COVID-19 restrictions imposed on places of worship were often more stringent than those applied to retail and liquor stores, despite the fact that the freedom of conscience and religion is a fundamental freedom, says a think tank calling for an update to Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.
“For many religious traditions, public or communal worship is fundamental not optional,” Bennett said in the release. “Governments, of course, may restrict gatherings and limit freedoms during emergencies, like a pandemic. But limits on houses of worship need to be proportionate to limits on other gathering places.”
The authors cited the example of Toronto’s St. Michael’s Cathedral Basilica, which, if the government of Premier Doug Ford had not restricted it to 10 people, would have been able to accommodate 300 people, or 25 percent of its maximum capacity of 1,200 people at any one time for weddings, funerals, and religious services, rites, or ceremonies.
The brief, which examined the restrictions and “differential treatment” faced by faith communities, said provincial officials failed to distinguish the differences between communal worship and retail activities.
“Fundamental freedoms are the highest order of rights, while other activities, such as shopping or purchasing alcohol, are not constitutionally guaranteed.”
Bennett and Sennyah recommended amending Ontario’s Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act by creating a distinct category for the treatment of religious services, rites, and ceremonies, including weddings and funerals.
They proposed that limits imposed on religious activity by the provincial government should be the same as, or less restrictive than, the next least-restricted category in any future emergency.
“If essential retail businesses are given the greatest latitude (i.e., 25 percent capacity), places of worship should receive the same or less restrictive treatment (i.e., 25 percent capacity or higher),” they said.
“For clarity, this means that outright closures of places of worship would not be allowed if any other public or private place is allowed to remain open.”
The brief also recommended that any limits placed on public worship are to be “proportionate and reasonable.”
“The amendments should require that emergency orders applicable to religious services, rites, and ceremonies include a rationale when they are filed and published,” it stated.
“The rationale must stipulate clearly how the emergency order achieves the policy objective.”
The authors stressed that not only should a rationale be provided, but any extension to the emergency order by provincial officials or municipalities must also include an updated rationale to justify the extension.
“This recommendation ensures that freedom of conscience and religion are not unduly infringed by arbitrary measures or jurisdictional confusion,” they said.
“As such, Cardus recommends that if subsequent legislation is introduced to continue emergency orders, the new legislation should also contain the above protections for faith communities,” the brief said.
“For many religious traditions, communal worship is an absolute necessity, not simply an option which at times of crisis can be abandoned in favour of virtual participation.”
