The legal protection of religious freedom in Canada

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- The legal protection of religious freedom in Canada，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了加拿大宗教信仰自由的法律保护。法院是重要的司法机关，承担着裁决纠纷的国家职能。加拿大是实行判例法制度的国家，法院的判决结果对以后同类案件具有法律效力，这样以来，日积月累的法院判例就形成了丰富的司法理论和实践，所以加拿大宗教信仰自由的司法保护就是法院对宗教信仰自由的保护，法院是通过审理案件撤销不合乎宪法规定的法律或法律规定来保护公民的宗教信仰自由的。

Canada has two levels of legislature, the federal congress of Canada at the central level and the provincial legislature of Canada at the local level. A number of legal precedents argue that the laws governing the observance of religious services on Sunday or Halloween are enacted by the federal parliament of Canada. Of course, we cannot simply assume, on the basis of these precedents, that all laws relating to religious holidays in Canada are enacted by the federal parliament of Canada. According to the constitution of Canada, provincial legislatures have the right to make laws on marriage, so that religious ceremonies concerning marriage can be enacted by provincial legislatures. In sum, the Canadian constitution does not simply classify religious beliefs as a federal matter or a provincial matter; in most cases, religious matters are Shared by both federal and provincial legislatures. So there are laws about religious freedom, there are federal laws, there are local laws; The penal code contains provisions on punishment of criminal ACTS that violate religious freedom, the civil law contains provisions on religious rituals, and so on. As a result, there are different levels of laws concerning religious belief in Canada, so that there are many laws protecting the freedom of religious belief in Canada.

In 1982, Canada adopted the charter of human rights, in which article 2 clearly provided for the guarantee of the freedom of religious belief for everyone. Charter of human rights is the first part of the Canadian constitution, is an important content of the Canadian constitution, so in the charter for the protection of the freedom of religious belief to make regulation, freedom of religious belief makes Canada became a citizen of one of the basic rights of freedom of the constitution, it and equal rights, freedom of speech and other fundamental rights of citizens freedom, has a constitutional status, are protected by the highest domestic law.

After the adoption of the Canadian charter of human rights, the legal provisions that violate and restrict the freedom of religious belief are not constitutional and unconstitutional. Any in Canada in violation of the provisions of the charter, the law or legal provisions are influenced by the question whether it is constitutional provisions, citizens' freedom of religious belief has been violated can Sue to the court, requesting the court judgement in violation of the provisions of the constitution of the freedom of religious belief of the law or the law is not legitimate, and the violations of the law of the citizens' freedom of religious belief or revoked by law and to make it no longer has the force of law.

The court is an important judicial organ, bearing the state function of adjudicating disputes. Canada is a case law system countries, the court's decision is legally binding on later similar cases, since such, accumulate over a long period of the court case was formed rich judicial theory and practice, so Canada's court judicial protection of freedom of religious belief of the protection of freedom of religious belief, the court is through the case to cancel the unsuited to constitutional law or the law to protect citizens' freedom of religious belief, we illustrate:

The Supreme Court of Canada has argued that any law or purpose prescribed by law that violates the freedom of religious belief would be a violation of the human rights charter, which means such a law is unconstitutional and should be repealed. This judicial claim was established through the trial of queen v Big M drug trading center. The Supreme Court of Canada considered, through its case, that the federal monarch day act prohibiting weekday commercial activities violated the right to religious freedom under article 2 of the charter of human rights. The reason for the court's determination was that the purpose of the federal monarchical day act was to compel all people to observe the religious observance of the Christian Sabbath, a purpose which violated the freedom of religious belief of non-Christians. Therefore, the law is invalid, and the effect of the law need not be considered as a violation of religious freedom, because the effect cannot be achieved through a law whose purpose is invalid. What needs our special attention is that in this case, judge Dixon gave a clear explanation to the freedom of religious belief in Canada. He believed that the freedom of religious belief in Canada mainly includes three aspects. The second is the freedom to publicly declare one's religion and not to be hindered or retaliated against; The third is the right and freedom to express one's religious feelings through religious rituals or doctrinal propaganda. It can be seen that through this case, the freedom of religious belief protected by the court is very comprehensive.

The end of law is generally good, so Canada legislature rarely set contain violations of the law of the purpose of the charter of human rights, the act of the monarch, is the only one legal inspection failed court and was completely withdrawn by the court of law, the law to protect freedom of religious belief in Canada practice, more to be a part of the legal terms was revoked by the court.

The Supreme Court of Canada has argued that if the effect of the law is to violate the freedom of religious belief, the law will violate the human rights charter. Such laws or legal provisions would not be unconstitutional if they were intended to restrict the freedom of religious belief but did not specifically affect the exercise of citizens' right to freedom of religious belief. Queen Elizabeth v Johns is a typical case. The case is a court hearing on the defendant's claim to religious freedom, the defendant did not send his children to school to receive education, but in his own education children in the basement of the Christian church where he served as a priest. According to the education law of alberta, the act of defendant education's own children must be approved by education competent authority. In other words, the law requires the defendant to obtain education competent authority to approve education activities in the church basement as education activities in private schools. Or the department in charge of education issues the qualification certificate to approve this kind of family education mode to be effective, the education behavior way of accused just is legal. But the defendant refused to apply for the permit because he believed it was contrary to his religious beliefs, which required the government to allow him to do what god intended. The defendant is accused of violating alberta's education law by violating his freedom of religious belief by refusing to apply for relevant documents. The minority of judges hearing the case argued that the alberta education act, which requires defendants to apply for government approval, violated their freedom of religion. The majority of the court's judges found that the effect of the alberta education act on the freedom of religious belief of citizens was "insignificant or insignificant" and that the law could not be deemed to violate the freedom of religious belief.

Based on the above two cases, it can be clearly seen that the criterion for deciding whether the law or legal provisions are unconstitutional is to see whether the purpose or effect of the law or legal provisions restrict the exercise of citizens' right to freedom of religious belief. It is important to note, of course, that although there are some restrictions on the freedom of religious belief of citizens, the court does not find the law or its provisions unconstitutional if it considers such restrictions to be justified under article 1 of the charter of human rights.

The protection of the freedom of religious belief in Canada is very broad. There is freedom to believe in one religion and another; there is freedom to propagate religious teachings, to communicate religious feelings, and so on, which are protected by law.

However, the legal protection of the freedom of religious belief is not absolute and boundless. For example, the freedom to exercise one's own religious belief shall not impair the freedom of others to exercise one's religious belief. Neither the constitution nor the law protects the freedom of religious belief against humanity and society, which means that the legal protection of the freedom of religious belief in Canada is not absolute but relative.

However, some disrespect for the religious practices of the Canadian government can be treated differently. There are indeed some religious practices in Canada that teach their followers not to salute the Canadian flag, not to sing the Canadian national anthem, etc. These religious practices were previously unacceptable to the majority of Canadian society, and the government therefore prohibited the freedom of belief in such religious practices. People are now tolerant of religious practices, believing that such practices do not force believers to violate the interests of the national government, which should allow the freedom of such religious beliefs. Article 2 of the Canadian charter of human rights also allows the law to make exceptions to this type of religious practice in order to reconcile the conflict of interest between the public government and groups that believe in these religious practices and to guarantee their freedom of religious belief. The Canadian government and the public's respect for the freedom of religious belief of those who believe in these religious practices marks the progress of the civilization of Canadian national society.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供美国作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。