Free societies are tolerant
On July 2, a controversy erupted over a group of Musl i ms praying in public at the Parc Safari zoo in Hemmingford, Quebec. According to one of the zoo’s spokespersons, the Muslims didn’t solicit other visitors, were not disrupting other guests or animals, and didn’t block any paths.
Nonetheless, some individuals objected to these Muslims praying in public after a video of their activities was posted on Facebook. Commentators posted statements like: “Can you just do this in your living room and not impose it on me please!” and “Go live your faith in your mosques, outside no one is interested.” Some went so far as to call for a boycott of the zoo.
Parc Safari president Jean-Pierre Ranger responded laudably to these comments. Having operated the zoo for the better part of 45 years, he said he was not about to change how he runs his business: “I’m very proud of what Parc Safari stands for and nobody is going to tell us how to behave, whether they’re Muslim or any other faith, or those do- gooders that think they can run the world.”
Yet, it’s troubling that some i ndividuals f ail to understand that a free society allows public expression of religious faith. The people who would like the government to ban strong criticism of Islam exhibit similar misunderstandings. While these two groups may have different reasons for wanting to limit expression, both are animated by a desire to restrict freedoms that Canadians enjoy. Earlier this month it was the Parc Safari incident; this week, it was opponents to plans for a Muslim cemetery in Saint- Apollinaire, Que. who managed to force a local referendum and defeat the plans, denying the Muslims their burial park.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines the fundamental freedoms of religion, conscience, expression, association and peaceful assembly. These freedoms exist to ensure all citizens are able to ponder life’s great questions, arrive at their own conclusions about them, share those conclusions with others, and live out their lives accordingly.
The Charter applies only to government, not citizens. But by guaranteeing individuals’ freedom to practice their beliefs, the Charter effectively requires citizens to tolerate the religious expression of others in many circumstances. Importantly, though, tolerance and approval are not the same things. Tolerance means allowing what you may disagree with to take place. It does not mean one has to approve of what another says or does.
The people who object to the Muslims praying in public are under no obligation to approve of Islam. But they can tolerate it. Christians, Muslims, Jews and other religious believers are not re- quired to limit their religious expression to their homes or places of worship. Adherents of Canada’s different religious faiths do need to comply with government regulations as to when, where and how they express their faith in public. Organizations that are truly and fully private are not bound by the Charter, and have full discretion to deny the exercise of religious ( or political, cultural or other) expression on their premises. In contrast, governments at all levels must be neutral, and must apply existing rules fairly and equally to all.
It is important that Canadians appreciate this civic responsibility to tolerate others’ expression, including religious expression. If enough Canadians fail to do so, and pressure government to restrict public displays of religious belief (or criticism of it), there is a risk that elected officials will respond by creating laws or policies that limit these important freedoms.
Of course, our courts can be an important line of defence against such incursions, as they are empowered to strike down laws that unjustifiably infringe on fundamental freedoms. But even judges are not immune from public opinion. Like politicians, their attitudes are shaped by the social climate in which they operate. Judges have significant discretion under Section 1 of the Charter to allow government violations of constitutional rights that they consider reasonably justified.
The suppression or manipulation of religion is one of the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes, since authoritarian leaders fear citizens adhering to any authorities other than them. Communist China, for instance, persecutes Christians and followers of Falun Gong. Hitler’s regime coerced some German churches into adopting a new theology that featured an Aryan Jesus. Repressive regimes are threatened when citizens adhere to moral and spiritual authority that is independent of the state. That is why Canadians — even non-religious ones — should recognize how allegiance to religious beliefs serves to limit the power and influence of government. When diverse religions influence our culture, morality, politics and other spheres of life, it is difficult if not impossible for government to exercise total control over citizens.
We are fortunate that Muslims (and everyone else) are free to pray in public in Canada, and that Canadians are free to publicly criticize Islam (and every other religion) as being wrong, false and harmful. These are the hallmarks of a free society.
Today, and especially in light of the Parc Safari controversy, Canadian Muslims have a unique opportunity to assert their commitment to the fundamental freedom of religion, for the benefit of all Canadians.
FREE SOCIETY ALLOWS PUBLIC EXPRESSION OF RELIGIOUS FAITH. — JOHN CARPAY