Decision Multani v Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys

a student s right carry kirpan example of religious freedom according supreme court.

this raised question of whether freedom of religion absolute right or had internal limits aside limits under section 1. trinity western university v. british columbia college of teachers (2001) cited suggest freedom of religion limited other values aside under section 1, in case goals of order , security. supreme court noted since r. v. big m drug mart ltd. (1985), there had been recognition freedom of religion should not used harm others, section 1 ideal place consideration. in contrast, in trinity western university case, court merely had address situation in freedom of religion , equality rights might contradict each other. contradiction prevented supreme court, section 1 not used harmonize 2 rights. these issues in mind, court turned apply freedom of religion analysis case.

the decision followed precedent in syndicat northcrest v. amselem (2004) claim freedom of religion succeed, individual should show he/she believes practise connected religious belief. next, infringement of freedom of religion should serious. in case, carrying of kirpan deemed connected religion because necessary according orthodox sikhism. same beliefs dictated kirpan not used harm others. claimant s belief kirpan must metal considered sincere. while other sikhs used non-metal kirpans, irrelevant beliefs of individual. court moved on find violation of freedom of religion considerable. claimant had leave public school.

reasonable limits

the court turned consider whether violation of freedom of religion upheld under section 1 of charter. following r. v. oakes (1986), court asked whether there sufficient objective violation. main concern, noted quebec court of appeal, school safety, helps maintain atmosphere in students can learn. supreme court agreed qualify important objective under section 1. however, noted there varying degrees of safety, highest degree of safety being excessive. court contemplated highest degree of safety require banning of scissors , other such objects. thus, safety in school supposed reasonable. however, because council wanted rid schools of weapons, court deemed council s objective reasonable. raised question whether rights infringement rational , proportionate objective. banning of kirpan considered rational because weapon, , banning fit objective of ridding school of weapons.

however, banning of kirpan not proportionate objective. noted claimant not wear kirpan @ school @ all, though claimant have accepted limitations. council had said kirpan stolen, or encourage other students bring weapons school. supreme court replied claimant himself not violent, , limitations accepted claimant made theft unlikely. thief have seize claimant , under claimant s clothing. additionally, there little no proof students have used kirpans weapons in schools. although cases involving airline security have resulted in banning of kirpans on planes, court quoted canadian human rights tribunal saying whereas people know each other in school, planes carry different people never know each other. there little opportunity judge whether passenger violent. argument kirpan encourage other students bring weapons school, defence against kirpan, court replied speculative. of relation concern worry school atmosphere negatively affected. court replied untrue kirpan represented violence, , had religious meanings instead. court found theory offensive sikhs , contradict multiculturalism. if students feel unfair claimant can wear kirpan school while cannot carry knives, court suggested schools should teach these students importance of freedom of religion.

it noted in trinity western university v. british columbia college of teachers, court had said schools should teach values , promote civic virtue. allowing kirpan beneficial in teach students importance of freedom of religion.