Freedom of Religion and Canadaâs Commitments to Multiculturalism: A Critical Analysis of the Rights-based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis argues that the current Canadian approach to freedom of religion is inconsistent with Canada’s approach to multiculturalism. It begins by placing Canada’s multiculturalism legislation into the broader intellectual context of the leading political theories on the governance of diverse populations. It then examines the Canadian case law regarding freedom of religion, arguing that the prevailing rights-based approach produces consequences inconsistent with Canada’s legislated commitments to multiculturalism. It posits that the individualism of rights-based analysis, the pressure to frame religion in pre-defined ways, and the tendency of courts to speak in the language of tolerance are all troublesome. Further, it argues that when disputes are framed in terms of rights, meaningful dialogue is less likely and compromises are difficult to achieve. It then proposes an alternative, “difference-based” approach to disputes involving religion, which provides a framework more consistent with Canada’s multicultural ideals.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".