Multani v. Commission Scolaire: The Kirpan Case
Hanging in the Balance: Religious Symbolism, Security, and Freedom of Religion - A Summary of the Kirpan Case
On March 2, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, first, that a total ban on wearing a kirpan to school violated an individual's freedom of religion protected by section 2(a) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, second, that this ban on religious expression was not reasonable or justifiable, as is required under section 1.
Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys[1] was the culmination of a long legal battle that pitted Balvir Singh Multani and his son Gurbaj Singh Multani against a Quebec school division and the Attorney General of Quebec. In 2001, 12 year-old Gurbaj (?G?) was playing in the schoolyard when he accidentally dropped his kirpan, a Sikh religious object that resembles a dagger. A kirpan, which must be made of metal, is to be worn at all times by devout Sikh males. After learning of the incident, the school board allowed G?s parents to send their son to school wearing the kirpan, if it was safely sealed inside his clothing. The Multanis agreed to these conditions, yet the governing board (the Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys) soon revoked the compromise. The board said that wearing a kirpan at school posed a potential safety threat to students and staff, which violated the school?s code of conduct prohibiting the carrying of weapons. G was ultimately forbidden from wearing a kirpan at school. According to the Multanis, this ban posed irreconcilable friction with the tenets of their faith, and thus they withdrew G from the public school system.
In May 2002, the Superior Court of Quebec weighed the safety concerns of the school board with G?s religious freedoms. In the end, the court disagreed with the board?s total ban and ruled that G could wear his kirpan under stipulated conditions (it had to be carried in a wooden case, wrapped in fabric, and sewn into his clothes). The court felt that these restrictions addressed the safety issues raised by the board and the Attorney General while still respecting the religious freedoms afforded to G under the
Charter. In March 2004, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned this judgment, ruling in favor of the board. According to Quebec?s highest court, the potential security concerns posed by G?s wearing of the kirpan were more pressing than his freedom to wear a Sikh symbol.
The Multanis successfully appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).
One practical issue was the characterization of the kirpan ? is the kirpan rightly viewed primarily as a weapon or as a religious symbol? But the court disagreed that G needed to address the ?kirpan as weapon? issue; instead, he had only to demonstrate his sincere personal, subjective belief in the religious significance of the kirpan (para. 37). Because G had actually chosen to leave school rather than attend without a kirpan, the SCC was satisfied that the commission?s ban was more than a trivial interference with G?s religious rights.
Having identified a significant
Charter infringement, the SCC turned to the balancing provisions outlined in section 1 of the
Charter ? that is, if the ban was to be justified the board had the onus of showing that the security concerns for school patrons outweighed the violation of G?s religious freedom. The SCC acknowledged that ?freedom of religion can be limited when a person?s freedom to act in accordance with his or her beliefs may cause harm or interfere with the rights of others? (para. 26). However,
after hearing the arguments, the Court ruled unanimously that the commission failed to justify a total ban. According to Madam Justice Charron?s reasons, the ban was not proportional to the goal of achieving reasonable safety in schools. In short, the SCC viewed a total prohibition on kirpans as overkill, citing evidence that there had never been an incidence of kirpan-related violence within schools. Moreover, banning kirpans might lead to a ban on other potential weapon-objects commonly found in schools, such as scissors, pencils, and baseball bats (para. 58). Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the measures recommended by the Supreme Court of Quebec, stating that ?accommodating Gurbaj Singh and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities? (para. 79).
Complete limitations of Charter rights will rarely be upheld when proportional accommodation of these freedoms is possible, and sincere religious beliefs and practices will receive a great deal of deference. This decision demonstrates the Supreme Court of Canada's continued commitment to careful and thoughtful balancing of constitutional rights and responsibilities.
Centre for Constitutional Studies - Multani v. Commission Scolaire: The Kirpan Case
