- Reaction score
- 12,086
- 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
- 4,041
- 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
- 5,358
- 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
- 12,856
- 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
- 4,041
- 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
- 12,086
- Points
- 1,040
It's not "I don't like it". It's "western civilization is valuable enough to block encroachment by less liberal doctrines".
That might be the harm some people have argued against. It's not the harm I argue against. Some Muslims in western countries have openly stated their goals of transforming western countries into bastions of Islam, governed by sharia law. In effect, they would have those countries cease to be western. What I argue is that nothing compels acceptance of that or compels the principles of liberalism to be allowed to erode the principles of liberalism.
"Bigfooting" Islamic practices is one tactic used to advance their quest, and not all Muslims in western countries share that reason for wanting to express their practices into public life. But a bright line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't consider that western civilization survives the encroachments of religious fundamentalists or political extremists by shrugging and hoping that its values prevail.
There are plenty of Islamic countries for people to migrate to if they require dominance displays in the public sphere. Canada is not, and need not, be one of them.
- Reaction score
- 12,856
- Points
- 1,160
It's not accurate to say that because freedom of expression exists, any amplified expression must therefore be permitted. Freedom of expression is a protected right, but it isn't absolute. Governments regulate the time, place, and manner of expression all the time, provided the limits are reasonable and justified.
By your logic any individual or organization could broadcast political speeches, commercial advertising, or ideological messages through loudspeakers into a neighbourhood all day as long as they stayed under the noise limit. That's clearly not how expression rights work in Canada.
The question is still whether someone has a right to project that (religious) expression beyond their property into the surrounding community using amplified sound.
If you believe they do that's a defensible position. But it's not because freedom of expression is unlimited. It's because you've decided that this particular form of amplified expression should be permitted. Those are two different arguments.
- Reaction score
- 12,086
- Points
- 1,040
In Hohfeld's framework, entitlements, liberties, powers, immunities.
[Add: a bit surprised it's still there, but this site has a short article contrasting the rights and obligations of the framework.]
- Reaction score
- 8,260
- Points
- 1,360
Yet, during COVID, a number of Christians out there were saying they were being denied freedom to practice their religion because they were not allowed to "practice" in a way THEY wanted, and in some cases, ticketed and/or prosecuted for it.
Churches challenge Ontario covid restrictions on religious gatherings | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Ontario government imposes Covid gathering restrictions Restrictions on gatherings in Ontario were first imposed in March 2020 by the provincial government under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act. In July 2020, when the state of emergency had ended, Ontario transferred its...
www.jccf.ca
Our Latest Fines & My Last COVID Blog, Hopefully - Trinity Bible Chapel
For everything there is a season. Trinity Bible Chapel’s COVID-19 saga is officially over. About three years ago, we received our first tickets. Then we were convicted of contempt of court. Then we received more tickets, were convicted of contempt of court again, and the government stole our...
trinitybiblechapel.ca
Wonder how many of those saying these were wrong are now saying it's OK to restrict Muslim practices?
- Reaction score
- 9,109
- Points
- 1,360
Its really not religious rights, personal rights, or any of those wonderful things.
Its simply not being an asshole and broadcasting amplified noise through people's personal space.
Its simply not being an asshole and broadcasting amplified noise through people's personal space.
- Reaction score
- 12,086
- Points
- 1,040
Is the discussion now about the freedom to gather, or something else?
Apples, oranges.
- Reaction score
- 2,382
- Points
- 1,260
If someone really feels the need to do so, please make it something beautiful like Peace in the Valley.
- Reaction score
- 12,856
- Points
- 1,160
June 2020. That same month our Prime Minister ignored health rules (that penalized other Canadians) and attended a BLM public protest.
Speaking of which
In 2020 Mormons were trying to practice their religion while respecting gathering rules. They were meeting in church parking lots where services were broadcast over FM radio or sometimes loud speakers (they don'tuse the internet). Could Mormons meet and conduct their services in June 2020 without using a PA system/radio? Not really.
In 2026 can Muslims practice their religion without pumping the call to prayer over loud speakers? Yes. Is it integral to them physically practicing their religion? I don't think so.
In 2026 I wouldn't support Mormons pumping out Psalm 137:9 (dashing babies against rocks) or stories from Lot's pervert daughters. In 2020 their PA system use made sence.
Last edited:
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,358
- Points
- 1,010
I'd love to know where the US State Department, who obviously had an ax to grind (i.e. you look at religious freedom only during an extraordinary event - COVID), got their facts: No mass gatherings for sports (or other functions) were permitted. In fact, I am sure we all recall hockey games being played between Canadian teams only until the playoffs, with players restricted to their hotel or home between games and playing in front of near empty arenas because no crowd was permitted.
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Points
- 1,160
Entirely appropriate to conflate hockey as religious events in Canada.
Similar threads
