Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings and selected commentary

Lot’s of coverage of the SCC decision on regarding prayer city council meetings, starting with the basics:

In 2008, city officials initially changed the prayer to one it deemed more neutral and delayed the opening of council by two minutes to allow citizens a window to return follow the reciting.

The Supreme Court said Canadian society has evolved and given rise to a “concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs.”

“The state must instead remain neutral in this regard,” the judgment said.

“This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.

“When all is said and done, the state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non-believers in public life to the detriment of others.”

The City of Ottawa quickly reacts with a sensible approach: a minute of silence and reflection:

In Ottawa, Mayor Jim Watson replaced the prayer with a moment of silence — even though he said the prayer councillors have been reciting for years was non-denominational.

“I always thought that our prayer was very respectful of all religions and cultures. But the court has ruled and we’ll take the ruling seriously. The alternative I believe would make some sense is to offer, as we did today, a moment of personal reflection and people can pray themselves personally and privately,” Watson said.

Supreme Court rules against prayer at city council meetings – Montreal – CBC News.

Best commentary seen to date:

The Court didn’t bite. It lacked evidence of the circumstances and purpose of the Commons prayer, Justice Gascon argued, and besides, it might be covered by parliamentary privilege. That might save it from the judiciary; it shouldn’t save it from Canadians’ scrutiny. While Maurice Duplessis’ crucifix still looms over the speaker’s chair in Quebec City, the National Assembly abandoned its introductory prayer nearly 40 years ago in favour of a moment of reflection — one in which members and others can gather courage and inspiration from whichever sources, earthly or otherwise, they choose. That’s an idea worth reflecting on.

National Post Editorial: The separation of prayer and council

But perhaps the part of the judgment that will be read most carefully by justice officials and their political masters is the section that spells out that a neutral public space is not one that obliterates religious diversity.

In paragraph 74 of the judgment, and almost as an aside from its core narrative, Justice Clément Gascon writes: “I note that a neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of private players in that space. Neutrality is required of institutions and the state, not individuals.”

He adds for good measure: “. . . a secular state does not — and cannot — interfere with the beliefs or practices of a religious group unless they conflict with or harm overriding public interests.”

That amounts to a red light flashing in the face of any government contemplating — as Quebec recently did — the imposition of a secular dress code on its public sector employees.

It also suggests that the federal government, should it want the court to give its ban on face-covering niqabs at citizenship oath ceremonies a green light, may have to come up with a pretty compelling demonstration of the “overriding public interest” served by such a measure.

Canadian legislators will have to pay attention to Supreme Court’s prayer ruling: Hébert