What can be learned from the experiences of various societies in dealing with their principal trouble spots
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction In both South Africa and Canada religions per se have not been principal trouble spots for a very long time. What has been very much at issue is the treatment of religious communities and religious believers by the State and from time to time disputes between rights claimants of one sort in relation to rights claimants of another. There are many differences between the two countries but in this paper I shall look for some common themes to evaluate a few of the more significant areas of conflict that engage religious pluralism. Most importantly, however, I shall examine a change to the proper understanding of the ‘secular’ in the law which, it is hoped, will indicate a new direction for thinking about religion in relation to the public sphere. Religions have been and continue to be recognized as important to both societies. In Canada, the question of Catholic and Protestant accommodation was central to many of the Confederation debates in the 19th century with, for example, Section 93 of the British North American Act of 1867 (providing for recognition of religious minority rights in education). This set of negotiated compromises continued (and continues in some provinces) until recently when that originating constitutional compromise was abolished in two provinces (Newfoundland and Quebec) by referenda in the late 1990s. The Canadian Constitution Act 1982 in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains recognition in its Preamble that Canada is founded on principles that recognize ‘the Supremacy of God and the Rule of Law’ though this has not yet been seen to have particularly foundational relevance. The right to the freedom of ‘conscience and religion’ in Section 2(a) and the reference to religion as an enumerated ground protected from non-discrimination has been the subject of many judicial decisions since the Canadian Charter was re-patriated from the United Kingdom in 1982. This paper is divided into three parts. First the framework for under-standing religion and the public sphere as developed by the important decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chamberlain decision. Second, the actual Constitutional provisions that recognize religious rights in both Canada and South Africa. Third, the experience of inter-faith cooperation in litigation and the development of a South African Charter of Religious Rights and Freedoms as examples of civil society initiatives that are outside legislation and litigation as such but which inform both politics and law in relation to religious pluralism.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».