- Reaction score
- 12,077
- Points
- 1,040
Defending peoples' rights sometimes means denying the exercise of rights of a few people determined to eliminate the peoples' rights.
Muslim Call to Prayer in Regina (split from Liberal Gov't 2025 - ???)
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,038
- Points
- 1,040
See I don’t buy that argument.
The problem with it is basically anyone can twist it to their advantage which is why I take a absolutist approach. Who gets to decide who should have rights or not? Who determines who shouldn’t have them to ‘protect’ the others?
Again since no one here has answered with a clearly articulated argument as to why they should not be allowed other than I don’t like it, what reason do you have to deny them their rights?
What harm does a call to prayer within reasonable hours at a reasonable volume cause?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,351
- Points
- 1,010
Many years ago, I made a distinction in one of the thread. Maybe it's time to repeat it:
One must not confuse a "freedom" with a "right". They are not the same, and a freedom does not necessarily create a right.
One, freedom is something I, personally and intrinsically possess, and cannot be taken from me. Thus, I am free to believe in whatever religion I want (or not) and chose to follow its precepts, but it creates absolutely no right for me to impose my religion or any of its precept on anyone else or require the state (courts) to impose it on anyone else (to me, broadcasting the call to prayer, or church bells fall in this category of imposing religion on others , even on other perhaps "less" practicing Muslims).
The other, a right, is something I can require other people to abide by and grant me, failing which I can ask the state (courts) to enforce it on others for my benefit. For instance, the right to remain silent or to an attorney, which if denied, the courts will enforce by throwing out any evidence obtained improperly; or the right to property which will be enforced with criminal proceedings for trespass, or with injunctive relief and damages on the civil side if appropriate.
One must not confuse a "freedom" with a "right". They are not the same, and a freedom does not necessarily create a right.
One, freedom is something I, personally and intrinsically possess, and cannot be taken from me. Thus, I am free to believe in whatever religion I want (or not) and chose to follow its precepts, but it creates absolutely no right for me to impose my religion or any of its precept on anyone else or require the state (courts) to impose it on anyone else (to me, broadcasting the call to prayer, or church bells fall in this category of imposing religion on others , even on other perhaps "less" practicing Muslims).
The other, a right, is something I can require other people to abide by and grant me, failing which I can ask the state (courts) to enforce it on others for my benefit. For instance, the right to remain silent or to an attorney, which if denied, the courts will enforce by throwing out any evidence obtained improperly; or the right to property which will be enforced with criminal proceedings for trespass, or with injunctive relief and damages on the civil side if appropriate.
- Reaction score
- 12,852
- Points
- 1,160
Muslims have every right to pray, gather, and worship freely. The crux is whether broadcasting a religious message over loudspeakers into the surrounding community is part of that right, or whether it imposes one group's religious expression on everyone else in a shared public space.
Not every issue of public policy requires demonstrable physical harm. We regulate amplified noise, advertising, protests, and other public expressions because people also have an interest in not having messages imposed on them in their own neighbourhoods.
A church bell marks the time and generally doesn't communicate religious doctrine. A call to prayer is a spoken religious proclamation inviting people to worship and affirming specific religious beliefs. They're not equivalent.
In any case tights are rarely absolute. Freedom of religion exists alongside the rights of others to enjoy public spaces without being subjected to amplified religious messaging. Saying "you can practice your religion, but not broadcast it over loudspeakers into the surrounding community" isn't denying religious freedom. It's just drawing a boundary between private worship and projecting religious expression into the public sphere.
It comes down to where we draw the line between protecting religious liberty and preserving religious neutrality in shared public spaces.
Edit for spelling
Not every issue of public policy requires demonstrable physical harm. We regulate amplified noise, advertising, protests, and other public expressions because people also have an interest in not having messages imposed on them in their own neighbourhoods.
A church bell marks the time and generally doesn't communicate religious doctrine. A call to prayer is a spoken religious proclamation inviting people to worship and affirming specific religious beliefs. They're not equivalent.
In any case tights are rarely absolute. Freedom of religion exists alongside the rights of others to enjoy public spaces without being subjected to amplified religious messaging. Saying "you can practice your religion, but not broadcast it over loudspeakers into the surrounding community" isn't denying religious freedom. It's just drawing a boundary between private worship and projecting religious expression into the public sphere.
It comes down to where we draw the line between protecting religious liberty and preserving religious neutrality in shared public spaces.
Edit for spelling
- Reaction score
- 4,038
- Points
- 1,040
There is no right to ‘Religious Neutrality’ in public spaces, there is only the right to not have the government push it on you. A private citizen can broadcast a religious message as much as they wish.
Specifically as Canadians we all have the right to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. That expression part would be the key part that allows the broadcasting.
As long as the noise doesn’t break noise bylaws, there is no real argument against allowing someone to broadcast any message provided they aren’t calling for someones death.
Specifically as Canadians we all have the right to freedom of thought, opinion, and expression. That expression part would be the key part that allows the broadcasting.
As long as the noise doesn’t break noise bylaws, there is no real argument against allowing someone to broadcast any message provided they aren’t calling for someones death.
- Reaction score
- 12,077
- Points
- 1,040
Similar threads
