# data[].attributes.body
5) a Court must be mindful of the multicultural perceptions and principles upon citizens and must consider acute sensitivities

6) Canada is a "free society" which means it is praised for its accommodations towards beliefs, customs and codes of conduct.

# data[].attributes.body
The purpose of s.2(a) is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being. These beliefs, in turn, govern one's conduct and practices. ... if its trivial, interfirance is ok.

# data[].attributes.body
"The purpose of s.2(a) is to ensure that society does not interfere with profoundly personal beliefs that govern one's perception of oneself, humankind, nature, and, in some cases, a higher or different order of being. These beliefs, in turn, govern one's conduct and practices. The Constitution shelters individuals and groups only to the extent that religious beliefs or conduct might reasonably or actually be threatened."

- The purpose of Section 2a if the Charter is solely to protect an individual's right to their beliefs, when it comes to protecting an individuals right to practice, the government should only interfere if the practice is being "reasonably or actually" threatened

# data[].attributes.body
This paragraph emphasizes the  details regarding the meaning of freedom of religion; "the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, the right to declare religious beliefs openly and without fear of hindrance or reprisal (obstacles), and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice or by teaching and dissemination". Furthermore, it goes on to explain the characterizations of freedom as the absence of restraint, and that nobody should be forced to act in a way contrary to his beliefs or his conscience.

# data[].attributes.body
-Freedom of religion is not absolute and it can conflict with other constitutional rights
-limits include when an activity threatens the physical or psychological wellbeing of others
-Freedom of religion ensures that every individual must be free to hold and manifest without state interference those beliefs and opinions dictated ny one's conscience
-Freedom restricted by the right of others to hold and manifest beliefs of their own and be free from injury from the exercise of the freedom of religion of others
-subject to limitations as are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

# data[].attributes.body
"Conduct which would potentially cause harm to or interference with the rights of others would not automatically be protected." Syndicat Case, Freedom of Religion.

# data[].attributes.body
26)  Religion typically involves a system of faith and worship. Religion also tends to involve the belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power. Religion is about freely and deeply held personal beliefs connected to an individual's spiritual faith and integrally linked to one's self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals connect with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith.

27) A personal or subjective conception of freedom of religion, one that is linked with an individual's self-definition and fulfilment and is a function of personal choice.

31)  A court is not qualified to rule on the validity or veracity of any given religious practice or belief, or to choose among various interpretations of belief, it is qualified to inquire into the sincerity of a claimant's belief, where sincerity is in fact at issue. It is important to emphasize, however, that sincerity of belief simply implies an honesty of belief:

# data[].attributes.body
Freedom of religion, like any other Charter right, is not absolute. The government's interference with one's religious practices must be more than trivial. There are limits to each right, for example, freedom of expression can not be used to protect actions that "threaten the physical or psychological well-being of others" (Syndicat, Case of Mr. Robinson (?), Supreme Court). In this case, the police did not disrupt Mr. Robinson's religious practices substantially. "While the police conduct did interfere to a degree with his religious freedom, it did not do so in a manner that was more than trivial or insubstantial. He was not constrained or coerced in his religious practice."

# data[].attributes.body
"freedom of religion is the right to entertain such religious beliefs as a person chooses, [...] and the right to manifest religious belief by worship and practice [...]  Freedom can primarily be characterised by the absence of coercion or constraint." A person is not truly free if he/she would not have made the decision he/she made out of his/her volition. Freedom means that no one should have to act against one's belief, but could be subject to limitation to "protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others." eg. freedom to life.

This interpretation is framed around how police conduct interferes with freedom of religion and belief.

# data[].attributes.body
(7) The Court should not make substantive pronouncements upon religions and their adherents, or else it would involve an unacceptable degree of subjective reasoning, which could lead to unfortunate and questionable results.

(8) The Court should not be the arbiter of religious dogma, therefore the court should avoid judicially interpreting/determining content of subjective understanding of religious requirement, obligations etc.

(9) the true or falsity of religions is not the business of officials or courts; government/court cannot hold that groups/institutions are not religious bc claimed religious beliefs/practices seem "absurd, fraudulent, evil or novel" or that the group is new, small, hypocritical;

"in the eyes of the law, religions are equal"

"the policy of the law is 'one in, all in'"