(Pictured Above: Canadian polygamist Winston Blackmore and some of his daughters)While Canada has an (obviously) different set of constintutional rules than we do in the U.S., they face similar challenges. For example, how should the country square its committment to Freedom of religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_freedom_in_Canada) with its other laws?
It might surprise you to know that this isn't always easy. In this week's Economist (news magazine) we learn about a bid by the Canadian authorities to deal with bigamy. (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12974209&source=hptextfeature)
Already, the effort is running into potential legal hurdles:
AFTER decades of tolerating what has come to be seen as a dirty little secret, British Columbia’s government is at last taking action to end the practice of polygamy by a Mormon sect. This week two leaders of a commune called Bountiful appeared in court to answer criminal charges. But the case may expose a conflict between constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion on the one hand and the criminal law on the other.
[...]
The police first investigated ... in 1991. But the province’s attorney-general decided against charges, arguing that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of worship, would trump the criminal code. The current occupant of the job, Wally Oppal, disagrees. But the outcome of the case is uncertain. If found guilty, the defendants may appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
The charter, approved in 1982, has expanded civil rights. But some lawyers and victims’ groups complain it has encouraged courts to throw out well-founded cases because of technical flaws in police procedure. “It has become a charter of rights for criminals,” says Wallace Craig, a retired British Columbia judge. It is the (often unjust) fate of human-rights legislation to attract such populist criticism. But if the charter allows the leaders of Bountiful to flout the law, many may believe that the critics have a point.
Of course the Canadian charter hasn't been replicated here in the U.S., but the constitutional right of free expression of religion found in the constitution is (like most of the constitution) open to interpretation. I doubt such an excuse would get very far in the U.S. (in fact, I assume it's already been tried and failed), but hopefully this will illuminate how far ranging these rights can be interpreted.
For more on this kind of issue, here's the case about Florida drivers' licenses and Islamic veils:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02UR3Pj1P5dnP/610x.jpg
And here's an Arkansas case that's now in Federal Court where a citizen sued claiming rights' violations after his daughter was suspended from school for refusing to take a required vaccination. The plaintiff said such a requirement violated their religious rights:
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/McCvBoo.htm
It might surprise you to know that this isn't always easy. In this week's Economist (news magazine) we learn about a bid by the Canadian authorities to deal with bigamy. (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12974209&source=hptextfeature)
Already, the effort is running into potential legal hurdles:
AFTER decades of tolerating what has come to be seen as a dirty little secret, British Columbia’s government is at last taking action to end the practice of polygamy by a Mormon sect. This week two leaders of a commune called Bountiful appeared in court to answer criminal charges. But the case may expose a conflict between constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion on the one hand and the criminal law on the other.
[...]
The police first investigated ... in 1991. But the province’s attorney-general decided against charges, arguing that Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of worship, would trump the criminal code. The current occupant of the job, Wally Oppal, disagrees. But the outcome of the case is uncertain. If found guilty, the defendants may appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
The charter, approved in 1982, has expanded civil rights. But some lawyers and victims’ groups complain it has encouraged courts to throw out well-founded cases because of technical flaws in police procedure. “It has become a charter of rights for criminals,” says Wallace Craig, a retired British Columbia judge. It is the (often unjust) fate of human-rights legislation to attract such populist criticism. But if the charter allows the leaders of Bountiful to flout the law, many may believe that the critics have a point.
Of course the Canadian charter hasn't been replicated here in the U.S., but the constitutional right of free expression of religion found in the constitution is (like most of the constitution) open to interpretation. I doubt such an excuse would get very far in the U.S. (in fact, I assume it's already been tried and failed), but hopefully this will illuminate how far ranging these rights can be interpreted.
For more on this kind of issue, here's the case about Florida drivers' licenses and Islamic veils:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/02UR3Pj1P5dnP/610x.jpg
And here's an Arkansas case that's now in Federal Court where a citizen sued claiming rights' violations after his daughter was suspended from school for refusing to take a required vaccination. The plaintiff said such a requirement violated their religious rights:
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/McCvBoo.htm
