Religious Discrimination of People - Assignment Example

Religious discrimination Religious discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of an individual or group of people owing to the difference in their religious faiths. Religion is a fundamental cultural feature that influences people’s lifestyles besides influencing the societal values. As such, people value their religious faiths and do not always anticipate any contradiction of their beliefs. This implies that the society must accommodate the divergent religious beliefs especially in cosmopolitan societies. Most governments therefore have effective laws that govern and protect freedom of worships, which is a significant human right. Canada is one such country. The country is among the leading democracies in the world and therefore upholds the constitutional rights of its citizens key among which is their right to worship (Bramadat and David 78). The country accords its citizens the freedom to have any religious faith and to assemble in their respective places of worship. Despite having such an elaborate constitution that protects the rights of the citizens, cases of religious often occur thereby creating social disharmonies at various social places as the discussion below portrays. Canada is among the leading democracies globally. As such, the country has an elaborate constitution that protects the rights and freedoms of the people. Key among the rights and freedoms is the freedom of worship and religion. The country appreciate religious diversity with the constitution creating a cosmopolitan society, one in which people are free to have varied religious beliefs. The country has laws that address religious discrimination with the view to developing an accommodating structure. The discussion below portrays various cases where the government strived to uphold the freedoms and rights of the people concerning religious discrimination. In most of the cases, courts always protect the basic freedoms and rights of the people. Canada has various religions including Christianity, which is predominant, Islam, Hinduism and Gujarat among others. Such a cosmopolitan setting gives rise to the cases of discrimination based on the number of people ascribing to a particular faith in various regions. The Canadian creates space for everyone to have any type of religious faith provided such freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms and rights of others in the society. Among the constitutional rights in the country, include the freedom to hold peaceful assemblies, freedom of association, freedom of religion and conscience and freedom of belief, thought, expression and opinion. Such form the basis for the existence of all the various religions in the country. Additionally, the Supreme Court of Canada made a fundamental precedent in 1995 in Chaput v. Romain by ruling that every religion has equal rights based on both the rule of law and existing traditions. The country did not have any statute to influence the formation of such a ruling at the time (Bayefsky and Arieh 211). Case 1 Religious discrimination occurs at various institutions in the country despite the existence of such elaborate laws. Human nature and the effects of religious beliefs often cause interpersonal conflicts most of which result in religious discrimination. The Canadian Human Rights Reporter is a publication of the country’s human right commission. The media has records of various cases of religious discriminations most of which result from the intricate features of the various religions. In 2002 for example, Multnai Vs Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Commission Scolarie was a case that portrayed the nature of religious conflicts some of which may cause religious discrimination. In the case, petitioned the orthodox Sikhs culture that required them to carry a metal dagger known as kirpan. Gurbaj Singh Multani carried the dagger to school provided he could conceal it in his clothing. The dagger was in deed a danger to the pupils in the school. The boy, his family and members of the faith understood the essence of the dagger. They believed the dagger was harmless owing to its religious connotations. However, the rest of the society did not view the dagger as such. Orthodox Sikhs saw this a discrimination against their faith a feature that prompted the case. In its ruling, the judge upheld the denial of an opportunity for the young Multani to carry the dagger to school. As explained earlier, the freedoms of worship just as any other right should never risk the lives or inconvenience others. The judge explained that the knife posed a great security and safety threat to other pupils in the school since it could easily fall as it did thereby harming others. Additionally, any pupil could access the knife thus using it to harm others in daily conflicts among learners. The case was a perfect example of religious discrimination where the majority used the law to limit the religious beliefs of the minority group (Vickers 44). Analysis The above case provided a unique opportunity for the courts to interpret the law thus make the society safer besides upholding the values of religious freedom in the country. As explained earlier, Canadian laws are clear in creating a conducive environment for the various religions to practice. However, coexistence is fundamental in creating a space for each religion. The case presented a unique scenario in which the religious freedoms of a group threatened the safety of the many other members of the society. In the ruling, the judge determined that the dagger threatened the safety of the other pupils in the school. The court did not make any reference or criticism to the religious doctrines of the Sheikhs. Instead, the judges analyzed the social implications of the dagger thus making a sober ruling, one that upholds the values and provisions of the constitution. The court directed the boy not to carry the dagger to school owing to the risk it presented to the other students. The court did not refer to the other attire owing to the fact they did not risk anyone. Religious discrimination takes different forms and occurs at various levels in the society. The above case was unique since it occurred at a school set up. The dictates of the religion were unique and possessed a great risk and safety threat of others in the society. Besides dressing differently, the young Sikh carried a dagger that to the rest of the society was a weapon. The young pupils at the school could not understand the unique features of the religion that required their colleague to carry the dagger throughout the school days. In its ruling, the court therefore requested the boy and his family to consider the unique setting of the school, which consisted of young children most of whom considered the dagger as a knife. Case 2 In yet another case of religious discrimination, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a ruling against a teacher in district 15 who had made systematically discriminative statements against the Jews. In the case, a parent named David Attis who was a Jew complained to the Board of School Trustees in District 15 that the teacher, Malcom Ross had made discriminative statements against the Jews thereby creative a hostile school environment for the Jews. The court determined that Mr. Ross’ anti-Semitic sentiments were in deed discriminative and created a hostile environment especially for the minority Jew children in the school. The court thus found the teacher guilty thus revoking his license besides sentencing him to prison. The case was a straightforward portrayal of the law (Ghanea 121). The teacher spread his anti-Semitic thoughts through both print and broadcast media. This enhanced the creation of a hostile environment for the Jewish community besides disregarding the freedoms and religious rights of the group of citizens. Analysis This case required the court to enforce the constitutional requirement that dictates that employers must accommodate the religious diversity in the society. The ruling was fundamental since it portrayed the government’s commitment to upholding religious freedom among other rights and privileges that people enjoy in the country. The law requires organizations to develop appropriate cultures to enhance the integration of employee from various religious backgrounds. Organization must therefore accommodate the unique religious beliefs of its employees. In 1983, the supreme court of Canada found Central Alberta Dairy Pool guilty for discriminating against one of its employees, Jim Christine. Jim Christine was a Christian and therefore required a holiday on April 4 1983 to attend a church service on Easter Monday. As explained earlier, the constitution and the laws of the land require all employers to accommodate the unique religious requirements of their employees. Accommodating an employee refers to the creation of appropriate structures to enable the employee exercise his or her religious rights. Jim Christine had the right to attend church service on the Monday owing to her religious beliefs. As such, her employer should have given her the opportunity to attend the service, as the law requires. Instead, the organization denied her the space and time a feature that amounted to the contravention of the religious laws in the country. In retrospect, the Canadian government through the country’s judiciary interprets the constriction and applies it effectively in resolving cases of religious discrimination. The court use precedents among other laws to protect the citizens’ freedom of warship among other religious practices. In doing this, the courts always protect the basic human rights as envision by the country’s constitutions while ensuring that an individual’s right does not infringe on the others’. The country has an elaborate constitution that safeguards the basic human rights key among which is the freedom of worship, religious beliefs and association among others. The courts in the country interpret the laws specifically with the view to protecting the interests of the public (Witte and Vander 54). In the various court cases about religious discrimination, the courts always determined rulings that protect the rights and freedoms of the people. The courts observe objectivity, fairness and equality in order to enhance the creation of a social structure that can accommodate every unique citizen. Works cited Bayefsky, Anne F, and Arieh Waldman. State Support for Religious Education: Canada Versus the United Nations. Leiden [etc.: Nijhoff, 2006. Print. Beaman, Lori G. Religion and Canadian Society: Contexts, Identities, and Strategies. Toronto: CSPI, 2012. Print. Bramadat, Paul, and David Seljak. Religion and Ethnicity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Print. Central Alberta Dairy Pool V. Alberta (Human Rights commission.) (1990). 12 C.H.R.R D/417 (S.C.C) Central Okanagan School District No. 23 V. Renaud (1992), 16 C.H.R.R. D/425 (S.C.C.) Ghanea, Nazila. The Challenge of Religious Discrimination at the Dawn of the New Millennium. Leiden [u.a.: Nijhoff, 2003. Print. Gregory, Raymond F. Encountering Religion in the Workplace: The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Workers and Employers. Ithaca: ILR Press, 2011. Print. Gynther, Paivi. Beyond Systemic Discrimination: Educational Rights, Skills Acquisition and the Case of Roma. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007. Print. Ismael, Tareq Y. Canada and the Arab World. Edmonton, Alta., Canada: University of Alberta Press, 1985. Print. Multani V. Marguerrite-Bourgeoys, Commission Scolaire (2006), 55 C.H.R.R. D/463, 2006 SCC6 Religious Discrimination in Western Europe: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, July 11, 2001. Washington: U.S. G.P.O, 2001. Print. Religious Discrimination: A Neglected Issue : a Consultation Sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights : Washington, D.c., April 9-10, 1979. Washington, 1980. Print. Rosenberg, Louis, and M Weinfeld. Canadas Jews: A Social and Economic Study of Jews in Canada in the 1930s. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1993. Print. Ross V. New Brunswick School District No. 15 (1996), 25 C.H.R.R. D/175 (S.C.C.) Vickers, Lucy. Religious Freedom, Religious Discrimination and the Workplace. Oxford: Hart, 2008. Print. Witte, John, and Vander V. J. D. Religious Human Rights in Global Perspective: Religious Perspectives. Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers, 1996. Print. Read More