OTTAWA – The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) will present oral arguments as an intervener in the Supreme Court of Canada today in
Mouvement laïque québécois, et al. v. City of Saguenay, et al (Saguenay). In
Saguenay the Court will consider the meaning of religious freedom and whether the Saguenay city council should be prohibited from voluntary opening prayer at their meetings.
| EFC President Bruce Clemenger has written a helpful reflection on the ideas that underlie the Saguenay case. Download it for free. |
The EFC will argue that it is not contrary to the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms for elected bodies to choose to begin their deliberations with prayer. The question is not whether a prayer must be offered but whether the members of the city council can choose for themselves whether there should be a prayer before their meeting begins. “Prohibiting all religious expression like a prayer is not neutral, but imposes one of many possible options of dealing with religious observance in a religiously plural society” says Bruce Clemenger, President of the EFC. “The decision is best left to the elected and accountable body to decide how to proceed.”
A municipal by-law allowed city council meetings in Saguenay to begin with a voluntary prayer for members who wished to participate. Alain Simoneau, a resident of Saguenay at the time, filed a complaint with a human rights tribunal in 2007 over the prayer and the presence of religious symbols, such as a crucifix, at city hall. Simoneau argued that these religious expressions violated his freedom of conscience and religion.
The Quebec human rights tribunal found in Simoneau’s favour and instructed the city of Saguenay to remove the religious symbols and not allow prayer before council meetings.
In the appeal of the tribunal decision, the Quebec Court of Appeal found that the practice of reciting the prayer was permissible and did not infringe on Simoneau’s freedom of conscience.
This case considers the meaning of religious freedom and whether religious expression in state activities violates the neutrality of the state and whether exposure to someone praying does not violate the religious freedom of the observer.
“The true test of the neutrality of the state is not whether a prayer is offered before the meeting, but whether in conducting the affairs of the government the elected representative and are guided by public principles and serve the common good,” says Clemenger. “If the argument is that no government resources should benefit any religious expression, does this extend to the provision of chapels and chaplains in the military, penitentiaries or in hospitals? What about public prayers at Remembrance Day ceremonies or state funerals?”
Bruce Clemenger will be available for comment immediately after the hearing at the Supreme Court of Canada.
To read EFC’s legal arguments, visit the Supreme Court's webpage of
Saguenay factums. [Editor's note: A
webcast of the hearing is also available at the Supreme Court website. The EFC's verbal intervention, which is much shorter than the written factum, runs from minute 192 to 204.]
-30-
For more information or an interview contact:
Rick Hiemstra, Director of Media Relations
The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
(613) 233-9868 x332
MediaRelations@theEFC.ca