Judges and Religious-Based Reasoning: A Response to Ginn and Blaikie

Constitutional Forum Constitutionnel, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 15, 2012

11 Pages Posted: 31 May 2013 Last revised: 6 Jun 2013

Date Written: March 31, 2012

Abstract

This paper is a response to Diana Ginn and David Blaikie’s claim that under certain circumstances it would be acceptable for Canadian judges to rely on religious-based reasoning. Given judges’ role as state representatives this paper argues that they cannot use religious-based reasoning in their decisions under any circumstances. The need for judicial neutrality is particularly important in modern, secular, multicultural democracies like Canada. Further, this paper argues that comments from the Supreme Court of Canada show that religious freedom means accommodation not support. Consequently Canadian judges are precluded from relying on religious-based reasoning and must frame their decisions in terms that are accessible to all.

Suggested Citation

Hamill, Sarah E., Judges and Religious-Based Reasoning: A Response to Ginn and Blaikie (March 31, 2012). Constitutional Forum Constitutionnel, Vol. 21, No. 1, p. 15, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2248396 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2248396

Sarah E. Hamill (Contact Author)

Trinity College Dublin ( email )

College Green
Dublin 2
Ireland

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
22
Abstract Views
347
PlumX Metrics