠿࡞㠉࿨ࠖ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡶࡓࡽࡉࢀࡓࠋ₞㐍ⓗ࡟ୡ಑໬̿ᩍ⫱┬ࡢタ❧࡟

– 18 –

ࡼࡿࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞᨻᗓࡢබᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢥࣥࢺ࣮ࣟࣝࡢྲྀᚓࠊࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞෆ࡛ࡢ᐀ὴᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍㸦denominational school boards㸧ࡢᗫṆࠊ1867 ᖺ᠇ἲ 93 ᮲ࡢᩍ⫱᮲㡯࠿ࡽࡢࢣ࣋ࢵࢡࡢ㞳⬺➼ (27)̿ࡀ㐍ᒎࡋࠊ2000 ᖺ࡟ධࡗ࡚඲࡚ࡢබ❧Ꮫᰯࡀୡ಑໬ࡉࢀࡓ㸦ࡑࢀࡲ࡛ࡣබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡛ࡶࠕ᐀ᩍᩍ⫱ࠖࡀ⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ㸧ࠋࡇ࠺ࡋࡓୡ಑໬ࡢὶࢀࡢ⥲௙ୖࡆ࡜ࡋ
࡚Ⓩሙࡋࡓࡢࡀࠊ୰❧ⓗ࡟᐀ᩍཬࡧ೔⌮ほ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᩍ⫱ࢆ࠾ࡇ࡞࠺ࠕ೔⌮࣭᐀ᩍᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛ㸦௨ୗ ERCP㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿࠋSL ุỴ࡛ࡣࡇࡢ ERCP ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ

3 − 1．事実の概要

ERCP ࡣᐈほⓗ࣭୰❧ⓗ࡞᪉ἲ࡛ࠊୡ⏺ࡢ᐀ᩍ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ཬࡧ೔⌮ⓗၥ㢟࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩍ⫱ࢆㄢࡍࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛࠊ2008 ᖺ࠿ࡽࠊࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࡢࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᑠ࣭୰࣭㧗ᰯ࡟ࠊ⚾❧࣭බ❧ࢆၥࢃࡎ༞ᴗ࡟ᚲせ࡞ᚲಟ⛉┠࡜ࡋ࡚࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࡟⤌ࡳ㎸ࡲࢀࡓࠋERCP ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊࠕ௚⪅࡟ᑐࡍࡿᢎㄆࠖ࡜ࠊࠕඹ㏻ၿ㸦common good㸧ࠖ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦ࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࡢ┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࡢ฿㐩┠ᶆࡣࠊ(a) ୡ⏺ࡢ᐀ᩍ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ⌮ゎࠊ(b) ೔⌮ⓗၥ㢟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⮬┬ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆ⋓ᚓࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ(c) ᑐヰ࡟ᚑ஦ࡍࡿ⬟ຊࢆⓎ㐩ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࠊ࡛࠶ࡿ (28)ࠋ
ᮏ௳ࡣࠊࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࡢබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡟⮬ࡽࡢᏊ౪ࢆ㏻ࢃࡏ࡚࠸ࡿ࣮࣐ࣟ࢝ࢺࣜࢵࢡࢆಙ௮ࡍࡿぶࡽࡀࠊ୰❧ⓗ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽ࢝ࢺࣜࢩࢬ࣒࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢᩍ⫱ࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊᏊ౪࡟
⮬㌟ࡢ᐀ᩍ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃᩍ⫱ࢆ⾜࠺ᶒ฼ࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊERCP ࠿ࡽࡢච㝖ࢆồࡵࡓ஦౛࡛࠶ࡿࠋ

3 − 2．法廷意見の概要
࣐࣮࣭ࣜࢹࢩࣕࣥ㸦Marie Deschamps㸧⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࡾἲᘐពぢࡀᇳ➹ࡉࢀࡓ (29)ࠋ
ࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁࡣࠊERCP ࡣ㠀୰❧ⓗ࡞ᩍ⫱࣒࡛࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿぶࡢ୺ᙇ࡟ᑐ
ࡋ࡚ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢἲⓗᯟ⤌ࡳࢆᥦ♧ࡋ࡚ᛂ⟅ࡍࡿ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊぶࡽࡣࠊERCP ࡀ⮬㌟ࡢ┿ᦸ࡞ಙ௮ࢆᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡢࢆጉࡆ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜㸦ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢไ⣙㸧ࢆド࡛᫂ࡁ࡚࠸࡞࠸࡜ุ᩿ࡍࡿ (30)ࠋ
ࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢุ౛ἲ̿ࢪࣝࣂ࣮ࣂ࣮ࢢุỴࠊ࢝ࢼࢲேᶒ᧦
ㆤ༠఍ุỴ࡞࡝̿࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕᅜᐙࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢᴫᛕࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢከᩥ໬ⓗᵓ㐀㸦multicultural makeup㸧࡜ᑡᩘὴࡢಖㆤࠖ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㗦ᩄ࡞ឤぬ࡟ἢࡗ࡚Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚ࡁࡓࡶ
ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿ㸦paras.17-21㸧ࠋࡲࡓࠊබඹ✵㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢ୙ྍ⬟ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ࣒࣮ࣥࡢぢゎࢆᘬ⏝ࡍࡿ㸦para.30㸧(31)ࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ࠊࠕဴᏛⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࠊᡃࠎࡣࠊ⤯ᑐⓗ࡞୰❧ᛶࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆཷࡅධࢀ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡋࠊࠕ⌧ᐇⓗ࡛㠀⤯ᑐⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟ
ࢳࠖࢆ᥇⏝ࡍࡿࠋᙼዪ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᵓ᝿ࡢࠕᅜᐙࡢ୰❧ᛶࡣࠊᅜᐙࡀ≉ᐃࡢ᐀ᩍⓗಙᛕࢆඃ㐝ࡋࡓࡾࠊጉᐖࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸ሙྜࠖ
ࠊ➇ྜࡍࡿಶேࡢ᠇ἲୖࡢᶒ฼࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽࠊ↓᐀ᩍࡶྵࢇࡔࠕ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ᐀ᩍⓗែᗘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩗពࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࠖ࡟ಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚
࠸ࡿ࡜㏙࡭ࡿ㸦paras.31-32㸧ࠋࡼࡗ࡚ࠊᐈほⓗ࣭୰❧ⓗ࡞᪉ἲ࡛᐀ᩍ࣭೔⌮࡟ࡘ࠸࡚Ꮫ⩦– 19 –

ࡍࡿࣉࣟࢢ࣒࡛ࣛ࠶ࡿ ERCP ࡣࠕ㠀⤯ᑐⓗ࡞୰❧ᛶࠖ࡟㐪཯ࡋ࡞࠸㸦para.37㸧ࠋḟ࡟ࠊࢹࢩࣕࣥࡣಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢไ⣙࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡲࡎࠊձಶேࡢಙ௮ࡀ┿ᦸ࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ࠊ
ղไ⣙ࡀல⣽࡞ࡶࡢ࠿ྲྀࡿ࡟㊊ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࠿ࠊࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿ࢔࣒ࢭ࣒࣭ࣝࢸࢫࢺ (32) ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸ุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡍࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࠊࠕ୺ほⓗ࡞ࢸࢫࢺࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡉࢀ࡚ࡁࡓ࢔࣒ࢭ࣒࣭ࣝ
ࢸࢫࢺࡢ୺ほⓗせ⣲ࡣࠊձࡢ㒊ศ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢࡳጇᙜࡍࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋࡓ࠺࠼࡛ࠊไ⣙ࡢ᭷↓ࢆุ᩿ࡍࡿղࡢẁ㝵࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣࠊࠕ୺ᙇ⪅ࡀࠊ⮬ࡽࡢᶒ฼ࡀ౵ᐖࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜୺ᙇࡍࡿࡔ
ࡅ࡛ࡣ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ࡜㏙࡭ࡿࠋࡇࡢẁ㝵ࡢࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊ
ࠕ୺ᙇ⪅ࡀ࠶ࡿ᐀ᩍⓗᐇ㊶࡞࠸ࡋಙᛕࡀไ⣙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜┿ᦸ࡟ಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ᐀ᩍⓗᐇ㊶࡞࠸ࡋಙᛕ࡟ᑐࡍ
ࡿไ⣙ࡀᏑᅾࡍࡿ࠿ࠖ࡞ࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚑࡗ࡚ࠊไ⣙ࡢ᭷↓࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᐈほⓗ࡞ド᫂ࡀせồࡉࢀࡿ࡜࠸࠺㸦para.22-23㸧ࠋࡇࡇ࡛ࢹࢩࣕࣥࡣࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴࢆᘬ⏝ࡋࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢࡼ࠺
࡞ࠕከᩥ໬♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᡂ㛗㐣⛬ࡢᏊ౪ࡀㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟ฟ఍࠺ࡇ࡜ࠖࡣ㑊ࡅࡀࡓ࠸࡜
㏙࡭㸦para.39㸧ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢᐙ᪘ࡢ⎔ቃ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿከᵝ࡞᐀ᩍ࣭೔⌮ほ࣭ᩥ໬࡟ゐࢀࡉࢀࡿࡇ
࡜⮬యࢆಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤࡟ᑐࡍࡿไ⣙࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜⤖ㄽ௜ࡅࡿ㸦para.40-41㸧ࠋ

3 − 3．分析3 − 3 − 1．絶対的中立性の不可能性SL ุỴ࡛ࡣࠊࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛ไᐃἲୖࡢୡ಑୺⩏ࡢゎ㔘࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛♧၀ࡉࢀࡓ࢝
ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙ࡜᐀ᩍࡢ㛵ಀࡀࠊ᠇ἲୖࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶᴫᛕ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡼࡾ᫂☜࡞ᙧ࡛ᥦ♧ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ホ౯࡛ࡁࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁࡀ࣒࣮ࣥࡢぢゎࢆཧ↷ࡋࡘࡘࠕ⤯ᑐⓗ୰❧ᛶࠖࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡜ㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿⅬࡣ⯆࿡῝࠸ࠋࡑࡶࡑࡶ࣒࣮ࣥࡀࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ぢゎࢆᥦ♧ࡍࡿ⫼ᬒ࡟ࡣࠊ᠇❶ไᐃึᮇ࡟࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡀุ᩿ࢆồࡵࡽࢀࡓࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬุỴ㸦R v.

Jones㸧(33) ࡢᙳ㡪ࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬุỴ࡛ࡣḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞஦౛ࡀၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࠋ࢔ࣝࣂ࣮ࢱᕞ࡟ᅾఫࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࢺ࣮
࣐ࢫ࣭ࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬ㸦Thomas Jones㸧∾ᖌࡣࠊᙼࡢᩍ఍༊࡟࠾࠸࡚⮬㌟ࡢᏊ౪࡜௚ࡢᏊ౪
ࢆᏛᰯ࡟㏻ࢃࡏࡎᩍ⫱ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓࠋ࢔ࣝࣂ࣮ࢱᕞࡢᏛᰯᩍ⫱ἲ (34) ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢡ࣮ࣝࢆㄆ
ࡵ࡚࠸ࡓࡀࠊࡑࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࡣᩍ⫱┬࠿ࡽࡢチྍࡀᚲせࡔࡗࡓࠋࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬ∾ᖌࡣࠊࠕ⚄ࡢពᚿ㸦God̓s will㸧ࠖ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ᙼࡢᏊ౪ࢆᩍ⫱ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢチྍࢆୡ಑ࡢᶒጾ࡟ồࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ᐀ᩍⓗಙᛕ࡟཯ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࡇࢀࢆᣄ⤯ࡋࡓࠋᙼࡣࠊ⮬ศࡢᏊ౪ࡢᩍ⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢุ᩿ࢆỴᐃࡍࡿ㝿࡟ࠊ⚄࡟ࡢࡳチࡋࢆᚓࢀࡤࡼ࠸࡜ಙࡌ࡚࠸ࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ
᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊ࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢡ࣮ࣝࢆ⾜࠺ࡓࡵ࡟ᩍ⫱┬࠿ࡽチྍࢆᚓࡿࡇ࡜ࡣࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬࡢಙ
ᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆไ㝈ࡏࡎࠊࡋࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶྲྀࡿ࡟㊊ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊୡ಑ⓗᨻᗓࡀᏛᰯ
࡟㛵ࡍࡿᶒጾ㸦authorities㸧ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࢆไᐃἲ࡟ᇶ࡙࠸࡚ㄆࡵࡿࡢࡣࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬࡢಙ
௮࡟ᙳ㡪ࡍࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠕಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆไ⣙ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ุ♧ࡋࡓࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊᐙᗞෆ࡛᐀ᩍᩍ⫱ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢡ࣮ࣝࡶㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬࡢ᭷ࡍࡿぶ࡜ࡋ࡚Ꮚ౪ࢆᩍ⫱ࡍࡿ⮬⏤ࡣไ⣙ࡉࢀ࡚࠸࡞࠸Ⅼࢆ㔜どࡋࡓࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋࡋ࠿

– 20 –

ࡋࠊࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬࡢ୺ᙇࡣࠊᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡍࡿᨻᗓࡢᶒጾ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ␗㆟࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬ
ࡣࠊᙼࡢᏊ౪ࢆ࣮࣒࣍ࢫࢡ࣮ࣝ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᩍ⫱ࡍࡿᶒ฼ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᨻ
ᗓࡢ┘╩࠿ࡽ⮬⏤࡛࠶ࡿᶒ฼ࢆᣢࡗ࡚࠸࡞࠸ࠋᙼࡢぢゎ࡛ࡣࠊ㠀᐀ᩍⓗ࡞࠸ࡋୡ಑ⓗ࡞ᅜᐙࡀᩍ⫱࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᶒጾࢆࡶࡘࡇ࡜ࡀࠊಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆ౵ᐖࡍࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࡢ୺ᙇ࠿ࡽࡣࠊ
ἲࡀ⌮ㄽୖ⣧⢋࡟ୡ಑ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ୙ྍ⬟ᛶ࡜ࠊἲࡣ࠾ࡑࡽࡃࠕ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞࠸ࡋୡ಑ⓗ౯್ࡢ཮᪉࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡿ (35)ࠋ
ࡇࡢࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬุỴࡢ஦᱌ࡀ♧၀ࡍࡿࡶࡢࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ࣒࣮ࣥࡢ୺ᙇࢆᚭᗏࡍࢀࡤࠊ᐀
ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡑࢀ⮬యࢆ୙ྍ⬟࡜ࡋ࡚ᨺᲠࡍࡿ࡜࠸࠺࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡶ࠶ࡾ࠼ࡿࡀࠊSL ุỴࡢࢹࢩࣕࣥἲᘐពぢࡣࠊࠕ⌧ᐇⓗ࡛㠀⤯ᑐⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࠖࢆ᥇⏝ࡋࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢุ౛ἲ⌮➼࠿ࡽࠊᅜᐙࡢ୰❧ᛶࡣࠊᅜᐙࡀ≉ᐃࡢ᐀ᩍⓗಙᛕࢆඃ㐝ࡋࡓࡾࠊጉᐖࡋࡓࡾࡋ࡚࠸࡞࠸
ሙྜཬࡧࠊ➇ྜࡍࡿಶேࡢ᠇ἲୖࡢᶒ฼࡟㓄៖ࡋ࡞ࡀࡽ↓᐀ᩍࡶྵࢇࡔࠕ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ᐀ᩍⓗែᗘ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᩗពࢆ♧ࡍሙྜࠖ࡟ಖ㞀ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜఩⨨௜ࡅࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ஦౛࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊSL ุỴ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓ୰❧ᛶ⌮ゎࡣࠊ2015 ᖺࡢࢧࢢࢿุỴ㸦Mouvementlaïque québécois v. Saguenay㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫝ㄆࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ (36)ࠋ⚾ぢ࡟ࡼࡿ࡜ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞
୰❧ᛶ⌮ゎࡣࠊษࢀ࿡㗦ࡃᅜᐙ࡜᐀ᩍࡢ㛵ࢃࡾྜ࠸ࢆศ᩿ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࠕἲ࡟࠾
࠸࡚⤯ᑐⓗ࡞ࡶࡢࡢᒃሙᡤࡀ࡯࡜ࢇ࡝࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࢀࡤⰋࡁ⌮ゎ࡛࠶ࡾ (37)ࠊ࠿ࡘࠊ
ᰂ㌾࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ホ౯࡛ࡁࡿࠋ

3 − 3 − 2．認知的不協和に曝す国家の義務SL ุỴࡣࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓከᩥ໬♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࡀ᪥ᖖࡢ⏕άࡢ୍㒊࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺⌮ゎࢆ㋃くࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡀࠊ࣋ࣥࢪ࣑࣭ࣕࣥࣂ࣮࣮࢞㸦Benjamin L.

Berger㸧ࡣࠊࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁࡣࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴࡼࡾࡶ㋃ࡳ㎸ࢇࡔㄝ♧ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜
⌮ゎࡍࡿࠋࣂ࣮࣮࢞࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁࡣࠕ࢝ࢼࢲ♫఍ࡢከᩥ໬ⓗ⌧ᐇࠖࡀࠊᨻᗓ
࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆࠊᙼࡽ⮬㌟ࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃᵝࠎ࡞᐀ᩍⓗ࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ⌧ᐇ࡟᭚ࡍࠕ⩏ົࠖࢆㄢࡍࡇ࡜ࢆ♧၀ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (38)ࠋࡇࡢ⌮ゎ࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊከᩥ໬♫఍ࡢ࠾ࡅࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀつ⠊ⓗ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋ
ࣇ࢓࢖ࢧ࣭ࣝࣂ࣮ࣂ࣮㸦Faisal Bhabha㸧ࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊSL ุỴࡣಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆ᰿ᣐ࡟ ERCP̿ከᵝ࡞౯್ほ㸭ㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜̿࠿ࡽࡢච㝖ࢆồࡵࡿࡇ࡜ࢆࠊ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡢẁ㝵㸦ไ⣙ࡢṇᙜ໬ẁ㝵㸧࡟⮳ࡿ௨๓ࡢࠊ᠇❶ 2 ᮲ a 㡯ࡢಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢಖㆤ⠊ᅖཬࡧไ⣙ࡢ᭷↓ࡢẁ㝵㸦ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤⮬యࡢᑕ⛬ࡢ☜ᐃẁ㝵㸧ุ࡛᩿ࢆỴࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢࠕᴫᛕୖࡢไ⣙ࠖࢆᵓᡂࡍࡿࡓࡵࠊࡑࡢ⫯ᐃ࡟ࡣៅ㔜࡟࡞ࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ (39)ࠋ
ࡇࡢⅬࠊࣂ࣮࣮࢞ࡣࠊᩍ⫱ࢆࠕᡃࠎࡢୡ⏺࡟Ꮚ౪ࡓࡕࢆᘬࡁ㎸ࡴ⿦⨨ࠖ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࣁࣥࢼ࣭࢔࣮
ࣞࣥࢺ㸦Hannah Arendt㸧ࡢ㆟ㄽࢆཧ↷ࡋ (40)ࠊ࠶ࡽࡺࡿᩍ⫱࡟౯್ࢆὀධࡍࡿഃ㠃ࡀ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆྰᐃ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ࡋࡘࡘࡶࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡢ⏝࠸ࡿࠕᩍ࠼㎸ࡳ㸦indoctrination㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ᴫᛕ࡟╔┠ࡋࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡟᭚ࡍࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⫱࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࢆṇᙜ– 21 –

໬ࡍࡿࠋࣂ࣮࣮࢞࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊ㜼Ṇࡉࢀࡿ࡭ࡁᩍ࠼㎸ࡳࡣࠊࠕᑐ㇟࡟ࡘ࠸࡚⇍៖ࡉࢀࡓ㑅ᢥ⫥࡜࢜ࣝࢱࢼࢸ࢕ࣈࢆᢚᅽࡋไ㝈ࡍࡿពᅗࡀ࠶ࡿࠖᩍ⫱࡛࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲᨻ
ᗓࡀ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿᩍ⫱ࡣࠊᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࡢࠕᆅᖹࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿ㸦horizon-limiting㸧ࠖ̿Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓ
ࡕࡢୡ⏺ࢆ㛢ࡊࡍ̿ࡼ࠺࡞ࣉࣟࢪ࢙ࢡࢺ࡛ࡣ࡞ࡃࠊ
ࠕ⌧ᅾࠊᩘᏛࡸ⛉Ꮫࡢᇶᮏⓗ࡞▱㆑࡟༉ᩛࡍࡿ㔜せ࡞ᕷẸࡢࢫ࢟ࣝࠖ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠕ␗ᩥ໬ࡢ▱㆑ࠊᐶᐜࡢ⩦័ࠊᕪ␗࡟ᩗពࢆ
ᡶࡗࡓ┦஫஺ὶࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓ௚⪅࡜ඹ⏕ࡍࡿࢫ࢟ࣝࢆⓎ㐩ࡉࡏࡿࡇ࡜ࡔ࡜ࡍࡿ (41)ࠋࡲࡓࠊࢪࣙ
ࢫ࣭࣐ࣜࣥࢡ࣮ࣝ㸦Jocelyn Maclure㸧࡜ࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢬ࣭ࢸ࢖࣮ࣛ㸦Charles Taylor㸧ࡶࠊࠕᡃࠎࡀ୍⯡ⓗ࡞࢔࢖ࢹࣥࢸ࢕ࢸ࢕࡟㛵㐃ࡋࡓᕪ␗ࡢ⠊ᅖࢆ▱ࡿࡓࡵ࡟Ꮫࡪࡇ࡜ࡀࠊከᵝ࡞♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿᖹ࿴ⓗ࡞ඹ⏕࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲせ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࠖࢆᙉㄪࡍࡿ (42)ࠋ
ࡉࡽ࡟ࠊᅜᐙࡀᕷẸࡢᙧᡂࢆᢸ࠺ࡇ࡜ࢆṇᙜ໬࡛ࡁࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡶၥ㢟࡜࡞ࢁ࠺ࠋ

ERCP ࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ⫱࣒࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛࡣࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࡞ぶࡸඹྠయ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊ⮬ศࡓࡕࡀᐙࡸඹ
ྠయෆ࡛ᩍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿ᐀ᩍ⌮ゎ࡜ࡣ␗࡞ࡿᐈほⓗ࡞᐀ᩍ⌮ゎࢆᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ࡟ᩍ࠼ࡿࡶࡢ࡛
࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊྠࡌࡃ࣐ࢡ࣮ࣝ࡜ࢸ࢖࣮ࣛࡀᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊࡇࡢ✀ࡢᩍ⫱ࡣࠊぶࡀ⮬㌟ࡢ
ಙᛕࢆᏊ࡝ࡶ࡟ఏ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࢆᅔ㞴࡟ࡋࠊᑡᩘὴ㞟ᅋࡀ♫఍࠿ࡽࡢᙳ㡪࠿ࡽ⮬㌟ࢆᏲࢁ࠺࡜ᮃࡴࡇ࡜ࡣ୍ᒙᅔ㞴࡟࡞ࡿ (43)ࠋᑡᩘὴඹྠయ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࠊᖺᑡࡢᵓᡂဨࡢᩍ⫱ࡣඹྠయࡢ⏕ࡁṧࡾࡢࡓࡵ࡟Ṛάၥ㢟࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋ☜࠿࡟ࠊᅜᐙࡀᩍ⫱ࡢ඲⯡ⓗ≧ἣࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿ⪃៖ࢆ⊂༨ࡋࠊ
ࠕᏊ࡝ࡶࡢᙧᡂ࡟࠾࠸࡚ඹྠయࠊᐙ᪘ࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ౯್ࢆ⥾ࡵฟࡍࡇ࡜ࡣࠊហ࠿
࡛ᢚᅽⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ(44)ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊ࢝ࢼࢲᨻᗓࡣࠊᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿ㈐௵࡜ᙺ๭ࢆࠊᅜᐙ࡜ぶࠊඹྠయ➼࡜࡛ศᢸࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ๓ᥦ࡜ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢୖ࡛ሙྜ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᅜᐙࡢᙺ๭ࡀඃ
㉺ࡍࡿ࡜఩⨨௜ࡅ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴࡢ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥἲᘐពぢࡣࠊぶࡀᏊ౪ࡢᩍ
⫱࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ᙉ࠸฼┈ࢆᣢࡘࡇ࡜ࠊᩍ⫱࡟ぶࡀཧຍࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡢ㔜せᛶࢆㄆࡵࡘࡘࡶࠊࠕぶࡢぢゎࡣ㔜せ࠿ࡶࡋࢀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕ෆࡢከᵝᛶࢆ཯ᫎࡋࠊᕪ␗࡟ᑐࡍࡿᐶᐜ࡜⌮ゎࢆᩍ࠼ࡿࣈࣜࢸ࢕ࢵࢩ࣭ࣗࢥࣟࣥࣅ࢔ᕞࡢබ❧Ꮫᰯࡢ⤯ᑐᚲ㡲ࡢᆅ఩࡟຾ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛
ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ุ♧ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ (45)ࠋࣂ࣮࣮࢞ࡣࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᐙ᪘ࡸඹྠయࡢ
ୡ⏺࡜༊ูࡉࢀࡿᡃࠎࡢඹ㏻ୡ⏺ࡀࠊࠕ┿ᐇࡸ᐀ᩍⓗከᵝᛶࠊᛶⓗከᵝᛶࠊ㇏࠿࡞ᩥ໬
ⓗᕪ␗࡟㛵ࡋ࡚┦தࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ୺ᙇࡢ୍ࡘ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ࡁࠖࠊࠕᅜᐙࡣࠊඹྠయ࡞࠸ࡋᐙ᪘࡜
୍⯡♫఍ࡢ㛫ࡢ⛣⾜࡟Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆഛ࠼ࡉࡏࡿ㈐௵ࢆ᭷ࡍࡿࠖ࡜࠸࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊࠕᡃࠎࡢୡ
⏺࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡢ㔜せ࡞ᨻ἞ⓗ஦ᐇ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ῝࠸ከඖ୺⩏㸦deep pluralism㸧(46) ࡜ୡ಑୺⩏ࡀ⤡ࡳྜࡗ࡚࠸ࡿሙྜࠊᕷẸᙧᡂ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙࡢ୰ᚰⓗ࡞ᙺ๭ࡣࠊ㑏ඖ୙⬟࡞බⓗᶵ⬟㸦irreducible public function㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬ࡍࡿ (47)ࠋ
ከᵝ࡞౯್ほࡀ」㞧࡟஺㘒ࡋ➇ྜࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠕᡃࠎࡢୡ⏺࡛ࠖࡢඹ⏕ࢆ㔜せ࡞ㄢ㢟࡜ࡋࠊඹ⏕ࡢసἲࢆ㌟࡟╔ࡅࡿࡓࡵࡢ᭷ຠ࡞ᡭẁ࡛࠶ࡿᩍ⫱࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊඹྠయࡸᐙ᪘࡟ࡣᢸ࠺
ࡇ࡜ࡢ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ᅜᐙࡢᙺ๭ࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࣂ࣮࣮࢞ࡢᣦ᦬ࡣṇᙜ࡞ࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࢁ࠺ࠋࡲࡓࠊ
ࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᅜᐙࡢᙺ๭ࡢඃ㉺ࡣࠊࠕᕪ␗࡟ᑐࡍࡿᐶᐜ࡜⌮ゎࢆᩍ࠼ࡿࠖ࡜
࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟࠾࠸࡚ㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡑࡢᙺ๭ࡢᣑ኱ࢆ↓ไ㝈࡟ㄆࡵࡿࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸࡜

– 22 –

ゎࡉࢀࡿࠋࡑ࠺࡛࠶ࢀࡤࠊᑡᩘὴඹྠయࡶࡲࡓࠊ࿘ᅖࡢ⎔ቃ࠿ࡽ⊂❧ࡋ࡚Ꮡᅾࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ
ࢃࡅ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸௨ୖ̿࠶ࡿᩥ໬ࡣ௚ࡢᩥ໬࠿ࡽᏙ❧ࡋ࡚Ⓨᒎࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿࠕᩥ໬⣧⢋୺⩏
㸦cultural purity㸧ࠖࡸ࠶ࡿᩥ໬ࡣ୙ኚⓗ࠿ࡘ㟼ែⓗࠊࡑࡋ࡚ἐ஺΅ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᤊ࠼ࡿࡼ࠺
࡞㸦ᩥ໬㸧
ࠕᮏ㉁୺⩏㸦essentialism㸧ࠖࡣከᩥ໬ඹ⏕࣭␗ᩥ໬⌮ゎ࡟࠾࠸࡚⑓⌮ࡢ୍✀࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀࡼ࠺ (48)̿ࠊᙼࡽࡀࠕඹ⏕ࡢࡓࡵࡢไ⣙ࠖࢆ୍ᐃ⛬ᗘ⿕ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣṇᙜ໬ྍ⬟࡜࠸࠼ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠋ

4. 結語
ᮏ✏ࡢ┠ⓗࡣࠊձ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢព࿡࡜ࠊղከᩥ໬♫఍࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡢᅾࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊࡑࡢ୍➃ࢆ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡢุ౛ศᯒ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡍࡿ
ࡇ࡜࡛࠶ࡗࡓࠋ
ࡲࡎࠊձ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢព࿡࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᙜ↛ᩍ⫱ࡢ㡿ᇦ࡟㝈ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛♧ࡉࢀࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠕୡ಑୺⩏ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥ࡛࠶ࡗࡓ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶࠊࡑࡢ
ព࿡ࡣࠊከᵝ࡞౯್ほ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠕᖹ➼࡞ᢎㄆ࡜ᑛ㔜ࠖࢆࡶࡗ࡚ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡴࡇ࡜ࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣࠕᐶ
ᐜࡢ౯್ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚⌮ゎࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡋ࡚ࡇࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊSL ุỴ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࠕ⌧ᐇⓗ࡛㠀⤯ᑐⓗ࡞࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᐃᘧ໬ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡇࡢ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳࡣࠊࢪࣝࣂ࣮ࣂ࣮ࢢุỴࡸ࢝ࢼࢲ⮬⏤ேᶒ᧦ㆤ༠఍ุỴࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ศᯒࡋࡓࡼ࠺࡟ࠊከᩘὴ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊࡑࡢ௚ࡢேࠎ
࡟ከᩘὴࡢᩥ໬ⓗつ⠊ࡸᇶ‽ࢆㄢࡑ࠺࡜ࡋࡓࡾࠊṇᙜ࡞⌮⏤࡞ࡃබⓗ⏕άࡢ࠶ࡽࡺࡿሙ
㠃࡟࠾࠸࡚ྠㄪࢆせồࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆチࡉ࡞࠸୍᪉࡛ࠊබⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨻ⟇Ỵᐃ㐣⛬ࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡶ᐀ᩍⓗ⪃៖ࡀධࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊࡇࢀࢆㄆࡵࡓࢳ࢙
ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴࡢᑕ⛬࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣ᭦࡞ࡿྫྷ࿡ࡀᚲせࡔࢁ࠺ (49)ࠋ࡜ࡣ࠸࠼ࠊ᪥ᮏࡢ᠇ἲᏛ࡟
࠾࠸࡚ࡶࠊ㏆᫬ࠊබⓗ㡿ᇦࡢໟᣓⓗ㠀᐀ᩍ໬㸦᐀ᩍࡢ⚾஦໬㸧࡟ᑐᢠࡍࡿ㆟ㄽࡀ୺ᙇࡉࢀ
࡚ࡁ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡇࢁ࡛࠶ࡾ (50)ࠊ࢝ࢼࢲࡢ㆟ㄽࡣࠊබⓗ㡿ᇦ࡛࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟᐀ᩍࢆᢅ࠺࠿ࠊ࡜
࠸࠺Ⅼ࡟ࡶ♧၀ⓗ࡛࠶ࡿࠋḟ࡟ࠊղከᩥ໬♫఍࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱ࡢᅾࡾ᪉࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㸦බ㸧ᩍ⫱ࡢ୰࡛ࠊከᵝ࡞౯್ほ࡟᭚ࡉࢀࡿࡇ࡜ࠊࡑࡋ࡚ࠊㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࢆ⤒㦂ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀࠊከᩥ໬♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪥ᖖ࡛࠶ࡾࠊࡇࢀࡽࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ᐶᐜࡢ౯್ࡢᏛ⩦ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡉࡽ࡟ࠊSL ุỴ࡛ࡣࠊ⮬ࡽࢆྲྀࡾᕳࡃከᵝ࡞᐀ᩍⓗ࣭ᩥ໬ⓗ⌧ᐇ࡟Ꮚ࡝ࡶࡓࡕࢆ᭚ࡍࡇ࡜ࡀᨻᗓࡢ⩏ົ࡜࡞ࡿሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ♧၀ࡉࢀࡓࠋࡑࡋ
࡚ࠊࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞せồࡀࠊࠕከᵝ࡞♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿᖹ࿴ⓗ࡞ඹ⏕ࠖࡢࡓࡵ࡟ࠊ
ࠕ␗ᩥ໬ࡢ▱㆑ࠊᐶᐜࡢ⩦័ࠊᕪ␗࡟ᩗពࢆᡶࡗࡓ┦஫஺ὶࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓࢫ࢟ࣝࢆᏊ࡝ࡶࡓࡕ࡟㌟࡟௜ࡅࡉࡏࠊ
ᙼࡽࡢࠕᆅᖹࢆᣅࡃࠖᩍ⫱࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺ほⅬ࠿ࡽ⫯ᐃ࡛ࡁࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ♧ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᩍ
⫱ࡀࠊከᩥ໬♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿᩍ⫱ࣔࢹࣝ࡜ࡋ࡚┿࡟᭷ຠ࡞ࡢ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠊᑓᨷࡢ␗࡞ࡿ➹– 23 –

⪅࡟ࡣุ᩿ฟ᮶࡞࠸ࡀࠊከᵝ࡟␗࡞ࡿ౯್ほࢆ᭷ࡍࡿ௚⪅࡜┿࡟ඹ⏕ࡋ࡚ࡃࡓࡵ࡟ࡣࠊ
௚⪅࡜ࡢ஺ὶࢆ᤼ࡋࡓ౯್ୡ⏺࡟⮬㛢ࡋࠊ┦஫୙ᖸ΅ࡢࡶ࡜࡟༢࡟୪Ꮡࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ┠ᣦࡍࡼࡾࡶࠊ␗࡞ࡿ౯್ほ࡟᭚ࡉࢀࠊ⮬㌟ࡢ౯್ほࢆ⮬┬ࡋࡘࡘඹ⏕ࡢࡓࡵࡢసἲࢆᏛࡪᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿ࡜ࡍࡿᣦ᦬࡟ࡣㄝᚓຊࡀ࠶ࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ
ࡲࡓࠊᮏ✏࡛᫂ࡽ࠿࡜ࡋࡓෆᐜࡣࠊࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ㄽⅬࢆෆໟࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋ
࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡢุ౛ࡣࠊබⓗ࡞㡿ᇦ࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨻ⟇Ỵᐃ㐣⛬ࡔ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ᐀ᩍⰍࢆྲྀࡾ㝖ࡃ࡜࠸࠺ࡼࡾࡶ̿᐀ᩍⰍࡀ୙බᖹ࡞ᙧ࡛Ꮡᅾࡍࡿሙྜ࡟ࡣྲྀࡾ㝖࠿ࢀࡿࡅࢀ࡝ࡶ̿ࠊࡉࡽ
࡟᐀ᩍⓗ⪃៖ࡀධࡾ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡣࠊබⓗ✵㛫࡜⚾ⓗ✵㛫ࢆ༊ูࡋࠊබ
ⓗ✵㛫࡟ࡣ᐀ᩍࢆྵࡵಶேⓗ࡞౯್ほࢆ௓ධࡉࡏ࡞࠸ࠕබඹⓗ⌮ᛶ㸦public reason㸧ࠖࢆồࡵࡿ୍⯡ⓗ࡞ࣜ࣋ࣛࣜࢬ࣒ࡢ⪃࠼᪉࡜▩┪ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࡶぢ࠼ࡿࠋࣜ࣋ࣛࣜࢬ࣒ࢆ❧᠇୺⩏ࡢᩥ໬࡜ࡋ࡚ෆ㠃໬ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࡜ࡉࢀࡘࡘࡶ (51)ࠊከᩥ໬୺⩏ࢆᥖࡆࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ࣭ᩥ໬ⓗከᵝᛶࡢၥ㢟࡟ඛ㥑ⓗ࡞ྲྀࡾ⤌ࡳࢆ⥆ࡅ࡚ࡁࡓࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ཬࡧ࢝ࢼࢲ᠇ἲࡀ♧ࡍࠊබⓗ✵㛫࡜⚾ⓗ✵㛫ࡢ㛵ಀᛶࡣࠊ࣐ࢡࣛࢡࣜࣥ⿢ุᐁࡀ♧ࡋࡓࠕ᐀ᩍࡣேࠎࡢ⏕άࡢ୙ྍḞࡢഃ㠃࡛࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࠊ఍㆟ᐊࡢࢻ࢔ࡢ๓࡟⨨࠸࡚ࡃࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁ࡞࠸ࠖ࡜ࡢᣦ᦬ࡀ୍㠃࡛┿ᐇ࡛࠶ࡿࡇ࡜࠿ࡽࠊ┿๢࡟⪃៖ࡍ࡭ࡁᅾࡾ᪉ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࡇࡢࡇ࡜ࢆᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚ᮏ
✏ࢆ⤊࠼ࡿࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋ

注(1) ᮏ✏࡛ࡣࠊṔྐⓗ࡞⫼ᬒ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣᢅࢃ࡞࠸ࠋࡇࡢⅬ࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊຍ⸨ᬑ❶ࠕ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟⊂⮬࡞ᨻᩍศ㞳ࡢヨࡳ̿᠇ἲ࡜ᩍ⫱ไᗘࠖ࿴⏣Ᏺ⦅ࠗ᪥⡿࡟࠾ࡅࡿᨻᩍศ㞳࡜ࠕⰋᚰࡢ⮬⏤࣑ࠖ࠘ࢿࣦࣝ࢓᭩ᡣࠊ2014 ᖺࠊᐩ஭ᖾ㞝ࠕ࢝ࢼࢲ᠇ἲ࡜ୡ಑୺⩏̿᐀ᩍࠊᩍ
⫱ࠊᅜᐙ㸦୍㸧㸦஧࣭᏶㸧ࠖ
ࠗἲᏛ఍㞧ㄅ࠘49 ᕳ 1 ྕࠊ2008 ᖺࠊ201 㡫௨ୗࠊྠ 50 ᕳ 1 ྕࠊ
2009 ᖺࠊ123 㡫௨ୗ➼ࢆཧ↷ࠋ(2) Benjamin L. Berger,͆Religious Diversity, Education, and the͂Crisis̓in State
Neutrality,͇Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 29, 1 (2014), 103. ࡓ ࡜ ࠼ ࡤࠊࢩ࣮ࢡᩍᚐࡢᑡᖺࡀ᐀ᩍⓗ⿦㣭≀࡛࠶ࡿ࣮࢝ࣃࣥ㸦kirpan㸧̿㔠ᒓ〇ࡢࢲ࣮࢞ࡢࡼ
࠺࡞ࡶࡢ̿ࢆබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡟ᣢࡕ㎸ࡴࡇ࡜ࡢ᫝㠀ࡀၥࢃࢀࡓ࣒ࣝࢱࢽุỴࡣ㠀ᖖ࡟ከࡃࡢ㛵ᚰࢆ㞟ࡵࡓࠋMultani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, [2006]
1 Supreme Court Report㸦௨ୗࠊSCR㸧256. ࡲࡓࠊࡼࡾ኱ࡁ࡞ほⅬ࠿ࡽࡳࡿ࡜ࠊࣜ
࣋ࣛࣝ࡞❧᠇୺⩏࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ࡶ㸦බ㸧ᩍ⫱࡟࠾ࡅࡿከᵝ࡞౯್ほࡢᢅ࠸᪉ࡣ㞴ၥ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ㜰ཱྀṇ஧㑻ࠕࣜ࣋ࣛࣝ࡞❧᠇୺⩏࡟࠾ࡅࡿබᩍ⫱࡜ከᵝᛶࡢᑛ㔜୍ࠖࠗᶫἲᏛ࠘2ᕳ 2 ྕࠊ2003 ᖺࠊ447 㡫௨ୗࠊࡲࡓࠊ㏆᫬ࡢᴗ⦼࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᲷஂᩗࠕࢻ࢖ࢶ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ
බᩍ⫱ࡢ୰❧ᛶ̿ᅜᐙࡢᩍ⫱ጤク࡜බᩍ⫱ࡢ୰❧ᛶ୍ࠖࠗᶫἲᏛ࠘10 ᕳ 1 ྕࠊ2011 ᖺࠊ
361 㡫௨ୗ➼ཧ↷ࠋ(3) Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act 1982.
(4) Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay, [2015] 2 SCR 3 para.1. See also Sujit
Choudhry,͆Rights Adjudication in a Plurinational State: the Supreme court of
Canada, Freedom of Religion, and the Politics of Reasonable Accommodation,͇
(2013) 50, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 50 (2013) , 575.

– 24 –

(5) ྈ㔝㞞ேࠕᅜᐙࡢ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶ࡜ከᵝᛶࠖྠࠗ᠇ἲࡢᇶᮏཎ⌮࠿ࡽ⪃࠼ࡿ࠘᪥ᮏホㄽ♫ࠊ2006 ᖺࠊ228 㡫➼ࠋ(6) Chamberlain v. School District No.36, [2002] 4 SCR 710. ௨ୗᮏ❶୰࡛ࡢᘬ⏝㡫ࡣᣓᘼෆ࡟グࡍࠋ
(7) ⿵ຓᩍᮦ࡜ࡋ࡚ㄆྍࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓࡢࡣࠊRosamund Elwin, Michele Paulse, andDawn Lee, Asha’s Mums (Toronto: Women's Press, 1990); Leslea Newman &Michael Willhoite, Belinda’s Bouquet (New York: Alyson Books, 1991); Johnny
Valentine & Melody Sarecky, One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads, (NewYork: Alyson Pubns, 1994) ࡢ 3 ෉ࡢ⤮ᮏ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(8) Chamberlain v. School District No.36, [1998] 168 Dominion Law Reports㸦௨ୗࠊ
DLR㸧(4th) 222, para.93.
(9) School Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia 1996, c.412.
(10) ⿵ຓᩍᮦࡣࠊࡍ࡭࡚ࡢᤵᴗ࡛ᚲࡎ౑ࢃ࡞ࡅࢀࡤ࡞ࡽ࡞࠸ࡶࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࠋᩍ⫱ጤဨ఍࡟ࡼࡗ࡚㑅ᢥࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢࡢ୰࠿ࡽࠊᩍᖌࡀ౑⏝ࡍࡿࡶࡢࢆ㑅ᢥࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ
(11) ᮏ௳ࡣ 7 ᑐ 2 ࡢุỴ࡜࡞ࡾࠊࣝ࢖࣭ࣝ࣋ࣝ㸦Louis LeBel㸧⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࡿ⤖ㄽྠពពぢ࡜ࢳ࣮ࣕࣝࢬ࣭ࢦࣥࢸ࢕࢚㸦Charles Doherty Gonthier㸧⿢ุᐁ࡜࣑ࢩ࢙࣭ࣝࣂࢫ
ࢱࣟࢩࣗ㸦Michel Bastarache㸧⿢ุᐁ࡟ࡼࡿ཯ᑐពぢࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(12) ⾜ᨻ⿢㔞ᑂᰝ࡟⏝࠸ࡿ࢔ࣉ࣮ࣟࢳ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࠊṇ☜ᛶࡢᇶ‽㸦correctness㸧ࠊ᫂ⓑ࡞୙ྜ⌮ᛶࡢᇶ‽㸦patent unreasonableness㸧ࠊྜ⌮ᛶࡢᇶ‽ࡢ㸱ࡘࡀ࠶ࡿࠋࡇࢀࡽࡣࠊ
⾜ᨻ࡟ࡼࡿỴᐃ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⿢ุᡤࡀ♧ࡍ࡭ࡁᩗㆡࡢᗘྜ࠸࡟ࡼࡗ࡚༊ูࡉࢀࠊṇ☜ᛶࡢᇶ‽ࡣ᭱ࡶᩗㆡࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀపࡃ㸦⿢㔞⾜౑࡟၏୍ࡢṇゎࡀ࠶ࡾࠊุ᩿௦⨨ᆺࡢᑂᰝࡀ⾜ࢃࢀࡿ㸧ࠊ᫂ⓑ࡞୙ྜ⌮ᛶࡢᇶ‽ࡣ᭱ࡶᩗㆡࡢᗘྜ࠸ࡀᙉ࠸ࠋྜ⌮ᛶࡢᇶ‽ࡣࡑࡢ୰㛫࡛࠶ࡿࠋ࡞࠾ࠊ࡝ࡢᑂᰝᇶ‽ࡀ㐺ษ࠿ࡣࠊձ㸦ྖἲᑂᰝ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ㸧ไ㝈᮲㡯
㸦privative clause㸧ࢆ❧ἲࡀྵࡴ࠿ࠊղᑓ㛛ᛶࠊճ≉ᐃࡢ᮲ᩥ࡞࠸ࡋไᐃἲ඲యࡢ┠ⓗࠊմၥ㢟ࡢᛶ㉁ࠊ࡜࠸ࡗࡓほⅬࢆ⥲ྜࡋุ࡚᩿ࡍࡿ࡜ㄝ᫂ࡉࢀࡿ㸦paras.4-16㸧ࠋ(13) ㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴࡜ࡣࠊ⮬ᕫࡢ୰࡛▩┪ࡍࡿ᝟ሗ࡟᥋ࡋ୙ᛌឤࢆぬ࠼ࡿ≧ែࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࠋ
ࡶ࡜ࡶ࡜ࠊㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࡣࠊࡇࡢ≧ែࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿᚰ⌮ⓗാࡁࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴⌮ㄽ࡜ࡋ࡚♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫ⪅ࡢ࣭ࣞ࢜ࣥࣇ࢙ࢫࢸ࢕࣮ࣥ࢞㸦Leon Festinger㸧࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ᥦၐࡉࢀࡓࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫ⪅ࡢᑠᆏ஭ᩄ᫂ࡢㄝ᫂࡟ࡼࢀࡤࠊࡇࡢ⌮ㄽ࠿ࡽࠊࠕ௚ேࡢពぢ࡟ὶࡉࢀࡎࠊ⮬ศࡢ㢌࡛⪃࠼ุ࡚᩿࣭⾜ືࡋࠊ⮬ࡽࡢ⾜Ⅽ࡟㈐௵ࢆᣢࡘࠖ
㏆௦♫఍ࡀ⌮᝿࡜ࡍࡿࠕ⮬ᚊⓗே㛫ീࠖࡣࠊࠕᚰ⌮ᶵᵓࡢཎ⌮࠿ࡽࡋ࡚ࠊࡑࢇ࡞ே㛫ࡣᐇ㝿࡟ࡣ࠶ࡾ࠼࡞࠸ࠖࡇ࡜ࡀ♧ࡉࢀࠊಶே୺⩏ⓗഴྥࢆᣢࡘே≀ࡇࡑࠊࠕᙉไࡉࢀࡓ
⾜Ⅽࢆ⮬ᕫṇᙜ໬ࡋࡸࡍ࠸ࠊࡋࡓࡀࡗ࡚ㄆ▱୙༠࿴ࢆ⦆࿴ࡍࡿࡓࡵ࡟ពぢࢆኚ࠼ࡿ࡜࠸࠺㏫ㄝⓗ࡞⤖ㄽࡀᑟ࠿ࢀࡿࠖ
ࠋࡇࡢၥ㢟ࡣࠊ⌧ᅾࡢ᠇ἲᏛࡢせ࡜ࡶ࠸࠼ࡿ㏆௦❧᠇୺⩏ཬࡧࡑࡢ๓ᥦࡓࡿಶேീࡸࠊᮏ✏ࡀᢅ࠺᐀ᩍⓗ࣭ᩥ໬ⓗከᵝᛶࡢၥ㢟࡟᰿ᮏ࠿ࡽᙳ㡪ࢆ୚࠼ࡿ㆟ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࡀࠊᮏ✏ࡢᑕ⛬ࢆ㐶࠿࡟㉸࠼ࡿ㆟ㄽ࡛࠶ࡿࡓࡵࠊู✏࡟࡚ᢅ࠺ࡇ࡜࡟ࡋࡓ࠸ࠋᑠᆏ஭ᩄ᫂ࠗ♫఍ᚰ⌮Ꮫㅮ⩏࠘⟃ᦶ᭩ᡣࠊ2013 ᖺࠊ161 㡫௨ୗࠋSee Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (California: Stanford
University Press, 1954). ྠ᭩ࡢ㑥ヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ࣭ࣞ࢜ࣥࣇ࢙ࢫࢸ࢕࣮ࣥ࢞ⴭࠊᮎỌಇ㑻┘ヂࠗㄆ▱ⓗ୙༠࿴ࡢ⌮ㄽ࠘ㄔಙ᭩ᡣࠊ1965 ᖺࠋ(14) Howard Kislowicz,͆ Freedom of Religion and Canada ̓s Commitments toMulticulturalism,͇National Journal of Constitutional Law, 31 (2010), 1, 18-19.
(15) ࡞࠾ࠊྜ⌮ⓗ㓄៖࡜ࡢ㛵ಀ࡛ࡣࠊఱࡽ࠿ࡢ㓄៖ࢆ⾜࠺ࡇ࡜ࡀ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢせㄳ࡜⾪✺ࡍࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺ᙧ࡛ၥ㢟໬ࡉࢀࡿࡀࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᙧ࡛ㄽࡌࡽࢀ

– 25 –

ࡿࡇ࡜ࡣᑡ࡞࠸ࠋཧ↷ࠊᒣᮏ೺ேࠕ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤࡜ྜ⌮ⓗ㓄៖ࡢἲ⌮̿ࡑࡢከᩥ໬୺⩏ⓗ᧦ㆤ࡟ྥࡅࡓ⥴ㄽࠖࠗἲᏛᨻ἞Ꮫㄽ✲࠘110 ྕࠊ2016 ᖺࠊ232 Ѹ 233 㡫ࠋ(16) Zylberberg v. Sudbury Board of Education, [1988] 52 DLR (4th) 577.
(17) ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡣࠊࠕࠕᶒ฼ཬࡧ⮬⏤࡟㛵ࡍࡿ࢝ࢼࢲ᠇❶ࠖࡣࠊἲ࡛ᐃࡵࡽࢀࠊ⮬⏤࡛Ẹ୺ⓗ࡞♫఍࡟࠾࠸࡚᫂☜࡟ṇᙜ໬ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡀ࡛ࡁࡿྜ⌮ⓗไ⣙࡟ࡢࡳ᭹ࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࢆ᮲௳
࡟ࠊࡇࡢ᠇❶࡛つᐃࡍࡿᶒ฼ཬࡧ⮬⏤ࢆಖ㞀ࡍࡿࠖ࡜つᐃࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚
ࡣࠊᶒ฼ࡢไ⣙ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡓᚋ࡟ࡑࡢṇᙜ໬ࢆᑂᰝࡍࡿ஧ẁ㝵ࡢᑂᰝ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(18) Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Ontario, [1990] 65 DLR (4th) 1.
(19) Richard Moon, Freedom of Conscience and Religion (Toronto: Irwin law Inc.,
2014), 32.
(20) ࡇࡢⅬ࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⊩ࡣᯛᣲ࡟ᬤࡀ࡞࠸ࡀࠊ࣮ࣚࣟࢵࣃ࡟࠾ࡅࡿ㆟ㄽ≧ἣࢆ⥲ᣓࡋࡼ࠺࡜ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࢡࣜࢫࢳ࣭ࣕࣥࣚࣉࢣⴭࠊఀ⸨㇏࡯࠿ヂࣦ࢙࣮ࠗࣝㄽத࠘ἲᨻ
኱Ꮫฟ∧఍ࠊ2015 ᖺࠋᏛ㝿ⓗ࡞◊✲ᡂᯝ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊෆ⸨ṇ඾ࠊ㜰ཱྀṇ஧㑻⦅ⴭࠗ⚄ࡢ
ἲ vs. ேࡢἲ࠘᪥ᮏホㄽ♫ࠊ2007 ᖺ➼ཧ↷ࠋ(21) ࢝ࢼࢲࡶከࡃࡢすὒ♫఍ࡀ┤㠃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ࢖ࢫ࣮࣒ࣛࡢࢫ࣮࢝ࣇၥ㢟࡟┤㠃ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ㏆ᖺ࡛ࡣࢽ࢝ࣈࡸࣈࣝ࢝࡜࠸ࡗࡓ඲㌟ཬࡧ㢦ࡢ኱㒊ศࢆそ࠺᭹⿦ࡢ╔⏝ࢆࡵࡄࡿၥ㢟ࡶᥦ㉳ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡶࡗ࡜ࡶࠊࡇࢀࡽࡢ᭹⿦࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࡣࠊ╔⏝ࢆồࡵࡿሙᡤࡸᩥ⬦࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࡣࠊᏳ඲ᛶࡢၥ㢟➼ࡶᥦ㉳ࡉࢀࠊಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡸᐶᐜ࡟␃ࡲࡽ
࡞࠸㆟ㄽࡀᚲせ࡜࡞ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࡢ㆟ㄽࡢ୍➃࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊᒣᮏ೺
ேࠕᕷẸᶒྲྀᚓ࡜ከᩥ໬ᅜᐙ࢝ࢼࢲ̿࢖ࢫࣁ࣮ࢡุỴࡢ఩⨨௜ࡅ࡜ࡑࡢ᠇ἲၥ㢟ࠖࠗἲᨻㄽྀ࠘53 ᕳ 1 ྕࠊ2017 ᖺࠊ135 㡫௨ୗࠊ࡜ࡾࢃࡅࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࡢ᭱᪂஦᝟ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊ୹⩚༟ࠕࢣ࣋ࢵࢡࡢࠕ㛤࠿ࢀࡓࣛ࢖ࢩࢸࠖ̿⮬⏤୺⩏࡜ඹ࿴୺⩏ࡢ⊃㛫࡛ࠖࠗ㔠ᇛᏛ㝔኱Ꮫ࢟ࣜࢫࢺᩍᩥ໬◊✲ᡤ⣖せ࠘21 ྕࠊ2017 ᖺࠊ45 㡫௨ୗࢆཧ↷ࠋ(22) ၥ㢟ࡢᅔ㞴ᛶࢆᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊΏ㎶ᗣ⾜ࠕ࢖ࢫ࣮࣒ࣛᩍᚐࡢᩍᖌࡢࢫ࣮࢝ࣇ஦
௳ࠖᮌୗᬛྐ⦅ⴭࠗ஦౛◊✲᠇ἲࠝ➨ 2 ∧ࠞ࠘᪥ᮏホㄽ♫ࠊ2013 ᖺࠊ326 㡫௨ୗཧ↷ࠋ(23) Moon, Freedom of Conscience and Religion, 122-124.
(24) ᩪ⸨୍ஂࡣࢻ࢖ࢶࡢ㆟ㄽࢆཧ↷ࡋࡘࡘࠊዪᛶᩍဨࡢࢫ࣮࢝ࣇࡢ╔⏝࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࠕ࠶ࡃࡲ
࡛࢖ࢫ࣮࣒ࣛࢆᤵᴗ᫬㛫୰࡟✚ᴟⓗ࡟ᨭᣢࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡞ゝືࡀලయⓗ࡟࠶ࡗࡓሙྜ࡟
ࡢࡳ⚗Ṇࡉࢀࡿ࡜⪃࠼ࡿవᆅࡶ࠶ࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞࠸ࡔࢁ࠺࠿ࠖ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡋ࡚࠾ࡾࠊᮏ✏ࡢどⅬࡣࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡞୺ᙇࢆ⿵ᙉࡍࡿࡇ࡜࡟࡞ࡿࠋᩪ⸨୍ஂࠕᨻᩍศ㞳ࠖࠗἲᏛᩍᐊ࠘416 ྕࠊ2016 ᖺࠊ40 㡫ࠋࡲࡓࠊᩪ⸨୍ஂࠕࢻ࢖ࢶ࡟࠾ࡅࡿከᩥ໬ᩍ⫱ࡢ୍᩿㠃̿࢖ࢫ࣒ࣛᩍ
ࢆࡵࡄࡿၥ㢟ࢆ୰ᚰ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠖ
ࠗ᪩✄⏣ἲᏛ఍ㄅ࠘52 ᕳࠊ2002 ᖺࠊ147 㡫௨ୗཧ↷ࠋ(25) S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, [2012] 1 SCR 235. ௨ୗᮏ❶୰࡛ࡢᘬ⏝㡫ࡣᣓᘼෆ࡟グࡍࠋ࡞࠾ᮏ௳ࢆ⤂௓ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊᰩ⏣ెὈࠕุᢈࠖ
ࠗἲᨻ⌮ㄽ࠘49 ᕳ
3࣭4 ྕࠊ2017 ᖺࠊ226 㡫௨ୗࠋ(26) ࡼࡾヲࡋࡃࡣࠊఀ㐩⪷ఙࠕ᐀ᩍࢆఏ㐩ࡍࡿᏛᰯ̿ࢣ࣋ࢵࢡࡢࣛ࢖ࢩࢸ࡜㐨ᚨ࣭೔⌮࣭ᩥ໬࣭ࢫࣆࣜࢳࣗ࢔ࣜࢸ࢕ࠖ
ࠗ᐀ᩍ◊✲࠘85 ᕳ 2 ྕࠊ2011 ᖺࠊ479 㡫௨ୗཧ↷ࠋ(27) 1867 ᖺ᠇ἲ 93 ᮲ࡣࠊᩍ⫱࡟㛵ࡍࡿᕞࡢ᤼௚ⓗ࡞❧ἲᶒࢆㄆࡵࡘࡘࡶࠊ㐃㑥⤖ᡂᙜ᫬࡟ㄆࡵࡽࢀ࡚࠸ࡓᶒ฼ࡸᏛᰯ࡟୙฼ࢆཬࡰࡍࡇ࡜ࢆไ㝈ࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠋ
(28) ERCP ࡣ⚾Ꮫᩍ⫱ἲ 111 ᮲࡟ᇶ࡙ࡁࠊつ๎࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ࠊ⚾❧Ꮫᰯ࡟ᑐࡍࡿච㝖ᥐ⨨ࢆㄆࡵ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ⚾❧Ꮫᰯࡢᥦ♧ࡋࡓ⊂⮬ࡢࣉࣟࢢ࣒ࣛࡀ ERCP ࡜ࠕྠ➼㸦equivalent㸧࡛ࠖ࠶ࡿ࡜ࠊࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࡢᩍ⫱➼ᢸᙜ኱⮧ࡀุ᩿ࡋࡓሙྜࠊච㝖ࡀㄆࡵࡽࢀࡿࠋAn
Act respecting private education, Civil Code of Québec, c. E-9.1, s.111; Regulation
respecting the application of the Act respecting private education, CQLR, c. E-9.1,– 26 –

r. 1, s. 22. ࡞࠾ࠊࡇࡢ⚾❧Ꮫᰯࡢච㝖ࡢチྰࡶ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢࡛தࢃࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ᐀ᩍ⣔⚾❧Ꮫᰯ࡟ồࡵࡽࢀࡿࠕྠ➼ࠖࡢព࿡ࡣࠊERCP ࡜඲ࡃྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆព࿡ࡍࡿࡢ࡛ࡣ࡞
ࡃࠊ୍ᐃࡢไ㝈ࡢୗࠊ᐀ᩍⓗほⅬࢆ㋃ࡲ࠼ࡓ⊂⮬ࡢ࢔ࣞࣥࢪࢆຍ࠼ࡿࡇ࡜ࡀㄆࡵࡽ
ࢀ࡚࠸ࡿࠋLoyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2015] 1 SCR 613.
(29) ᮏ௳ࡣ඲ဨ୍⮴ࡢุỴࡔࡀࠊࣝ࣋ࣝ⿢ุᐁࡀ⤖ㄽྠពពぢࢆᇳ➹ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(30) ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ௳ࡀࠊERCP 㛤ጞ┤ᚋࡢࡶࡢ࡛࠶ࡾࠊබ❧Ꮫᰯ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᙜヱ࢝ࣜ࢟ࣗࣛ
࣒ࡀ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ᶵ⬟ࡍࡿ࠿࡟ࡘ࠸࡚฼⏝ྍ⬟࡞ドᣐࡀ࡞࠸ࡇ࡜ࢆᙉㄪࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜
࡟ࡣ␃ពࡍࡿᚲせࡀ࠶ࡿࠋ(31) Richard Moon,͆Government Support for Religious Practice,͇in Richard Mooned., Law and Religious Pluralism in Canada (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2008), 231.
ࢹࢩࣕࣥ⿢ุᐁࡀᘬ⏝ࡍࡿࡢࡣࠊḟࡢࡼ࠺࡞ᣦ᦬࡛࠶ࡿ㸦࡞࠾ࠊ┬␎⟠ᡤࡣุỴᩥ࡛ࡢᘬ⏝ࡢ㏻ࡾ࡛࠶ࡿ㸧ࠋࠕࡶࡋࠊୡ಑୺⩏ࡸ୙ྍ▱ㄽⓗ❧ሙࠊ͐ࢆ᐀ᩍⓗಙ௮࡜ྠ➼ࡢࡶࡢ࡜ࡍࢀࡤࠊᨻᗓࡀ᐀ᩍ඲⯡࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ᨭ᥼ࢆ⾜ࡗࡓ࡜ࡁࠊࡑࢀࡽࢆᨭᣢࡍࡿ⪅ࡣࠊ᤼㝖ࡉࢀ࿘⦕໬ࡉࢀࡓ࡜ឤࡌࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋࡋ࠿ࡋࠊྠᵝ࡟ࠊබⓗ㡿ᇦ࠿ࡽ᐀ᩍࢆ᏶඲
࡟ྲྀࡾ㝖ࡃ࡜ࡁࠊ᐀ᩍࡢᨭᣢ⪅ࡣྠࡌࡇ࡜ࢆឤࡌࡿࡔࢁ࠺ࠋ͐୙ྍ▱ㄽ࠾ࡼࡧ↓⚄ㄽࡢ㐍ᒎ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊබⓗ✵㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡣ୙ྍ⬟࡜࡞ࡗࡓࡢ࡛࠶ࡿࠖ
ࠋࡇࡢ࣒࣮ࣥࡢᣦ᦬࡟ࡣࠊ⣽㒊࡛ㄽ᪨ࡀ୙᫂࡞㒊ศࡀ࠶ࡿࡀࠊᚋ㏙ࡍࡿࢪ࣮ࣙࣥࢬุỴࢆᛕ㢌࡟බඹ✵㛫࡟࠾ࡅࡿ⤯ᑐⓗ୰❧ᛶࡀ୙ྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡿ࡜࠸࠺୺ᙇ࡜ゎࡍࡿࡇ࡜ࡣ࡛ࡁࡿࠋ(32) ࢔࣒ࢭ࣒࣭ࣝࢸࢫࢺࡣࠊࠕ≉ᐃࡢ᐀ᩍⓗయ⣔࡟ᖐᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࡇ࡜࡛ࠖࡣ࡞ࡃࠊࠕಶே
ࡀᙜヱ᐀ᩍࢆ࡝ࡢࡼ࠺࡟ゎ㔘ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿ࠿ࠖࢆุ᩿ᇶ‽࡜ࡍࡿࡓࡵࠕ᐀ᩍ࡟ᑐࡍࡿ୺ほ୺⩏ⓗ⌮ゎࠖࢆ཯ᫎࡍࡿࡶࡢ࡜ࡶᣦ᦬࡛ࡁࡿࠋᒣᮏ೺ேࠕࠗ࢝ࢼࢲࡢከᩥ໬୺⩏࠘࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ᠇ἲゎ㔘ࡢ୍ഃ㠃̿ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠗᢎㄆ࠘ࡢཎ⌮ࢆ୰ᚰ࡟ࠖ
ࠗἲᏛᨻ἞Ꮫㄽ
✲࠘107 ྕࠊ2015 ᖺࠊ53 Ѹ 54 㡫ࠋSyndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, [2004] 2 SCR
551.
(33) R v. Jones, [1986] 2 SCR 284.
(34) Alberta School Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980, c S-3, s 143(1)(a).
(35) Moon,͆Government Support for Religious Practice,͇77.
(36) Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay. ࡞࠾ࠊᮏ௳࡛ࡣࠊࢣ࣋ࢵࢡᕞࢧࢢࢿᕷ
ࡢ㆟఍࡟࠾࠸࡚㛤఍ࡢ㝿࡟⾜ࢃࢀ࡚࠸ࡓ↓᐀ὴࡢ࠾♳ࡾ㸦ecumenical prayer㸧ࡀࠊ↓᐀ᩍ⪅࡛࠶ࡿཎ࿌ࡢಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࢆไ⣙ࡋࠊ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡢࡶ࡜࡛ṇᙜ໬࡛ࡁ࡞࠸࡜ุ
᩿ࡉࢀࡓࠋ࢝ࢼࢲ᭱㧗⿢ࡣࠊಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢࢥ࣮ࣟࣛࣜ࡜ࡋ࡚᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡀᑟ࠿ࢀ
ࡿ࡜ࡋ࡚࠺࠼࡛ࠊᅜᐙࡀ࠶ࡿ᐀ᩍࢆ㠀᐀ᩍ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣ௚ࡢ᐀ᩍࡼࡾࡶᨭ᥼ࡋࡓࡾඃ㐝ࡋࡓࡾࡍࡿࠊࡲࡓࡣຎ఩࡟࠾ࡃࡇ࡜ࢆ⚗Ṇࡍࡿࠊ᐀ᩍⓗ୰❧ᛶࡢ⩏ົࡣࠊᕪู࠿ࡽ
⮬⏤࡞බⓗ✵㛫ࢆ๰ࡾฟࡍࡇ࡜ࢆຓࡅࠊࡲࡓࡑࢀࡣࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕከᩥ໬୺⩏ࡸ
ከᵝᛶࡢᙺ๭ࢆಁ㐍ࡉࡏࡿࠖ࡜࡜ࡶ࡟ࠊ⮬㌟ࡢಙ௮࡟ᣊࡽࡎබⓗ⏕ά࡬ࡢཧຍࢆዡບ
ࡍࡿࠕ⮬⏤ࡸẸ୺ⓗ♫఍ࠖ࡜࠸ࡗࡓᴫᛕ࡟࡜ࡗ࡚ᚲ㡲஦㡯࡛࠶ࡿ࡜㏙࡭࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(37) Faisal Bhabha,͆From Saumur to L. (S.): Tracing the Theory and Concept ofReligious Freedom under Canadian Law,͇Supreme Court Law Review (2ndSeries), 58 (2012), 110, 134. See also S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes,para.31.
(38) Berger,͆Religious Diversity, Education, and the͂Crisis̓in State Neutrality,͇
113. See S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, para.40.
(39) Bhabha,͆From Saumur to L. (S.),͇133. ᙼࡣࠊᴫᛕୖࡢไ⣙㸦ᑐෆⓗไ⣙㸧࡜ᐇ㝿

– 27 –

ୖࡢไ⣙㸦ᑐእⓗไ⣙㸧ࢆ༊ูࡋࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࡇࢀࡲ࡛ࡢಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ุ౛ࡢ኱༙
ࡀࠊ᠇❶ 1 ᮲ࡢୗ࡛ࠊእᅾⓗほⅬ࠿ࡽࡢᐇ㝿ୖࡢไ⣙ࡢၥ㢟࡜ࡋุ࡚᩿ࡉࢀ࡚࠾ࡾࠊ
ಙᩍࡢ⮬⏤ࡢᴫᛕⓗศᯒࡀ୙༑ศ࡛࠶ࡿ࡜ᣦ᦬ࡍࡿࠋ
(40) Hannah Arendt,͆The Crisis in Education,͇in Between Past and Future (London:
Penguin Books, [1968] 2006). ྠ᭩ࡢ㑥ヂ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊࣁࣥࢼ࣭࢔࣮ࣞࣥࢺⴭࠊᘬ⏣㝯ஓࠊ㰻⸨⣧୍ヂࠕᩍ⫱ࡢ༴ᶵࠖྠࠗ㐣ཤ࡜ᮍ᮶ࡢ㛫࠘ࡳࡍࡎ᭩ᡣࠊ1994 ᖺࠋ(41) Berger,͆Religious Diversity, Education, and the͂Crisis̓in State Neutrality,͇
115. 㛵㐃ࡋ࡚ࠊᩍ⫱ࡀ౯್ὀධ࡜࠸࠺ഃ㠃ࢆከ࠿ࢀᑡ࡞࠿ࢀᣢࡘࡇ࡜࡟ࡘ࠸࡚ࡣࠊ
ෆ㔝ṇᖾࠕᩍ⫱ᶒ࠿ࡽᩍ⫱ࢆཷࡅࡿᶒ฼࡬ࠖ
ࠗࢪࣗࣜࢫࢺ࠘1222 ྕࠊ2002 ᖺࠊ102 㡫௨ୗཬࡧࠊ㰺⸨ឡࠗ␗㉁ᛶ♫఍࡟࠾ࡅࡿࠕಶேࡢᑛ㔜ࠖ࠘ᘯᩥᇽࠊ2015 ᖺࠊ218 㡫௨ୗ➼ࢆཧ↷ࠋ
(42) Jocelyn Maclure & Charles Taylor, Secularism and Freedom of Conscience(Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2011), 47.
(43) Ibid., 16.
(44) Berger,͆Religious Diversity, Education, and the͂Crisis̓in State Neutrality,͇
114.
(45) Chamberlain v. School District No.36 (2002), para.33.
ࠕከඖ୺⩏㸦pluralism㸧ࠖ࡜࠸࠺ゝⴥࡣࠊ
ࠕከᵝᛶࢆᑛ㔜ࡍࡿែᗘࠖࢆ᥎ዡࡍࡿࠕつ(46) ࡞࠾ࠊ
⠊ⓗᴫᛕࠖ࡜࠸࠺ព࿡࡛⏝࠸ࡿࠋᡃࡀᅜ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊከඖ୺⩏ࡣᵝࠎ࡞ព࿡ྜ࠸࡛⏝࠸ࡽࢀࡿࡀࠊ࢝ࢼࢲ࡛ࡢ౑ࢃࢀ᪉࡜ࡋ࡚ࡣࡇࡢ⏝ἲࡀ᭱ࡶ୍⯡ⓗࡔ࡜ᛮࢃࢀࡿࠋࢪ࢙
2017 ᖺࠊ19 㡫ࠋࡲࡓࠊࣈࢩ࣮ࣕ
࣮࣭ࣛࣝࣈࢩ࣮ࣕࣝⴭࠊ୹⩚༟┘ヂࠗ㛫ᩥ໬୺⩏࠘ᙬὶ♫ࠊࣝࡣࠊࠕከඖ୺⩏࡟ࡣከᵝ࡞㐺⏝ࡀྍ⬟࡛࠶ࡾࠊ」ᩘࡢࣔࢹࣝࢆ⏘ฟࡍࡿ㸦ከᩥ໬୺⩏ࠊ㛫ᩥ໬୺⩏ࠊඹ࿴୺⩏࡞࡝㸧ࠖ࡜ࡋ࡚ᴫᛕ㛫ࡢᩚ⌮ࢆ⾜ࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ
(47) Howard Kislowicz,͆Faithful Translations?: Cross-Cultural Communication in
Canadian Religious Freedom Litigation,͇Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 52 (2014),
141, 155; Avigail Eisenberg,͆Rights in the Age of Identity Politics,͇Osgoode Hall
Law Journal, 50 (2012), 609, 619.
(48) Berger, Religious Diversity, Education, and the ‘Crisis’ in State Neutrality, 115.
(49) ᆅᇦࢥ࣑ࣗࢽࢸ࢕࡟࠾ࡅࡿᏛᰯᩍ⫱࡜࠸࠺ࢳ࢙ࣥࣂุࣞࣥỴ࡛ၥ㢟࡜࡞ࡗࡓ஦᱌࡟
㝈ᐃࡉࢀࡿࡢ࠿ࠊࡼࡾ୍⯡ⓗ࡞つ⠊࡜࡞ࡿ࠿ࠊ࡜࠸࠺Ⅼ࡛࠶ࡿࠋᚋ⪅ࡢࡼ࠺࡟⌮ゎࡍࡿ❧ሙࡀ࢝ࢼࢲ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࡣ᭷ຊ࡞ࡼ࠺࡛ࡣ࠶ࡿࠋSee Richard Moon,͆Freedomof Religion under the Charter of Rights: the Limit of State Neutrality,͇UBC
Law Review, 45 (2012), 497.
(50) ࡓ࡜࠼ࡤࠊ▼ᕝ೺἞ࠕ⢭⚄ⓗほᛕⓗᇶ♏ࡢ࡞࠸ᅜᐙ࣭බඹࡣྍ⬟࠿㸽ࠖ㥖ᮧᆂ࿃⦅ࠗࢸ
ࢡࢫࢺ࡜ࡋ࡚ࡢุỴ࠘᭷ᩫ㛶ࠊ2016 ᖺࠊ157 㡫௨ୗࠊ኱▼┾ࠕᨻᩍศ㞳ཎ๎ࡢ෌᳨ウࠖࠗἲྠࠗᶒ฼ಖ㞀ࡢㅖ┦࠘୕┬ᇽࠊ2014 ᖺࠊ92 㡫௨ୗࠊ∦᱒┤ேࠕᨻᩍศ㞳ࡢ఩⨨ࠖᏛࢭ࣑ࢼ࣮࠘729 ྕࠊ2015 ᖺࠊ41 㡫ࠊ⏣㏆⫕ࠕ᪥ᮏᆺᨻᩍศ㞳࡜ࡑࡢㄢ㢟ࠖ᏷ᡞᖖᑑࠊ
ᯘ▱᭦⦅ࠗ᪥ᮏᅜ᠇ἲࡢ 70 ᖺ࠘ᒾἼ᭩ᗑࠊ2018 ᖺࠊ117 㡫௨ୗ➼ཧ↷ࠋ(51) Benjamin L. Berger, Law’s Religion (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2015),
119-120.
㸦ࡸࡲࡶ࡜ࠉࡅࢇ࡜ࠉ኱㜰⤒῭ἲ⛉኱Ꮫ㸧

– 28 –

Children’s Exposure to Diverse Values at Schools:
A Constitutional Perspective on Religion and Educationin Canada
Kento Yamamoto
Education ̿ particularly public education ̿ has become quite a challenge forthe relation between the state and religious diversity in Canada, which is deeply
grounded on the country̓VKLVWRU\7KHHGXFDWLRQDOÀHOGUHPDLQVDSULPDU\YHQXH
for contemporary debates on the meaning of secularism/religious neutrality as wellas the management of religious differences.
This paper analyzes two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada from a
constitutional perspective, in which problems relating to religion and educationFXUULFXOXPKDYHEHHQFRQWHVWHGDPRQJUHOLJLRXVDQGHGXFDWLRQDOLVVXHV7KHÀUVWis Chamberlain v. School District No. 36, where the Supreme Court overruled
the decision of the Surrey, British Columbia, School Board to ban the use of
supplementary materials depicting same-sex-parented families in kindergarten/
grade one curriculum. This decision was based on the religious sentiments of agroup of parents in the school district. The second is S.L. v. Commission scolairedes Chênes, where the Supreme Court held that a mandatory course in the Ethics

and Religious Culture Program (ERCP) in Quebec did not violate the religious
freedom of students and their parents. The ERCP is mandatory for students in all
educational institutions̾public or private, confessional or nonconfessional̾and it
seeks to educate students about the different ethical and cultural frameworks in
Quebec and to instruct them on a range of religious traditions and the history of
religion in Quebec from a neutral perspective.
The goal of this paper is to analyze these two cases and examine (1) the meaningof religious neutrality in Canada and (2) the kind of school education that a
multicultural society requires.
First, in Chamberlain, the Supreme Court of Canada held that section 76 of the
School Act̓s͆insistence on strict secularism does not mean that religious concerns
have no place in the deliberations and decisions of Board . . . What secularism
does rule out, however, is any attempt to use the religious views of one part ofthe community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the– 29 –

community. ͇In this ruling, tolerance value changes the meaning of the word͆secular,͇ZKLFKLVRUGLQDULO\GHÀQHGDV͆not having any connection with religion.͇

Such an understanding has resulted in the concept of͆religious neutrality͇basedon religious freedom in S.L.)XUWKHUPRUHWKHSUHFHGHQWDQDO\VLVFRQÀUPVWKDWWKH
core of religious neutrality in Canada is that the state must not support or preferpractices of one religion over those of another or religious practices over nonreligious
practices.
Second, in its majority decision in Chamberlain, the Court affirmed children̓s
exposure to diverse values around them. Some cognitive dissonance was judged tobe part of daily life in a multicultural society. Moreover, in S.L., the Court held that
͆exposing children to a variety of religious facts . . . does not in itself constitute an

infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter.͇I support this position of the Supreme
Court because the government tried to provide children with͆intercultural knowledge,
habits of tolerance, and respectful interaction across difference͇toward a͆peacefulcoexistence in a diverse society.͇Deep pluralism and secularism are important politicalfacts about our world, and͆a central role for the state in citizen formation seems to be
an irreducible public function.͇
Such a discussion in the Canadian context is suggestive of recent trends inJapan̓s constitutional theory, which criticizes comprehensive nonreligious in public
spaces.
(Osaka University of Economics and Law)

– 30 –