Silence is golden

Canada’s Constitution makes a nod to “the supremacy of God,” as does the national anthem. Prime Minister Stephen Harper routinely says “God bless Canada.” The House of Commons opens with a prayer to “Almighty God.” The Senate, too, has its prayers, as does the Ontario Legislature.

So some Canadians are scratching their heads over the Supreme Court’s ruling this week that the city council in Saguenay, Que., has no business opening its meetings with a prayer because that infringes the Charter right to freedom of conscience and religion. The ruling, while unanimous, will be a hard sell with some.

But it’s the right one. Given Canada’s diversity, the court’s warning that public meetings can’t be “a preferential space for people with theistic beliefs” is hard to fault. While 22 million Canadians identified as Christian in 2011, eight million professed no religion and three million were Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jews or others. Saguenay was wrong to telegraph fealty to one creed.

This is a case where official silence may be golden. Municipal public policy should be debated in religion-neutral spaces.

The ruling involved Saguenay Mayor Jean Tremblay’s practice of praying before council meetings. Atheist Alain Simoneau and a secular rights group took the mayor and city to court, and won.

Tremblay, a devout Catholic, crossed the line so to speak by opening meetings with the Sign of the Cross while saying “In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,” then reciting a prayer invoking “God, eternal and almighty,” and crossing himself again. Councillors and city staff also crossed themselves. The court took all this, rightly, for a decidedly Christian show of faith.

It didn’t help that Tremblay cheerfully declared that “I’m in this battle because I worship Christ,” or that council chambers sported a crucifix and Sacred Heart of Jesus statue.

“The evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs,” the high court ruled. “The state must instead remain neutral in this regard. This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for nonbelief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.

“State neutrality means . . . that the state must neither encourage nor discourage any form of religious conviction whatsoever.”

This makes Toronto council, which wisely does not have prayers, look prescient for choosing silence.

The House of Commons, Senate and provincial legislatures enjoy parliamentary privilege and aren’t thought to be affected.

But cities such as Oshawa that recite the Lord’s Prayer are inviting a lawsuit. Others, such as Ottawa, are engaged in a healthy review of their non-denominational prayers or their practice of rotating prayers from different faiths. All are in the awkward position of having to show that their prayers neither “encourage nor discourage” any form of belief. A moment of silence may be the prudent alternative.

Sometimes, silence is a virtue.