Theorizing 'religion' in Canadian law

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.

Automated summary

This study focuses on two Supreme Court rulings in Canada, analyzing the definition and interpretation of religion as a social construct. It also examines the evolution of the Supreme Court's analysis of religion and religious freedom under the Charter.