# data[].attributes.body
This video discusses the debate about how many countries would like to ban Burka's and Hijab's. Some may say that it is oppressive towards women, while some may say it is simply the individuals right to express themselves the way they would like. Regardless of anyone's beliefs it is an individuals explicit right to wear it, as it is their right to express themselves through religious freedom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There is a lot of public debate about Islamic headwear and its place in Australia. We look at the types of religious head coverings that are out there and meet some of the young women who wear them.

# data[].attributes.headline
Debatable Hate Speech Versus Freedom of Speech

# data[].attributes.subject
Debatable Hate Speech Versus Freedom of Speech

# data[].attributes.body
This man believes Islam is essentially wrong. While the majority of us (people who are not bigots and racists) understand that the beliefs of 99.999% of muslims does NOT coincide with the beliefs of ISIS, this man still has the freedom to express himself, along with his right to practice his own faith. This is a great example (regardless of how offensive it might be to some people) of the double edged sword aspect of freedom of religion/freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Anti-Islam protest outside a Muslim Conference in Toronto

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Outside the RIS Convention (Reviving the Islamic Spirit) a group of Christians preach about Jesus and against Muhammad.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ban on Sikh kirpan overturned by Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Ban on Sikh kirpan overturned by Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
A Quebec school board was wrong to tell a 12-year-old Sikh boy he could not wear his ceremonial dagger in the classroom, as his faith requires, Canada's top court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The total ban infringed on Gurbaj Singh's guarantees of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-0 on Thursday.

But the ruling re-establishes a lower court decision, which allows Sikhs to wear kirpans under certain conditions. The knife must be worn under the clothes and sewn into a sheath.

Under thoses conditions, "the kirpan is almost totally stripped of its objectively dangerous characteristics," the court said. "Access to the kirpan ... is now fully impeded by the cloth envelope sewn around the wooden sheath. In these circumstances, the argument relating to safety can no longer reasonably succeed."

The court threw out arguments from lawyers for the Quebec school board that originally implemented the ban. It said there is no suggestion the kirpan is a weapon of violence or that Gurbaj, who was 12 when the court case started five years ago, intended to use it as one.

The argument is "disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism," wrote Justice Louise Charron.

"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is ... at the very foundation of our democracy."

The kirpan is a symbol of justice that orthodox Sikhs must wear at all times.

After the ruling was released, Gurbaj said he believes the case arose out of ignorance of his faith.

"This is an article of faith," the 17-year-old said. "We do not use it (the kirpan), we do not take it out. That's a restriction."
______________________________________________________________________
This was a case that stood out very much to me. A young man who is following what he has been taught his whole life is told he essentially cannot practice his religion in his classroom. While yes one could make the argument that the Kirpan could be used as a weapon, one could also very quickly discredit this statement because of the fact that the dagger must be hidden under the clothing, is usually not extremely sharp, and most of all is not viewed as a weapon, rather as a ceremonial dagger. The young boy took the issue to courts and argued that not being allowed to have his Kirpan in school violates his religious freedom rights. He won the case and is allowed to have the Kirpan in school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Quebec school board was wrong to tell a 12-year-old Sikh boy he could not wear his ceremonial dagger in the classroom, as his faith requires, Canada's top court ruled unanimously Thursday.

The total ban infringed on Gurbaj Singh's guarantees of religious freedom under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled 8-0 on Thursday.

But the ruling re-establishes a lower court decision, which allows Sikhs to wear kirpans under certain conditions. The knife must be worn under the clothes and sewn into a sheath.

Under those conditions, "the kirpan is almost totally stripped of its objectively dangerous characteristics," the court said. "Access to the kirpan ... is now fully impeded by the cloth envelope sewn around the wooden sheath. In these circumstances, the argument relating to safety can no longer reasonably succeed."

The court threw out arguments from lawyers for the Quebec school board that originally implemented the ban. It said there is no suggestion the kirpan is a weapon of violence or that Gurbaj, who was 12 when the court case started five years ago, intended to use it as one.

The argument is "disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism," wrote Justice Louise Charron.

"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is ... at the very foundation of our democracy."

The kirpan is a symbol of justice that orthodox Sikhs must wear at all times.

After the ruling was released, Gurbaj said he believes the case arose out of ignorance of his faith.

"This is an article of faith," the 17-year-old said. "We do not use it (the kirpan), we do not take it out. That's a restriction."

The case stems from a November 2001 incident at Ste-Catherine-Laboure school in LaSalle. Gurbaj's cloth-wrapped dagger came loose from around his waist and fell to the ground at the elementary school.

The principal ordered the then 12-year-old to remove the kirpan, but Gurbaj left school rather than remove the 10-centimetre-long ceremonial dagger, which, he says, is a key component of his faith. He eventually switched to another school and his family took the matter to court.
Lower court decision upheld
The case has been winding its way through the legal system for four years.

In May 2002, the Quebec Superior Court ruled Gurbaj could wear his kirpan to school if it were wrapped in heavy cloth inside a wooden case, underneath his clothing.

Quebec's government at the time, the Parti QuÃ©bÃ©cois, appealed the decision. In 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal struck down the decision, ruling the kirpan had the makings of a weapon and was dangerous.

Although banning the weapon was a hindrance to freedom of religion, the court ruled community safety comes first.

McGill University Prof. Jack Jedwab said Canadians are looking for guidance in where to draw the line when it comes to issues of religious freedom.

"People are looking for some leadership on this point and hopefully they'll get some from the Supreme Court," he said.

Manjeet Singh, the Sikh chaplain at McGill and Concordia universities, who also assisted Gurbaj Singh's legal team, said baptized Sikhs believed the kirpan is a symbol of courage, freedom and responsibility to stand up for their rights.

"It is one of the five articles of faith that every baptized Sikh is supposed to have on their person, all the time," he said.

Craig Buchanan, vice-president of English affairs with the Quebec Federation of Parents Committee, said the issue is divisive.

"It's a tricky situation. If you start to try to limit the religious freedoms, then what's that going to do to other religious freedoms?" said Buchanan. "And if you seek to compromise safety in schools, how far is that going to go as far as safety in the schools?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ban on Sikh kirpan overturned by Supreme Court | CBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canada's top court has ruled that a Montreal Sikh boy can wear a ceremonial dagger in the classroom, with certain conditions.

# data[].attributes.headline
The History of Religious Freedom and the Necessity of it

# data[].attributes.subject
The History of Religious Freedom and the Necessity of it

# data[].attributes.body
This video describes the history of religious freedom. As we know understanding the history of certain subjects give more context to the topic. Knowing this, we can now form arguments or beliefs on the freedom of religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
It's My Right as a Canadian to Be Free From Religion

# data[].attributes.subject
It's My Right as a Canadian to Be Free From Religion

# data[].attributes.body
Canadian atheists are often confronted by misinformation about their right to freedom from religion. Usually, the perpetrators are religious people who claim that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee this. The most recent person of note to say this is the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Foreign Affairs, who happens to be responsible for the Office of Religious Freedoms.

The clauses at the centre of this misinformation are those dealing with Fundamental Freedoms:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Most central are 2a, including freedom of conscience and religion and 2b, including freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. Even a layperson's understanding of those terms would indicate that freedom of thought would include the right to think that there is no god. Freedom of opinion, and expression would logically reinforce that.

Some theists argue that the preamble to the Charter recognizes the "supremacy of God" and this precludes the right to freedom from religion. However, the courts have never used the preamble as a basis of constitutional decisions and have debated its legitimacy as a basis for legal arguments. In short, there is no legal precedent for its use to promote a theist interpretation of the Charter.

Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has said that the Charter does guarantee the right to freedom from religion, and it has said it repeatedly.

The first and definitive case in which the Supreme Court said this was Regina v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd, in 1985. This case has been cited in many similar cases since then, so it serves as the real basis for the Canadian atheist claims to the right to freedom from religion.

The case involved Big M Drug Mart Ltd., a retail drugstore chain, charged by the Crown Attorney of New Brunswick with a breach of the Lord's Day Act in that province. The crown lost its case and appealed, eventually, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

First, the SCC dealt with the constitutionality of the Lord's Day Act. Essentially it said that to limit the protection of clause 2a -- the right to freedom of conscience and religion -- to those who hold religious beliefs had no basis. "An accused atheist would be equally entitled to resist a charge under the Act. The only way this question might be relevant would be if clause 2(a) were interpreted as limited to protecting only those persons who could prove a genuinely held religious belief. I can see no basis to so limit the breadth of s. 2(a) in this case" (section 40 of the decision). In other words, the NB Lord's Day was unconstitutional.

Then the court dealt with the issue of freedom of religion, saying, "freedom must surely be founded in respect for the inherent dignity and the inviolable rights of the human person."(94) It further stated, "Freedom can primarily be characterized by the absence of coercion or constraint. If a person is compelled by the state or the will of another to a course of action or inaction which he would not otherwise have chosen, he is not acting of his own volition and he cannot be said to be truly free"(94) and "freedom means that, subject to such limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, no one is to be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience."(95)
______________________________________________________________________
The portion of this that I have highlighted is in my opinion the most accurate quote I have found on this topic thus far. This article discusses the opposite side of freedom of religion; the freedom to be free from religion. As an atheist myself I do agree with this, but I also respect every Canadian's right to believe in what they want to. Big M Drug Mart was charged with selling goods on a Sunday, which violated the lords day act. In court they argued that this act was unconstitutional because it essentially forced a belief onto them. This was a very important case in religious freedom issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It’s My Right as a Canadian to Be Free From Religion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canadian atheists are often confronted by misinformation about their right to freedom from religion. To coerce someone to follow a religion is to deny that person freedom of religion. If that person is a non-believer, freedom of religion then means the right to not believe-freedom from religion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Toronto Star Article Summary on The Right to Wear a Face-Covering Veil, Such as a Burqa

# data[].attributes.subject
Toronto Star Article Summary on The Right to Wear a Face-Covering Veil, Such as a Burqa

# data[].attributes.body
The Federal Court of Canada has ruled it is “unlawful” for Ottawa to order new citizens to remove their face-covering veil when taking the oath of citizenship.

The federal government must immediately lift its existing ban allowing Toronto’s Zunera Ishaq to reschedule a new citizenship ceremony unless it appeals the ruling and receives the permission to suspend the order, the Federal Court said in a decision released Friday.

While it is not unusual to have government policies overturned in breach of Charter and constitutional rights, the court ruling is unusual because the decision was based on the finding that the ban mandated by the immigration minister violated the government’s own immigration laws.

“To the extent that the policy interferes with a citizenship judge’s duty to allow candidates for citizenship the greatest possible freedom in the religious solemnization or the solemn affirmation of the oath,” wrote Justice Keith M. Boswell, “it is unlawful.”

______________________________________________________________________

This article was particularly interesting because it brings up a very sensitive issue that no one really wants to talk about. Despite whether your belief on Burqas are that they are oppressive or that they are simply a part of the culture, this was a definitive moment in Canadian history that further shows how tolerant Canadians are of accepting different religions and beliefs into our country.

# data[].attributes.headline
A quote by Frank Murphy, an American Politician Who Died in 1949 

# data[].attributes.subject
A quote by Frank Murphy, an American Politician Who Died in 1949 

# data[].attributes.body
This quote relates to the Pope Francis quote in a way. Not only are these aspects of the constitution relevant to freedom to express your religion, but it is also for freedom to believe in whatever you want.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/280419514278883767/

# data[].attributes.body
This quote is from Pope Francis. I think it is his way of expressing that freedom of religion is not only for religious people, but it can also be for the freedom to believe, or not believe, what you want to. It is a very thought provoking quote that can be taken in many different ways.

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-think-both-freedom-of-religion-and-freedom-of-expression-are-both-fundamental-human-pope-francis-127-34-50.jpg

# data[].attributes.headline
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

# data[].attributes.subject
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

# data[].attributes.body
This is what the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms looks like. It involves topics such as mobility rights, freedom of religion,  discrimination, etc...

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/opinion/public_editor/2012/03/09/canadian_charter_of_rights_what_is_the_status_of_press_freedom_in_canada/charter.jpeg