Abstract

With primary reference to two Supreme Court rulings – Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem ([2004] 2 SCR 551) and Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) ([2017] 2 SCR 386) – the focal points of this study are twofold. In the first part, the authors analyse Amselem’s definition of religion with reference to concepts and theories that have a well-entrenched place in the field of religious studies. They contend that even as Amselem frames religion as an ontological entity, the Court’s definition is best understood as a particular type of social construct – namely, an ‘ethno-definition’ that is polythetic in approach. Segueing from a discussion of Amselem, the second part of this study concerns the issue of why – or perhaps whether – the Amselem articulation of religion remains relevant. In this regard, it is argued that there is a palpable transition between Amselem and Ktunaxa in terms of how the Supreme Court analyses the concepts of religion and religious freedom under the Charter.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.