Archive

June 27, 2008 The Honourable Chris Bentley Attorney General 720 Bay Street Toronto ON   M5G 2K1 Dear Minister: Under section 31(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is required to submit a report on the Commission’s activities for the previous fiscal period by June 30th of each year, to be tabled in the Legislature.

June 29, 2007 The Honourable Michael J. Bryant Attorney General 720 Bay Street Toronto ON   M5G 2K1 Dear Minister: Under section 31(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Ontario Human Rights Commission is required to submit a report on the Commission’s activities for the previous fiscal period by June 30th of each year, to be tabled in the Legislature.

June 26, 2009 The Honourable Steve Peters Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Room 180 Legislative Building Queen’s Park Toronto, ON M7A 1A2 Dear Mr. Speaker:

In 2010, the Ontario Human Rights Commission released Special programs and the Ontario Human Rights Code: A self-help guide. Now, we want to evaluate how well the Self-Help Guide addresses your needs.

Dear Minister, Please find attached the submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) regarding the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing’s proposed amendments to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005 on land use planning. The OHRC made an initial submission when your Ministry’s review began in 2010.

Dear Mr. Essensa, Thank you for the opportunity to meet earlier this month regarding Elections Ontario’s review and public consultation on alternative voting methods involving internet and telephone voting technologies. The Ontario Human Rights Commission supports these forms of accessible voting as well as the eight electoral principles identified by Elections Ontario.

November 23, 2012 - The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) is proposing amendments to the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) 2005 on land use planning issued under the Planning Act (Act). The Act requires the PPS be reviewed every five years. The Ministry began the review in March 2010. The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is pleased to see proposed amendments that address some of the concerns and recommendations from its initial submission made in 2010 as well as other amendments that would further advance protection for human rights. The OHRC especially welcomes proposed additions that would recognize the interests of Aboriginal communities.

This paper tells the story of Canadian Seventh-day Adventist conscripts in WWII who appeared before Mobilization Boards to verify their claim to be conscientious objectors (CO).

Although Muslims have been living for decades in Canada, they became highly visible in the public eye after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Over the past decade, they have experienced increased scrutiny, negative stereotyping and discrimination as a result of pre-existing perceptions of Muslims as “different” from the rest of Canadian society, along with negative associations of their communities with violence and terrorism. Based on preliminary analysis of the data from a community research study, this paper discusses Islamophobia in Ontario society as part of the everyday experiences of Muslims living in Toronto and the GTA.

As important policy changes are discussed and opened to public response, the urgency to reflect more critically about the narrow and essentialized identity constructions within policy is evidenced. While there will continue to be conflict in the public arena regarding religion and sexuality, from those who identify solely with one aspect and condemn or criticize the other, our policies should be reflective and inclusive of more than these narrow assumptions; if our policies and the application of policies can become more adaptive in response to these challenges, perhaps the assumed inherent conflict can be managed with more productive, alternative strategies.

Freedom of religion includes both the right to manifest beliefs and practices and the right to be free from state coercion or constraint in matters of religion. This paper looks at the scope and interaction of these two aspects of freedom of religion in the context of religious accommodation issues in public schools.

The exemption from the prohibition of employment discrimination (section 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code) is a concern for religious communities; narrow interpretation results in undue infringement of the right to freely associate with others in a religious community.

Chief Justice McLachlin has said that while “reasonable accommodation” may be the appropriate “analysis” in private sector freedom of religion/religious discrimination cases, it is not appropriate in Charter cases in which the restriction on religious freedom is imposed by statute. I think the Chief Justice is right that there are important differences between these two kinds of restriction on religious practices – private sector/human rights code and legislative/Charter. I will argue, though, that her alternative approach, the balancing of interests under s.1 Charter, is either inappropriate or unworkable.

This article explores the manner in which individuals, organizations, and institutions of civil society can identify and distinguish legitimate faith communities from those who would use the purloined language and symbols of religion to advance non-creedal and illegitimate objectives.

The Ontario Humanist Society (OHS) is representative of Humanist ethical communities of choice, with an established institutional history supporting deeply held ethical beliefs and principles as a ‘living’ creed. These communities are currently excluded by definition from the concept of the OHRC definition of ‘creed.’ As a result, the collective rights of Humanists and other such ethical communities of choice are not recognized under the Ontario Human Rights Code. On that account, we argue for a more inclusive interpretation of the term ‘creed’ in this paper, which is a collaborative work by the OHS Ethical Action Committee.

Critiques of Canada’s legal definition of religion run in opposing directions. Some argue that the definition is too wide and lacks an objective aspect; others claim that the definition is too narrow and fails to capture religion’s cultural aspects. The author suggests that religion may not be susceptible to a comprehensive definition, and argues that an approach that draws on analogies would be more appropriate.

This paper encourages a rethinking of the ideas of tolerance and accommodation, suggesting that these concepts may be inappropriate for a country that has a history of diversity, multiculturalism and equality. The paper considers the contexts in which the language of tolerance and accommodation is located.

This paper seeks to provide a social and historical context for the efforts of the Ontario Human Rights Commissions attempt to re-evaluate its policy on addressing discrimination based on “creed” and protecting religious freedom.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has embarked on a revision of its 1996 Policy. The update aims to clarify the Commission’s interpretation of human rights on the basis of creed under the Code, and advance human rights understanding and good practice in this area more generally. The policy update will require extensive research and consultation and will take two to three years to complete (work began in 2011).

The articles presented here offer many insights on human rights, creed, freedom of religion and the law, and take many different positions based on many different perspectives. These articles serve as a starting point as we move forward to craft a new creed policy that reflects the changing needs and realities of today’s Ontarians.

The contemporary ‘convert-immigrant’ make-up of the Canadian Buddhist population not only complicates accommodating the diversity of Buddhist-Canadian religious rights, but also challenges the very definition of “creed” as it is currently formulated in the Ontario Human Rights Code. This paper highlights these dynamics as they pertain to two institutional settings: the penal system and the health care system.

The first step in developing a framework for the interface between a secular society and religion is to define the role of the “secular” state. This paper identifies four interpretations of the meaning of “secular” and identifies legal cases that use several different interpretations.

This article argues that “creed” and religion should be understood as something that informs what a person takes into the public and that necessarily includes beliefs that may (and often do) influence “morals and ethics” and even “politics.”

This essay explores the possibility that the way that the constitutional rule of law imagines and analyses religion influences how religious groups present and, perhaps ultimately, understand their own beliefs, practices, and traditions.

The paper explores new stresses on accommodation as traditionally sought by the Jewish community in light of growing religious diversity and competing rights. Hard earned accommodations have become a focus of debate as demands of multiculturalism are broadened and challenged.