Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, the author explores the Canadian law of religious freedom in light of Canada's commitments to multiculturalism. Though these commitments are aspirational and imprecise, the author argues that two stable notions emerge from Canada's Constitution and legislated multiculturalism policies: recognizing minority cultural communities and fostering inter-cultural dialogue. The author goes on to examine the Canadian case law on religious freedom, arguing that there are at least three recurring themes that run through the prevailing decisions. First, the courts' treatment of religion is individualistic, using the individual litigant's sincerity of religious belief as the touchstone of whether a particular practice will benefit from constitutional protection. Second, the courts are highly concerned with the prevention of coercion and subjecting members of minority groups to the “tyranny of the majority.” Third, in justifying their decisions, courts rely heavily on the discourse of tolerance. Using each of these themes as a springboard for critical analysis, the author argues that the legal doctrine of religious freedom is inconsistent with Canada's multicultural ideals. The individualism of the case law fails to take into account the collective and public dimensions of religious experience, and thus fails to recognize important aspects of the identities of minority groups. The strong incentive to adopt particular language in order to be successful may coerce litigants into adopting arguments that are inconsistent with their religious views. The language of tolerance may subtly reinforce social hierarchies by implying that minorities are tolerated rather than full members of Canadian society and impede cross-cultural dialogue by essentializing and marginalizing members of minority groups. The author concludes that these “side-effects” of well-intentioned judicial doctrines are worth taking seriously in order for Canada to make good on its multicultural promises.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".