Why not? There is nothing that says that a religion must have so many followers for it to be classified as a religion.
Ancient Greek or Roman religions are dead religions. I assume they have zero followers. But if somebody started to worship Zeus or Mercury, it must be recognized as religion and must be treated no differently from Christianity by the law.
Every single religion started with one follower, so yes I agree.
What's going on in this thread SJP? you and I are not supposed to agree.:lol:
Actually, I was just thinking of another way to understand the Preample to the Charter. Let's say I passed the following law years ago soon after Henry Ford invented the model T:
"Whereas cars can travel at considerable speeds, and
Whereas the movement of many cars on the road needs to be regulated to ensure safety and the efficient flow of traffic,
All drivers must always drive on the right side of the road."
Should I choose to ignore this law, I'd have a number of options available to me in court. I could either disprove the 'whereas' statements by proving that in fact cars can't travel fast, or that there is no need to regulate traffic to ensure its efficient flow.
Or I can disprove the that this specific law actually addresses the 'whereas' parts.
So now looking at the following example from the Preamble:
"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
If I chose to ignore the Charter, I could fight it in court in a similar way. I could either try to disprove the statement in the 'whereas' clause, or I could argue that even if it is true, it is a non sequitur, and so the Charter does not apply.
Looking at it that way, if we argue that in a democratic society the government must provide a reason for a law, then we could argue that a 'whereas' clause ought to be mandatory for a law to be legally enforceable. If that's the case though, then you'd want to ensure that:
(1) The 'whereas' clause can be reasonably proven in court to be true, and (2), that the law in question is a logical consequence of the 'whereas' clause as it is generally acceptable to the people, otherwise it is unenforceable.
If we should understand it that way, then unless the government could prove within reason that the 'whereas' clause in the Charter is true, either based on a legal definition or proven fact, and that the content of the Charter itself is a logical consequence of the 'whereas' clause, then the content of the Charter becomes null and void.
