Talk:Freedom of religion in Canada

message: There are a number of passages in this article which don't seem to have a clear relationship to the question of religious freedom. For instance, "During the 2004 federal election and 2006 federal election campaigns, some sitting Members of Parliament used the term "scary" to describe some Conservative Party candidates or the entire party due to the beliefs of some of its members."
I don't see how rude remarks constitute any sort of attack on religious freedom. I'm perfectly entitled, for instance, to say that I disagree with the position that a given religion takes on a particular matter, or even that I find certain religious positions to be "scary" - obviously that doesn't constitute an assault on religious freedom. So I'm not sure what justifies this particular passage (and there are several others) being in an article on the Status of Religious Freedom. --Ggbroad 12:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To follow up, I don't see how anything in the final section "Comments by Federal Gov't Officials" relates to the question of religious freedom. If I criticize what you say, I'm not necessarily attacking your freedom of speech; if I criticize you for your religion, I'm not necessarily attacking your religious freedom. Most of what is in this section consists of various remarks - some of them admittedly quite rude - but none of them seem directly related to the question of religious freedom, except perhaps the one in which the Minister said that the Catholic church should keep its nose out of Canadian legislation, since the Church (in Canada, at least) obviously has a right to express its views on matters of legislation. But even that one seems marginal. So, before I delete the section, perhaps we could hear some arguments in favor of its retention?--Ggbroad 12:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Chinese government officials make statements like "The Falun Gong is a troublesome and scary religion", does this relate to the issue of religious freedom in China? Deet 00:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The analogy isn't an appropriate one, since China has no constitutional guarantees on the freedom of religion, no  history of defending of freedom of religion and, on the contrary,  has an established history of persecuting the religious by the most dreadful means. By contrast, members of the Liberal Party, the NDP, etc.,  possess no means by which to persecute Christians, etc., and there's no particular evidence that they have any intention to. In any case, the point stands: if I criticize you it does not, as a point of logic, mean that I am denying you your rights.  The article lists a few trivial instances of Members of Parliament making rude remarks - this is not functionally related to the issue of religious freedom. Your freedom of religion does not include a freedom from criticism nor a freedom from having rude, mean-spirited, and in most cases even hateful remarks directed at you.--Ggbroad 02:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I personally see no reason to add foreign policy stuff at this point, but I have yet to see a defense of including a few trivial remarks by gov't officials about religion. By themselves mean nothing - I could find many remarks about the value of religion and the importance of its defense from federal gov't officials, too. But I also suspect that there will no group consensus, since this talk page seems quite inactive. --Ggbroad 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship between certain claims and religious freedom 

message: I am concerned about the last section of this page that contains quotes that show apparent attacks on freedom of religion, as it contains almost entirly liberal quotes of inappropriate comments that often have been withdrawn and applogised for.  If this section is to remain I think it needs to be re-balanced with NDP and Conservitive comments.  Thanks.  206.208.37.2 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as I've stated above. As a point of logic, a handful of scattered comments of this kind prove nothing. One could easily find similar comments about the value and importance of religion and religious freedom to counterbalance them. Moreover, the comments are not related to the question of religious freedom in Canada. It should should be removed. --Ggbroad 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concern addressed. Section removed. Deet 01:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what the confusion is.  There is a reference. There are other stories on the Globe and Mail in addition to the one referenced. Deet 02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake entirely. Sorry. I missed the reference somehow. --Ggbroad 11:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about NPOV 

message: Could we get a source for this? I saw something about it on CBC tonight, but a Google search brought up precisely zero under "Defense of Religions Act". If the Conservative government is considering it, than surely there is something substantial to consider? Where can details be found?Ggbroad 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the confusion is.  There is a reference. There are other stories on the Globe and Mail in addition to the one referenced. Deet 02:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake entirely. Sorry. I missed the reference somehow. --Ggbroad 11:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defence of Religions Act

message: (copied from my talk page)
Trystan,
I can't agree with the changes you've made here: the article is currently skewed towards discussions of homosexuality (due to the contributions of a single author), but this isn't fundamentally what the article is about.  CJCurrie 03:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving a blurb about homosexuality to the intro was only a small portion of the edits you have reverted.  Is that the only one you have a problem with?  In any event, if the article is skewed, I don't think it hurts to have the into reflect the current content until it is corrected.--Trystan 03:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought there was only one other significant change (ie. shifting the "preamble" section).  CJCurrie 05:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you be in favour of reorganizing the intro to some degree?  I find the first sentence, about the preamble to the constitution, to be a bit of a non sequiter.--Trystan 05:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious freedom

message: I've reorganized the article to try and include a clearer taxonomy.  The legal framework section now includes the case law section, though much of what was under case law has been moved to specific topics under the Specific freedoms section.  The majority of the rest of the article has been organized into the Specific freedoms section, which is divided into various areas.  Some still need work, such as Refusal of treatment, which leaps into an example where the right is curtailed without first establishing that it is generally a right.  This is a flaw which affects several sections of the article, which jump into a high-profile case dealing with the subject without first establishing any context.
I'm not quite happy with what's left in Case law; the first paragraph seems fitting, if too brief, in outlining general principles of religious freedom, but then we there are two disjointed, random particulars of case law.  The rest of the sections have been placed under appropriate subheadings of Specific freedoms, but these two don't seem substantial enough to make their own.--Trystan 19:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganization

message: I think that Monday's poll, the COMPAS one comissioned by the Institute for Canadian Values, is getting a little too much play in the article, being mentioned in four separate places.  There have been many polls on issues such as the reopening same-sex marriage debate in Parliament, with many conflicting results, yet only this one is mentioned.  I would lean towards excluding this one rather than including others to make it comprehensive; I don't really see the relevance of a public opinion in the article. It's about the status of religious rights in Canada, not poorly measured public reaction to high-profile cases.  In the paragraphs about Brockie and Kempling, the poll data seems at best out of place and at worst misleading, since it the questions listed differ significantly from the facts of those cases.--Trystan 22:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was credible enough for the front page of one of our two national newspapers. Let's make sure we aren't playing favourites.  There has always been a plethora of polls in "Good Articles" like Same-sex marriage in Canada, so it would seem unfair to exclude polls supporting religious believers in this article. I'm still working through all the changes you've made, but one thing I think is needed is to put back in some sort of background to explain the dynamics between religion and homosexuality, as many younger Canadians truly have no frame of reference for the issue. The link to Christianity and homosexuality was a neutral manner of trying to accomplish this in former versions  (i.e., by outsourcing the discussion). Deet 22:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the poll is going to be included the poll itself should be linked to (it's available as a PDF from the Compas website.) I found the wording in the National Post to be a bit ambiguous, as it led me to believe that 64% of Canadians favored reopening the discussion about gay marriage in order to ensure religious and free speech, but in fact the Compas poll itself is explicit that the question was not about whether or not the core issue of same-sex marriage should be revisited, it was whether or not the legislation should be reviewed on the question of whether or not religious freedoms and free speech are protected. It may seem self-evident to you, but it certainly wasn't to me, and obviously the pollsters themselves were concerned enough to explicitly clarify that point. Moreover, I feel compelled to point out that front-page on the National Post - a paper whose ideological slant is not crystal clear but gleefully admitted to by its editors, columnists, stakeholders (and indeed readership) - does not by itself make it credible. --Ggbroad 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the polls are important at some level because it supports it somewhat in that it gives legitimacy to the article's existence.  The poll responses seem to indicate that Canadians agree that freedom of religion is important and that there may be unresolved freedom of religion issues. Don't forget that someone tried to delete it (and you can read there that another user was so upset with the article's existence he even wanted to have a book burning party and delete all the history). I agree with linking directly to the COMPASS polls (it doesn't matter because we didn't include any National Post specific comments or ideas). So that solves any National Post issue (although I personally disagree with the assertion that it is not a reliable source). I think the printer poll question was actually almost the exact same fact pattern as the Scott Brockie situation (he was refusing to print gay advocacy material). The Kempling facts are more elaborate than the poll question, but has the letter to the editor issue at its centre. Clearly the questions were based on those two individuals. Deet 01:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll data 

message: Regarding the recent edit summary (trying to better align the words with the facts the preamble article and the references. I'm not sure the last sentence needs to be in this article vs. the preamble article), I'm not quite sure what the recent edits to the preamble paragraph, or the paragraph itself, are trying to achieve.  
My specific concerns with the paragraph as it stands is that it rather gives the wrong impression to describe the "supremacy of God" portion and then say that Supreme Court gave some consideration to the preamble, as the SCC's consideration  dealt entirely with the "rule of law" portion.  The "supremacy of God" portion has never been given legal effect by the courts or used to interpret other provisions of the Charter, as was stated in the cited leading case on the matter (which is by an appellate court, not a provincial court).
Why would the last sentence not belong?  It is directly connected to religious freedom, the only part of the paragraph that is.  Previously, this was just a statement regarding the content of the preamble, the relevance of which to the article wasn't clear, despite the fact that it was the first sentence in the article.--Trystan 01:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preamble section

message: why is religion in the public schools of canada not mentioned in this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.7.249 (talk • contribs) 
:It is, in the first paragraph of the Education section.  Was there something in particular you think we should address?--Trystan 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  in public schools 

message: On February 19, 2013, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Its mandate is to promote freedom of religion or belief around the world. Doctor Andrew Bennett became the first Ambassador to the Office.
:* Submitted by DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Office of Religious Freedom 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Freedom of religion in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060117223733/http://www.ohrc.on.ca:80/en_text/publications/2001-2002-annual-report_3.shtml to http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/publications/2001-2002-annual-report_3.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060506015029/http://www.ohrc.on.ca:80/en_text/cases/summary-2002.shtml to http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en_text/cases/summary-2002.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Freedom of religion in Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013132621/http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1985rcs2-561/1985rcs2-561.html to http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1985rcs2-561/1985rcs2-561.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion