Canadian Council of Christian Charities had a hand in assisting Christian Legal Fellowship to write a brief to the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights on the government’s proposal to remove the Criminal Code provision that protects religious meetings. See the brief here.
Canada’s Criminal Code has always protected clergy against anyone who would interfere with their work, and protected religious services from being interfered with. Today’s version of the code has this listed as Section 176 which is comprised of three parts. The first relates to the obstruction of, violence to, or arrest of officiating clergyman. The second relates to willfully disrupting or interrupting a religious service. The third relates to conduct at or near a religious service that disturbs the order or solemnity.
Here is the full section:
176 (1) Every one who
(a) by threats or force, unlawfully obstructs or prevents or endeavours to obstruct or prevent a clergyman or minister from celebrating divine service or performing any other function in connection with his calling, or (b) knowing that a clergyman or minister is about to perform, is on his way to perform or is returning from the performance of any of the duties or functions mentioned in paragraph (a)
(i) assaults or offers any violence to him, or
(ii) arrests him on a civil process, or under the pretence of executing a civil process,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
(2) Every one who wilfully disturbs or interrupts an assemblage of persons met for religious worship or for a moral, social or benevolent purpose is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
(3) Every one who, at or near a meeting referred to in subsection (2), wilfully does anything that disturbs the order or solemnity of the meeting is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Canada began at a time when religion commanded a lot of attention. Most of the population were members of the “mainstream” churches: Roman Catholic, Anglican, Wesleyan, Presbyterian. When “new” groups arrived such as the Salvation Army then there was considerable discord.
Here is one case that gives you an idea of what the past was like for religious minorities:
In R. v. Gauthier (1905), 11 C.C.C. 263 (Que. K.B.), the accused was convicted on appeal of disturbing the order or solemnity of a meeting for religious worship. The accused entered a meeting of the Salvation Army in a rented hall in the Municipality of St. Louis du Mile End while the meeting was in progress. He moved to the front, turned and asked all French speaking Roman Catholics to rise, and when the majority arose, he invited them to leave on the basis that the meeting was no place for French Roman Catholics like himself. Most of the people in the room began to leave, alarming the chairman of the meeting who attempted to prevent them.
The presence of the Salvation Army in the community had raised some hostile feelings and there was a large crowd of some 1200 people gathered outside. As the people began to leave the meeting, the crowd began to throw objects through the windows of the hall, one of which hit the chairman in the face. The crowd eventually dispersed. The accused, acquitted at trial, was convicted on appeal to the King’s Bench. Hall J. concluded that “…the members of the [Salvation] Army had the right to the audience they had secured and no man had a right to go there and by a peremptory command or even by personal influence [page117] to interfere with that audience and take them away”.
The federal government has decided to update the Criminal Code in its Bill C-51. Part of the “update” is to remove Section 176. The government says it wants to repeal a number of offences that are “no longer required in the Criminal Code for various reasons,” including those that “have been ruled unconstitutional” or are “obsolete, redundant or that no longer have a place in criminal law.”
In the CLF brief we argued that Section 176 is not “unconstitutional”, “outdated”, or “duplicative of more general offences.” Further, we point out that the Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have consistently applied the provisions in s. 176 and upheld their constitutionality. A number of appellate judges have expressly affirmed that these provisions are necessary for the realization of such fundamental rights as freedom of assembly and freedom of association.
In a recent statement Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould says it is outdated and there is sufficient protection in the Criminal Code to protect religious communities. We show in the brief that s. 176 is far from outdated.
We need to have this protection so that everyone is aware that interfering with religious services is not acceptable. There are many “redundant” provisions in the Criminal Code – hate crimes is one that comes to mind – there are plenty of other protections in the Code such that a separate hate crimes is not necessary. But we include hate crimes because society wants to make a statement that is loud and clear that it deems some crimes particularly offensive. I think a similar argument can be made about crimes against religious leaders and those engaged in religious worship.
We need section 176 today more than ever.
Share this post
