While the case considered the discrimination in the context of the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Supreme Court ruling has implications for the rest of Canada, since those same fundamental freedoms of conscience and religion are similarly protected for everyone under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (The court, in fact, pointed to this similarity in its findings, interpreting the relevant section “in light of the principles that have been developed in relation to the application of the Canadian Charter.”)

The Rationale

To understand the rationale behind this important decision, a look at the reasoning shared by the court is helpful. On behalf the majority, Gascon J writes:

“By expressing no preference, the state ensures that it preserves a neutral public space that is free of discrimination and in which true freedom to believe or not to believe is enjoyed by everyone equally, given that everyone is valued equally … A neutral public space does not mean the homogenization of private players in that space. Neutrality is required of institutions and the state, not individuals … On the contrary, a neutral public space free from coercion, pressure, and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity … Section 27 [of the Charter] requires that the state’s duty of neutrality be interpreted not only in a manner consistent with the protective objectives of the Canadian Charter, but also with a view to promoting and enhancing diversity.”

Further, although neither Charter imposes an express duty of religious neutrality on the state, “this duty results from an evolving interpretation of freedom of conscience and religion … This neutrality requires that the state neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non‑belief … It requires that the state abstain from taking any position and thus avoid adhering to a particular belief.”

What Now?

Following last week’s ruling, many municipalities that previously incorporated an opening prayer as part of their council proceedings have dropped the practice. Some have opted instead to sing the national anthem or observe a moment of silence, while others have simply suspended the prayer pending further review.

Those municipal councils who still include a prayer at their opening would be wise to examine the practice in light of the SCC decision. This ruling doesn’t take away the freedom of the mayor and councillors, as individuals, to pray – or not – and be guided according to their own consciences and religious beliefs. It does, however, have implications for carrying out that practice as a formal tradition or procedure as part of an inclusive public process.

The full text of the SCC decision is online at http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/15288/index.do

First World Happiness Report Launched at the United Nations

Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are? And, all things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?

Those may sound like rather personal questions to ask. However, a recent report from the Earth Institute at Columbia University suggests that they are in fact among the most important questions that countries – and communities – can be asking their citizens. The first-ever World Happiness Report was commissioned for the United Nations Conference on Happiness held in early April, and takes a serious look at factors that contribute to individuals’ sense of well-being, and how this measure of “happiness” tracks across nations.

Interestingly, the research revealed that, while richer countries do tend to be happier, social factors – such as the strength of social support, the absence of corruption, and the degree of personal freedom – were actually more important for happiness than income. Looking beyond income and work, key determinants of happiness included community and governance, as well as values and religion. Personal aspects of happiness included mental and physical health, in addition to family experience, education, gender, and age.

For policy makers, the report suggests that there is an important opportunity to help promote and improve the environmental factors that can impact happiness, and to balance the compelling arguments for these policy directions carefully against the arguments for economic growth (as typically measured through GDP). Values such as altruism (i.e., opportunities to volunteer, donate, participate, and “make a difference”) and environment (i.e., concerns about the future of the planet, as well as the impact of the existing environment on adults today) are but two examples of areas where local government policy makers may be able to help effect a positive change in overall community happiness.

To illustrate, a 2011 study by E.K. Nisbet and J.M. Zelenski cited in the report may be helpful. This Canadian research (conducted at Carleton University) found that people walking on a tree-lined path beside the river were measurably more happy than those taking the same trip through an underground tunnel system – and that the actual increases in happiness were much higher than people anticipated they would be. For programs like Communities in Bloom and the LivCom Awards, and the communities that participate in these and similar initiatives (you can find great examples throughout the May 2012 issue of Municipal World), this research confirms how important it is for policy makers to pay attention to the natural environment. It offers an unmatched opportunity to improve quality of life in the community, and to increase the sense of well-being and happiness for the people who live there.

You can find the World Happiness Report online at <www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/ view/2960>.