Majoritarianism is the basis of the belief that most decisions should be based on the viewpoints and wishes of the majority of the group in question. It is a well-established principle in our political and judicial systems as well as in most of the community organizations. Motions that are approved by a majority in parliament or in the local club are adopted as policy. In the supreme and superior courts of the land and the provinces the decision of the majority of jurists wins the day.
Also in our electoral systems, the party winning the majority of seats in the parliament or the legislature forms the government.
In its purest form, majoritarianism presents some serious deficiencies in that it discriminates against the minorities in ways that Canadians increasingly find abhorrent. It is this sense of majority injustice that was a large part of the movement to adopt the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter has set Canada above most countries in the world in terms of it sense of fairness and openness for all people. The Charter specifies many classifications of rights including equality rights including freedom from discrimination based on race, religion, beliefs, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age, mental or physical disabilities.
The Charter spells out a broad spectrum of rights for each and everyone in Canada. At one time or another, regardless of our situation, any one of us may need that protection. But another very important purpose of the Charter is to protect minorities from the dominant majority.
There are times when the will or predilections of the majority come into conflict with minority rights. These can be very sensitive issues, but as time goes on, most of these matters become resolved.
One of the most contentious issues a few years ago was the decision to ban religious exercises and instruction in public schools. It was recognized that the students in our schools come from families with many different beliefs. To continue with Christian prayers and bible readings as well as classes in religious education in public schools discriminated against a these children.
While we still hear complaints about that change in the education system, it is broadly accepted as a necessary change in our increasingly pluralistic society. The Public School system was developed to provide education for all children regardless of their families' belief systems, and it was wrong for them to be treated like less than equal members of society.
In the United States, a federal court ordered the State of Alabama to remove a statue featuring the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of its legislature for the same reason. This is a good example of the clash of majoritarianism and the separation of church and state. CNN reported at the time that only one in five Alabamans approved of that order. The majority were in favour of the display, but the court ruled that it violated important basic constitutional principles.
I agree very strongly that government and civic organizations should not give special privileges or status to any particular religion or belief system.
Several years ago I was asked to make a presentation to a closed meeting of a county council here in Ontario. At the opening of the meeting the Warden asked everyone present to stand and recite the lord's prayer - which they did. I assume all of that county's meetings begin the same way. What is the message here? What does it say to citizens of that county who subscribe to a non Christian faith, or someone whose beliefs are non-religious? I wondered if a Muslim, Sikh, or Jewish person were elected to that County Council, would the protocol change or would the council ignore the diversity and require that person to "fit in"?
Those who object to the removal of religious symbols and rites from civic places and events often characterize the change as being anti-religious. That is not the basis for my argument, and it is certainly not consistent with the Charter. To the contrary, the Charter guards against the extending of special privilege to some religious organizations in civic matters while excluding other organizations and their members from such privileges.
We can illustrate this process by reference to a municipality. Many municipalities have had traditions in the past where a religious service is held to commemorate a certain event or to dedicate a new building or other symbol of the community. In these cases, it was common to invite a clergy person to conduct the ceremony. Usually the clergy selected would be from local churches on a rotating basis.
This is no longer acceptable practice. Local government (municipal councils) represent the entire community, people of all beliefs, not just Christian but people of other religions, and people with no religious affiliation. Just as it would be obviously prejudicial to always choose a representative of one particular church, it is equally prejudicial to always choose from a particular faith group.
The most common argument against that view is that "most people in this community are Christian"; therefore, our ceremony should be conducted by that group. Another argument looks at the other side of the equation: "Well, there are very few people who identify themselves as being of other faiths in this community." My response in each case is "All the more reason why the civic ceremony should not be conducted as a religious ceremony. The civic leaders must not give special honours to any one religion, and must not treat anyone as second class citizens based on their beliefs.
Adoption of this policy should not be seen as anti-religious as some people mistakenly assume. It is intended to offset the insensitivity of those groups who refuse to recognize the rights of those who do not share their particular set of beliefs. In fact many of the strongest supporters of governmental neutrality in religious matters are devout Christians.
The essence of this policy is not a ban on religious people. It opens up the opportunity to preside over and participate in any civic ceremony to anyone regardless of that person's faith, beliefs, or affiliations. The form, style, and content of any such ceremony should be cognizant of the homogeneity of the audience.
The whole field of human rights is seen by many as a matter of concern at the federal and provincial levels of government.
It is high time that municipalities recognize that they are equally subject to the Charter and the provincial human rights code terms.
Brock Vodden
No comments:
Post a Comment