From religious citizen to multicultural citizen: Changing conceptualizations of citizenship and belonging in Canada

Abstract

The religious landscape in Canada has shifted dramatically during the past 50 years, from a country whose population and social institutions were inextricably entangled with Christianity to one which has an increasing number of people who do not identify with a religion at all. Citizenship in this context has shifted from a nation whose imaginary was predominantly Christian, with diversity conceptualized in rather limited ways to one characterized by (non)religious diversity and a multicultural reality. Yet, there are growing pains as majoritarian religion confronts a changing power dynamic and the new diversity. These growing pains have potentially negative implications for education. This article considers the new diversity, the articulation of religious symbols and practices as culture, and the implications of these for citizenship and living well together.

Introduction

During the 2015–2016 school year a public elementary school in the Canadian province of British Columbia hosted a demonstration of Indigenous smudging in a classroom and a general assembly event at which a hoop dancer performed and said a prayer. An evangelical Christian parent of two children attending the school objected to this and took the matter to court on the basis of an alleged violation of her religious freedom. She argued that her children were forced to participate in a religious ritual. Both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal found that there was no violation of freedom of religion nor of state neutrality and that the children were learning about Indigenous practices and culture, not participating in religious ceremonies.

In its decision in Servatius v. Alberni, ¹ the British Columbia Court of Appeal considers the role of education in a diverse and multicultural state. It does so by examining the provincial School Act, ² noting that schools should be run on ‘secular and non-sectarian principles’, and that while ‘the highest morality must be inculcated’ schools should not teach ‘religious dogma or creed’. The preamble of the Act, as the Court of Appeal notes, ‘emphasizes the broad values of a healthy, democratic and pluralistic society’ (Alberni at para. 79). The Court of Appeal also turns to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to frame the educational context, explicitly referencing multicultural values and Section 27, which states that the Charter ‘shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians’. Equating the education system with the state, the court affirmed that the state has an interest ‘in ensuring respect for a variety of cultures and beliefs, and tolerance for diversity of views’ and that personal religious practices and beliefs should not ‘affect state activities or the rights of others’ (at para. 81). The role of the education system according to the court is to reflect the ‘values’ of multiculturalism and diversity in school policies and decisions (at para. 70). I begin with the description of the Alberni case because it illustrates important dimensions of the context, debates and concerns that are at the core of citizenship education in Canada. Multiculturalism has become a core value at the heart of citizenship education, and the role of religion and nonreligion in people’s lifestances is in turn embedded in conversations about how to live well together in complex and diverse society. ³

The religious landscape in Canada has shifted dramatically during the past 50 years, from a country whose population and social institutions were inextricably entangled with Christianity to one which has an increasing number of people who do not identify with a religion at all. Citizenship in this context has shifted from belonging to a nation whose population was predominantly Christian, with diversity conceptualized in rather limited ways (different kinds of Christianity) to one characterized by (non)religious diversity and a multicultural reality. Living well together, beyond mere tolerance and accommodation, is an important ideal in religiously diverse societies. Canada’s ‘new diversity’ offers both unique opportunities and challenges in relation to this ideal. Yet, there are growing pains as declining majoritarian religion confronts a changing power dynamic that positions it as one among many and none. These changes and tensions are reflected in the education system, which is recrafting citizenship education to respond to diversity, the multicultural reality and imperative, and the need to respond to reconciliation.

In this article I will give an overview of what I mean by the ‘new diversity’. I will consider the shift in power relations that the new diversity and a robust multiculturalism entail, ⁴ and indeed requires if we are to live well together in a complex future, and, in fact, a complicated present. Rather than beginning with a goal of social cohesion, ⁵ which too often imagines ‘our values’ in ways that replicate problematic power relations such as colonialism and patriarchy, the goal of living well together folds in the concept of diversity and seeks spaces of similarity rather than sameness or difference. Education is a key part of how people learn about important histories, cultivate norms of good citizenship and come to understand themselves and their relationship to the broader social imaginary. Throughout the article I use legal cases as sites of exploration. This is not a legal analysis. Cases offer an opportunity to consider matters of importance to people (legal cases take considerable resources, both monetary and emotional) and the pronouncements of an influential social institution (law) in the context of diversity in a country that has enshrined multiculturalism in its constitution.

The new diversity

Generally speaking, Canada is imagined as a diverse nation, both demographically and ideologically. Bolstered by the constitutional validation of multiculturalism in the Charter as well as policy attention to equality (or equity), diversity and inclusion, Canada’s national imaginary includes a focus on diversity. Diversity is necessarily intersectional, involving multiple identities, social locations, various relationship configurations and lifestances. In this article I focus on religion and nonreligion as my points of departure. In relation to religion, a new diversity has emerged that has four key parts:

A declining Christian majority

Early in the 20th century religious diversity was largely understood as diversity within Christianity. This at times shifted to include a Judeo-Christian imaginary. Then, in the 1960s and 70s a multicultural imaginary emerged. But the majority of Canadians—some 85% of them—still identified as Christian. Canada was, and to some extent remains, a majoritarian Christian nation. ⁶ However, during the past 50 years there has been a slow and steady decline of institutional religion, specifically Christianity. Though during those years some scholars insisted that people were coming back to the churches, that we were witnessing only a circulation of the Saints, and that people return at certain life points, it is now quite clear that this is not the case (Clarke and Macdonald, 2017). What this means in practice is that fewer people attend church services, have their children baptized, hold religious funerals and have church weddings. Church buildings are being repurposed for housing, educational facilities, businesses or being demolished. This decline is causing anxiety, depression and sometimes legal engagement to recoup, retain and regain the privileged status that has been enjoyed by Christianity, or Christianities.

An acceleration of religious diversity

As migration increases so too does religious diversity. It is important to note, though, that the religious diversity brought by immigrants is not new. British and French colonizers brought different varieties of Christianity, the first synagogue was built in Montreal in 1768, the 1871 national census shows Muslims of Lebanese origins living in Alberta, and 5000 Sikhs immigrated to British Columbia between 1904 and 1908 (Nayar, 2004: 16). Recent immigration has meant that religious diversity has increased at the same time as religious participation, especially in Christianity, has declined. From a ‘world religions’ vantage point the current breakdown of religions includes (according to the 2021 Statistics Canada data) Jews: 0.9%; Hindus: 2.3%; Buddhists: 1.0%; Sikhs: 2.1%. The proportion of those who identify as Muslim has more than doubled in the past two decades, from 2.0% in 2001 to 4.9% in 2021, making Islam the second most commonly reported religion behind Christianity (Statistics Canada, 2022). Approximately 23% of the population has been or are landed immigrants or permanent residents in 2021. About half of the population in the city of Toronto is made up of immigrants, many of whom identify with religions other than Christianity.

The combination of historical religious diversity and recent migration has created a rich diversity of religious and nonreligious identities that shape the Canadian social landscape.

Nonreligion

Over the past 50 years the number of people who identify as nonreligious has increased dramatically, accelerating significantly in the past decade. The 2021 Canadian census showed that 34.6% of Canadians now identify as having no religious affiliation. This figure was 23.6% in 2011, which is a remarkable shift over a 10-year period. Prior to that the increase was more modest: 16% in 2001; 12% in 1991; 7% in 1981 and 4% in 1971. Measurement challenges prior to 1971 mean that it is more difficult to say with certainty the percentage of nonreligious in the Canadian population (Clarke and Macdonald, 2017: 227). The number of nonreligious in Canada has been estimated to be as high as half of the population (Hiemstra, 2020). The nonreligious is not a homogonous group: it is made up of humanists, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, the spiritual but not religious and those who are indifferent to religion. As Clarke and Macdonald (2017) and Brown (2017) have demonstrated, a significant proportion of this group has disaffiliated from Christianity. Wilkins-Laflamme (2022: 131) notes that ‘over a third of Canadian Millennials and over a quarter of American Millennials are nonreligious’, and this percentage may increase in the future. ⁷ This means that there is a significant portion of the population who do not draw on religious meaning, narratives or symbols to understand or make sense of their lives. The shift in religious make-up of Canada is a massive social change that has profound consequences that have yet to be fully studied.

Indigenous peoples, knowledge, and reconciliation

A core debate in the Alberni case introduced at the beginning of this article was whether the rituals and practices under consideration were in fact ‘religion’. The characterization of Indigenous ritual, belief, and practice is a complex issue. British and French colonizers sought to eradicate Indigenous culture, including languages, knowledge, practices and religion. Indeed, Indigenous peoples were assessed as having no religion, and their territory as being ‘terra nullius’. ⁸ Indigenous peoples were forced to convert to Christianity, leaving a present-day situation of what James (2006) describes as ‘dimorphism’, in which both Christian and Indigenous practices are incorporated Indigenous lifeways. ⁹ The place of Christianity in the lives of Indigenous peoples is not for me to assess. It is an ongoing process that must be reconciled with the abuse perpetuated in residential schools which were church run. In 2008 Canada established the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ‘inform all Canadians about what happened in residential schools’. The Commission ‘documented the truth of Survivors, their families, communities and anyone personally affected by the residential school experience. This included First Nations, Inuit and Métis former residential school students, their families, communities, the churches, former school employees, government officials and other Canadians’. ¹⁰ The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015: 7) issued 94 Calls to Action, several of which explicitly addressed the education system, including the following:

62. We call upon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, in consultation and collaboration with Survivors, Aboriginal peoples, and educators, to:

• i. Make age-appropriate curriculum on residential schools, Treaties, and Aboriginal peoples’ historical and contemporary contributions to Canada a mandatory education requirement for Kindergarten to Grade Twelve students.

• ii. Provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms.

• iii. Provide the necessary funding to Aboriginal schools to utilize Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods in classrooms.

• iv. Establish senior-level positions in government at the assistant deputy minister level or higher dedicated to Aboriginal content in education.

The call to reconciliation and action is of foundational importance to the future of Canada. ¹¹

It is within the context of these four elements of the new diversity that we must understand the shape of citizenship education and the particular contours of diversity and multiculturalism. They shape the ways in which citizenship, diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism are conceptualized and enacted in the education system and more broadly.

Multiculturalism

Despite falling out of favor in Europe and elsewhere around the world, multiculturalism remains a resilient part of Canadian discourse on diversity (Kymlicka, 2021). ¹² This is no doubt in part because of its presence in the Charter, which means, at some level, that it remains viable or at least something that must be contended with. But what exactly does multiculturalism mean? It is a demographic descriptor (we live in a multicultural country, we have a multicultural heritage), a policy, an ideology, and a value. ¹³ This chameleon-like feature means that it is important to critically assess who is using it, how, and why.

Although there is an extensive critical literature on multiculturalism, ¹⁴ there is little systematic empirical research on the implementation of programs and courses in schools and their impact on either majority or minority populations. ¹⁵ As already mentioned, multiculturalism finds a place in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and courts have drawn on the notion of ‘multicultural values’ to support minority rights related to religion in the education context. ¹⁶ For instance, in the case of Gurbaj Multani, a Sikh schoolboy who fought for the right to wear his kirpan to school, the Supreme Court of Canada stated:

An absolute prohibition would stifle the promotion of values such as multiculturalism, diversity, and the development of an educational culture respectful of the rights of others. This Court has on numerous occasions reiterated the importance of these values. (Multani at para. 78) ¹⁷

In the Alberni case the court also referenced cultural safety, which it linked to the goal of multicultural education. Note the emphasis on both ‘seeing oneself’ for Indigenous students and changing attitudes and behaviors of all students. Contrary to criticisms that multiculturalism does not seek to change majority attitudes and behaviors, the court envisions exactly that end in its decision:

Recall the evidence that one legacy of the residential schools policy is that intergenerational survivors associate schools and education with abuse and trauma. To help address this lingering impact, the NTC have set out to make schools in Nuu-chahnulth territories places where Nuu-chah-nulth students ‘could see themselves and their culture reflected, to make the schools . . . a culturally safe space’. By way of the curriculum redesign, the Ministry of Education has strongly endorsed this line of thinking, and it is evident that the School District supports this goal. One practical way to help make schools culturally safe spaces is to have students learn — in their classrooms — from Indigenous people. (Alberni BCSC at para. 86; ¹⁸ cited in Alberni BCCA at para. 219)

The Alberni case illustrates the ways in which reconciliation is intertwined with the realization of a multicultural Canada, and that the promotion of multiculturalism and diversity must be operationalized to advance reconciliation: ‘The courts have recognized that the values of multiculturalism and diversity must be reflected in school policy and decisions. It is a fact of life that children growing up in a diverse society will be exposed to many differences in beliefs. This exposure to diverse viewpoints is desirable in order to teach children respect and tolerance for others’ (Alberni at para. 70). Early in its decision the court also notes a tension between the appellant’s claim to religious freedom and ‘the needs of the community to advance multiculturalism and reconciliation and to teach children tolerance’ (Alberni at para. 31). The court ultimately recognizes the significance of Indigenous culture for its vision of contemporary Canada, which is marked by values of multiculturalism and reconciliation.

The history of the relationship between multiculturalism and religion in Canada is beyond the scope of this article, but, in brief, religion has not always featured at the foreground of scholarship on multiculturalism, or indeed in its policy conceptualization (Bramadat, 2008). However, there is evidence that it is mobilized to support religious and nonreligious beliefs and practices, including for young adult atheists noting that multiculturalism supports their choice to believe or not to believe (Tomlins, 2010, 2015). Beyer (2013: 57–69) has also found in his Immigrant Youth and Immigrant Young Adults studies that Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists had generally positive attitudes toward multiculturalism, although they were somewhat critical of the way that it is sometimes implemented. These studies suggest that the ideology of multiculturalism potentially generates a sense of inclusion across difference (see also Adams, 2007; Ryan, 2016; Winter, 2011, 2015), and may play a role in thinking about diversity. ¹⁹

In the study ‘A Transcultural Approach to Belonging and Engagement among Migrant Youth’, Fethi Mansouri, Serena Hussain and I considered ‘the complex manifestations of social belonging and cultural identity formations amongst migrant youth in super-diverse cities by going beyond the much-invoked notion of competing, even clashing, cultural identities’. ²⁰ The project was based in the highly diverse cities of Melbourne (Australia), Birmingham (UK) and Toronto (Canada). ²¹ Interestingly the research did not focus explicitly on multiculturalism, yet the young people they interviewed in Toronto frequently mentioned multiculturalism as a resource upon which they drew to negotiate and navigate everyday life. ²² Rather than feeling pushed into identity corners in their everyday lives, forced into fixed membership in one group or caught by an irrelevant state policy or law, the young adults negotiated and navigated their identities in day to day situations in a fluid manner; often saw themselves as belonging to multiple groups and strategically mobilized multiple group identities; sometimes viewed multiculturalism as a policy they could draw on in support of diversity and inclusion; and clearly associated multiculturalism with diversity. Almost all the Toronto participants held positive views of multiculturalism. Even when participants did not specifically identify multiculturalism as a ‘good’ or at all, many of the participants articulated what we might think of as multicultural values, such as inclusion and the promotion of diversity. In the interviews about half of the participants explicitly mentioned multiculturalism. Many of them mentioned school and education as the context in which they had encountered both multicultural realities as well as learning about it as a Canadian value. Their comments mirrored those we see in the Alberni case as well as other articulations by courts about the importance of modeling supporting multicultural values in schools through inclusive practices and recognition of diversity. Clearly this is not definitive proof that the diversity-positive atmosphere encouraged through multiculturalism is working, and yet it is worth exploring further as a core goal of citizenship education.

Education

The introduction to this volume frames our workshop as one that is concerned with the social change prompted by globalization in the area of education. Citizenship education is at the core of this shift, which is something that is recognized by UNESCO (2016: 6–7) as enabling ‘citizens to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions and respond to local and global challenges’. Seljak (2005: 180) summarizes this role of education:

Public schooling is about the socialization of the whole person into a culture and the integration of the individual into a social structure. Its function is not merely cognitive but involves socialization into a pat- tern of values, behaviours, attitudes, and institutions. . . . state-maintained, compulsory, universal schooling has particular ‘national’ goals; universal schooling is a creation of the modern nation-state and its structure, function, culture and purpose are intimately tied to the modern state.

Dabby (2022: 127) considers the ways that multicultural policy considerations are ‘are woven through, and embedded in, the institutional framing of schools’, and writes: ‘I suggest that schools should be understood as more autonomous and participatory as democratic and norm-creating institutions, as they have an enduring and adaptive role in demonstrating how theory is turned into practice’. Dabby (2022: 128) argues that educational institutions, including primary and secondary schools are important locations for producing sustainable change. It is this sustainable change that links to citizenship and the social change that creates positive relationships to diversity and the ability to use multiculturalism as a tool in thinking about self-identity. Dabby (2022: 130) notes:

Schools have their own enabling laws, codes of conduct, governance structures, and internal decision-making bodies. They are, in their own way, microcosms of the state, and therefore of their constituent communities. Students going through the school system would likely use the educational system as a self-referential point, since they are dependent on, and defined by, this educational structure.

In the educational context, then, education about multiculturalism folds in religion in a number of ways. First, religion is sometimes the explicit focus of education. Here I reference education about religion rather than religious education. This distinction, which is more aptly described as a continuum, understands teaching about religion as an intellectual exercise. This was one of the issues in the Alberni case: whether the demonstrations amounted to teaching about religion or teaching religion. The latter could be described as indoctrination, proselytization or conversion. However, the line is not always clear. In the case of the Quebec Ethics and Religious Culture course Christianity took a central place in the curriculum, thus raising questions about whether Christianity was being taught about or endorsed (Cusack, 2022).

In our extensive (400 citations) review of the Canadian literature on religion and education, Christine Cusack and I found that other than studies of the Quebec Ethics and Religious Culture course and discussions of debate over the funding of Catholic schools in Ontario, there was little research on course content, teacher training curricula, student experiences of any education about religion they may have had or even school policies on or about religion (Beaman et al., 2017). There is significant variation in the curriculum offerings across Canada and within provinces. For example, Van Arragon (2015: 338) found that education about religion was sometimes offered as a non-compulsory world religions elective course, sometimes integrated in other non-religion specific courses, and sometimes, as we saw in the Alberni case, ‘through the recognition of things unique to various religions such as festivals and rituals in special classroom and school events’.

In her research Cusack (2022), a former elementary school teacher, interviewed parents and teachers about what they thought Canadian public-school (primary and secondary) students should learn in order to best prepare them for living and thriving in a diverse society. Cusack also conducted an online national survey and a textual analysis of secondary student manuals from Quebec’s Ethics and Religious Culture Program. She found that although the parents and teachers thought that learning about diversity and difference were important, they had concerns about the possibility of religious indoctrination, the dominance of majority privilege/religion and balance between religious and nonreligious worldviews. Cusack argues that increasing public awareness about the religious content of colonization combined with increased nonreligion is contributing to significant shifts in religious literacy that emphasize a more holistic, integrated approach (into history or social studied, for example) rather than religion as a specific subject matter.

In his content analysis of 1500 pages of education materials in Ontario Cassidy (2021) examined the portrayal of religion in geography, history and social studies courses. There are several findings of note: first, there is a sometimes blurry line between religion and spirituality. First Nations, Metis and Inuit Studies curriculum used ‘worldview’ rather than religion. Cassidy (2021: 105) concludes: ‘As a subject of inquiry, therefore, the Ontario secondary school curriculum represents religion as a worthy but fundamentally optional element of a high school education. Furthermore, by its complete omission from curricula concerning the history of Canada as a nation since 1945, religion is represented as having no bearing on the principle thrust of Canadian history over the last three generations (at least)’. This is particularly egregious given the devastation experienced by Indigenous peoples in residential schools which were run by Christian churches. Further, since colonization, Christianity has shaped all of Canada’s social institutions to some degree. ²³

There is no systematic approach to education about religion in Canada and very often if students do learn specifically about religion it is in the context of a ‘world religions’ strategy. This tends to essentialize and flatten religion into an essentialized version of traditions that pays little attention to the immense variability in religious practice, or to what is framed within sociology as lived religion (Ammerman, 2007, 2020; McGuire, 2008; Orsi, 2005). The desirability of a religion-specific education remains an open question in terms of its accurate representation of religion as well as its effectiveness in achieving multiculturalism as a value. It is possible that the emphasis on respect for difference and the value of diversity attached to multiculturalism in schools achieves some of the goals of education about religion advocated for by some (Dinham, 2015; Dinham and Shaw, 2017; Moore, 2007).

In addition to explicit education about the content of religion, worldviews and lifestances, schools and educational governing bodies (school boards, for example) also regulate how students and teachers can express themselves religiously. This may mean the regulation of clothing or symbols related to religious expression, or the provision of prayer space. Debates about religious clothing and symbols have been especially prevalent in Quebec. A series of bills were proposed banning religious symbols from public spaces, including schools. Bakht (2020) has documented these bills and analyzed their impact on religious minorities and in particular on Muslim women. One impact of the most recent legislation, Bill 21, ‘An Act Respecting the Laicty of the State’ has been to exclude hijab and niqab wearing women from Quebec classrooms. ²⁴ Bakht (2020: 132) summarizes:

The Québec government has been undaunted in its efforts to eject certain religious minorities but particularly niqab-wearing women by reconstituting the nation’s narrative as that of a society that is secular and united. The dress of niqab-wearing women has become the limit to the nation, invoking persistent attacks against this minority from the boundaries of belonging.

As Bakht (2020: 130) notes, this approach is antithetical to multiculturalism: ‘Rather than building trust among diverse citizens, an indispensable precondition in multicultural states, niqab bans divide communities and harm relations between people’.

Meunier and Legault-Leclair (2021: 106) compare the results of two surveys, from 2013 to 2014 and 2019, that ‘asked the same question about Québécois’ agreement or disagreement with the wearing of religious symbols by public elementary and secondary school teachers and principals’. Comparing the two surveys, they found that

religious nones are increasingly favorable or neutral towards the wearing of religious symbols among public servants, while self-declared Catholics are becoming more and more critical of this practice. We thus see a divide between (older) cultural Catholics on the one hand, and (younger) less religious cosmopolitans on the other developing over the past 5–6 years. (Meunier and Legault-Leclair, 2021: 110)

As already mentioned, the Multani case was a landmark decision in terms of religious freedom in the educational setting. In that case, using multiculturalism and a vision of Canada as a diverse, inclusive nation, the Supreme Court upheld Gurbaj Multani’s right to wear his kirpan to school. The Court rejected the argument that the presence of a kirpan would ‘contribute to a poisoning of the school environment’, that it is ‘a symbol of violence’, that it endorses violence, that it compromises student safety, and that allowing a kirpan established ‘a double standard’ (Multani at para. 70). It stated:

The argument that the wearing of kirpans should be prohibited because the kirpan is a symbol of violence and because it sends the message that using force is necessary to assert rights and resolve conflict must fail. Not only is this assertion contradicted by the evidence regarding the symbolic nature of the kirpan, it is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism. (Multani at para. 71)

Schools are the site of symbolic representations of ‘the nation’, confirming the contours of citizenship in both overt and sometimes more subtle ways. This may mean, as it did in the Lautsi case that went to the European Court of Human Rights, ²⁵ the display of a crucifix on a classroom wall as a ‘passive symbol’ of culture and heritage. From a legal standpoint the ‘margin of appreciation’ was the justification for allowing the Italian school in question to continue with this practice. The case raises the question of majoritarian symbols and their transformation into ‘culture’ as a strategic turn in maintaining the position of an historically dominant religion (see Beaman, 2020). In Canada, prayers before council meetings, religious symbols in hospitals, and so on have been defended in the name of ‘our culture and heritage’, which raises the question of who ‘we’ is. It effectively erases the contributions of diverse constituencies and denies colonization and its impact on Indigenous peoples. The transubstantiation of majoritarian religion to culture is international in scope, though nationally context specific. Taira (2019) has written about the inclusion of the ‘Summer Hymn’ in the public schools in Finland and its links to the Finnish national imaginary as part of ‘our culture and heritage’. ²⁶ Similarly, debates about the inclusion of pork in school cafeterias in France are framed as being about French culture and heritage (Ural, 2023). Educational institutions can, by supporting symbols and practices that reflect a majoritarian religious dominance, reinforce particular notions of what ‘real’ citizens look like. They can also, however, shift the ‘us’ in inclusive ways.

Finally, educational institutions endorse and create the shape of diversity through access to school property by individuals and groups. This may include student clubs that are permitted to operate on school property, or community groups who wish to offer services to students. ²⁷ It may also include, as it did in the school district of Niagara in Ontario, the distribution of bibles. In that instance, which prompted a complaint to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, only the Gideons were permitted by the school board to distribute literature (bibles) to the students. The tribunal found that ‘discrimination because a person is atheist falls within the definition of creed’ but held that the school board was not required to discontinue the distribution of religious literature, ‘so long as all creeds are treated with substantive equality’. ²⁸

The relationship between multiculturalism (including religion) and citizenship education is multi-vectoral. To be sure, Canada has a strong legal and policy foundation for multiculturalism. But its implementation is only possible if it is supported by educational notions of inclusive citizenship. An important source of on the ground support for multiculturalism (as a policy, an ideology and even for support for a robust immigration strategy) is its imbrication with educational strategies around citizenship based on inclusion, equality and diversity.

Conclusions: Education, citizenship, and diversity

Citizenship education takes place within a context of diversity. In Canada the new diversity has a number of elements. Each, however, is shaped by important histories. In this respect, the ‘new’ diversity is not so new. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge the social anxiety and potential conflict that accompany the changes that have produced the new diversity. Previously viable social arrangements are no longer feasible: for example, the assumption that Christian symbols and practices represent ‘us’ is subject to increasing challenge. Established power relations are being reconfigured in the context of human rights guarantees of equality and freedom of religion as well as broader principles of inclusion and a commitment to diversity that exists, at least in principle, in social institutions, policy, and civil society. Renegotiation includes a ceding of privilege and creating space for new voices. It also means acknowledging the degree to which symbols and practices are socially constructed as culture in specific circumstances, often to uphold particular power relations.

Understanding this context of social change is vital when asking the question, ‘how do we live well together in the new diversity?’ For although Christianity has been a majority religion in many western democracies, it has been accompanied by other tradition, worldviews and lifestances, including nonreligious, Indigenous lifeways, and migrant/minority religions. Thus, when ‘our heritage and culture’ is invoked to defend the presence of Christian symbols and practices in the public sphere—in hospitals, legislatures, public squares—such a framing erases past diversities and excludes the social contributions of minority groups and Indigenous peoples. It also thwarts the negotiation of shared space in a complex future in which a wide range of people might potentially live well together. It marks the past and the present as belonging to a chosen group who define the characteristics of belonging.

Living well together is not ‘tolerating’ or ‘accommodating’. Citizenship education is not just about curriculum, but about the tone that is set in educational institutions. One of the arguments made in Lautsi to justify the presence of the crucifix on the classroom wall was that other religious symbols could also be present. But were they encouraged? Were they actually present? An imagined openness must be supported by strategies of inclusion. That will mean acknowledging the heavy presence of religious pasts and religious majorities that can easily slide into privileged presents. Although the court in Alberni uses the word ‘tolerance’, the court’s decision moves beyond tolerance to open space for the respect, justice and equality that are intertwined with multiculturalism and multicultural values. ²⁹

Using secularism as a shield or as a weapon (‘but this is a secular country’) can also be alienating. This approach fails to capture the very complex relationship that states have with religion and civil society. It does not acknowledge how the historical residue of a Christian majority shapes social institutions. Another response can be ‘but it’s our culture and heritage’. As discussed above this creates a hierarchy of citizenship and belonging that is at odds with multiculturalism. The courts have sometimes made the point that freedom of religion does not trump the needs of the community, which are understood as being to create an inclusive society. We see this in the Alberni decision when the court juxtaposes one person’s rights (freedom of religion) with the needs of the community in relation to multiculturalism, but, importantly, also in the context of reconciliation.

The values of multiculturalism as emphasized in s. 27 of the Charter often come into play when considering claims of violation of religious freedom. The Supreme Court of Canada has consistently cited the state’s interest in ensuring respect for a variety of cultures and beliefs, and tolerance for diversity of views, when finding against parties who seek to extend their particular religious beliefs beyond their personal practices to affect state activity or the rights of others. (Alberni at para. 81)

Later, the court reiterated the contextual approach:

Furthermore, the approach to determining rights under Canada’s Charter is nuanced and not as absolutist as Ms. Servatius’s bright line position suggests. The Canadian approach to rights analysis under the Charter requires the courts to take the full factual context into account. This approach also recognizes that tolerance for the rights of others and respect for a diversity of viewpoints is a lens through which we must determine the scope of rights. (Alberni at para. 212)

There are no easy solutions for the balancing that a complex future that is just and inclusive requires. Does it mean erasing religious symbols and practices from public institutions and the public sphere? I’d like to think not. But it does require an acknowledgment of privilege, a ceding of that and advocacy by allies. The ‘solution’ requires creative thinking and honest and sometimes difficult conversation.