Reconsidering Creed: Exchanging Secularism for Genuine Pluralism in Canadian Human Rights Discourse

In the case of SL v Commission scolaire des Chenes, the Supreme Court of Canada adopted a more nuanced approach to the role of religion in public life than it had in many previous decisions. It recognized that, while absolute neutrality does not exist, the role of the state was to remain as neutral as possible by “show[ing] respect for all postures towards religion, (...) while taking into account the competing constitutional rights of the affected individuals”. This more pluralistic approach is an improvement on previous decisions that affirmed the need for a secular public sphere in which religion took a back seat (or from which it was excluded altogether). Although the decision has its weaknesses, it also has important ramifications for creed-based human rights policy. Religion should not be seen as a problem to be accommodated, as it is often viewed in European human rights jurisprudence. It should instead be seen as a valuable and equal contributor to the richness of our public life, with a place in our schools, workplaces and other ‘public spaces’ along with other claims to the good and the true. The forthcoming update to the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s Policy on creed and the accommodation of religious observances should reflect this pluralism and show “respect for all postures towards religion”. To privatize religion in the name of a false neutrality would be oppressive and a betrayal of our society’s deepest liberal ideals.