The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday issued an interesting ruling
addressing the issue of whether a Sikh student may be prohibited from
wearing a kirpan in school. The case came out of Quebec; interestingly,
most Canadian religious freedom cases seem to come from either Quebec or
British Columbia. Here's a snippet from my post on Prawfsblawg, available
at:
http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/03/scc_says_kirpan.html
"In today's decision in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys,
the Court holds that a decision of a school board prohibiting a student from
wearing a kirpan -- in effect, a ceremonial dagger worn by Sikhs -- violated
his freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and that this infringement could not be justified, as some infringements can
be, under section 1 of the Charter. It looks to me as if the Court was
unanimous as to the underlying decision that the board erred in banning the
kirpan, although there are some interesting arguments as to whether the
decision ought to have been made under the Charter or under applicable
principles of administrative law. The Court noted that the student and his
parents were willing to comply "with certain conditions to ensure that it
was sealed inside his clothing," but rejected the argument that the student
could have been made to wear a wooden or plastic kirpan (which the student
said would not comply with religious requirements) and fairly flatly
rejected an absolute bar on the wearing of kirpans." . . . . Among other
things, the Court strongly rejected the argument . . . that allowing kirpans
exposes kids to violence and affects the "perception of the climate of
security," pointing out the plethora of potentially lethal objects that are
readily available in any school, from baseball bats to scissors, and arguing
that "[i]f some students consider it unfair that [the student] may wear his
kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their
possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to
instill in their students this value that is at the very foundation of our
democracy."
The decision itself is available at:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2006scc006.wpd.html
I should note that much of the remainder of my Prawfsblawg post compares the
ruling to the contrary argument on kirpans presented by Prof. Hamilton in
her valuable book God vs. the Gavel, and respectfully sides with the Court's
view.
Paul Horwitz
Southwestern University School of Law
Los Angeles, CA
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
