BALPREET SINGH is legal counsel and acting executive director for the World Sikh Organization of Canada. So long as the message on the shirt doesn’t insult or threaten anyone else, I don’t see a problem with it. The right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion are both enshrined in and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although our governments and institutions like schools must remain religiously neutral and treat everyone the same regardless of religious beliefs, individuals should be free to express themselves as they wish. Our schools are a place for young people to learn about the world around them. Understanding and appreciating diversity is a part of their education. Students in schools where there are no uniforms often wear T-shirts proclaiming support for particular musical groups, sports teams or even political parties. Expressing religious beliefs may make some of us uncomfortable, but that doesn’t necessarily make it inappropriate. I can understand why there would be issues with certain types of religious messages. If the message is designed not to celebrate faith but instead to insult or intimidate others with different beliefs, then that would be completely inappropriate for a school atmosphere. What we must certainly avoid doing is taking the French approach to “secularism.” France has prohibited all religious expression in public institutions, including schools. This includes religious headgear such as the hijab, turban or yarmulke. For Sikhs, wearing the articles of faith is a very public expression of our faith and our values of spirituality and universal equality. Articles of faith like the turban are not optional but required of all practising Sikhs and so the prohibition on the turban is in effect a bar on Sikhs. Such an extreme model of ‘secularism’ is misguided and completely inappropriate for Canada. It would provide no tangible benefits to society and result in increased xenophobia. JACK MCLEAN is a Bahá’í scholar, teacher, essayist and poet published in the fields of spirituality, Bahá’í theology and poetry. In 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada declared that it offended Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms when a school board banned a 12-year-old Sikh student from wearing his 20 cm/8 inch kirpan (dagger) required by Sikh orthodoxy. Since 2011, the kirpan has been legal in Canada’s federal parliamentary buildings, but not in provincial parliamentary buildings in Quebec. Members of certain sects of Hinduism, Buddhism, and branches of Judaism, Christianity and Islam directly proclaim their religion by distinctive dress (kipas, turbans, hijabs, uniforms, veils, etc). Isn’t the wearing of a cross around one’s neck a proclamation of faith? We don’t seem to mind commercial messages on T-shirts. We tolerate all sorts of messages in bad taste on clothing. Some people find it cute to wear even offensive messages on T-shirts. But now there seems to be a problem with a student proclaiming his religion on this item. We live in an increasingly pluralistic society where minority rights must be considered. But the balance is getting decidedly lopsided. To take but one example, either minority pressure or politically correct bosses have succeeded in banning the Christmas tree from some workplaces. Some in this country have even successfully objected to the very name of Jesus! So the Christmas tree has for some become the more insipid “holiday tree,” its very origin denatured.

As soon as someone complains, some authorities feel they need to regulate. No one must be offended. The rule of political correctness, which is often nothing else but a form of censorship and control, often inconsistent and illogical, is brought to bear. But, of course, common sense and courtesy should hold sway, words that do not belong in the vocabulary of some ultra-religious practitioners. Common sense and courtesy should determine the wording of the message. Unnecessarily provocative, overly judgmental, or damning sorts of messages are bound to offend. So I would tend to avoid blanket rulings and look at individual cases. But as a general rule, I would say that freedom of expression should allow the proclamation of anyone’s religion on a T-shirt. Several of the world’s religions have been doing it successfully for millennia by wearing distinctive dress. Rev. RICK REED is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa. It’s not about the T-shirts. The T-shirt is just the outward covering for the underlying issue. The real question is whether students can proclaim their religious beliefs at school. Some folks think religious beliefs are simply an optional accessory of a student’s life—a T-shirt that can be put on and taken off. They want to impose a secular dress code at our public schools. They don’t want students to wear their faith on their sleeves. They want faith covered up on campus. Others are convinced that religious beliefs are integral to many students’ lives. They contend that students have a right to both freedom of belief and freedom of speech. So they support a student’s right to wear his or her faith in public. I side with those who value freedom of speech when it comes to religious beliefs. Even on campus. Or I should say, especially on campus. School is meant to be a place where meaningful ideas are explored and expressed. If religious ideas are expelled from the discussion, our students are the losers. In a pluralistic society, there will need to be reasonable boundaries on how we express our beliefs. At times, this will mean some discussion and debate. I understand that it is possible to express your beliefs in an uncharitable, mean-spirited way. But it’s also possible to be hypersensitive about matters of faith and to erroneously label a student’s expression of faith as a form of bullying. Christians have been commissioned by Jesus to be his witnesses (Acts 1:8). We are to communicate the good news that Jesus died for our sins and offers forgiveness and transformation to all who put their trust in Him. We are to communicate Jesus’ message through truthful words and loving actions. T-shirts are optional, but shouldn’t be banned.) RADHIKA SEKAR holds a PhD in religious studies and taught Hinduism courses at Carleton and University of Ottawa. An aspiring Vedantin, she is a devotee of the Sri Ramakrishna Mission. Charter rights protect freedom of expression in Canadian schools, which means, students are free to wear what they like, within the bounds of modesty of course. Thus schoolyards are colourful places were you will find anything from the commonplace to the bizarre and wacky.

T-shirts especially are interesting and even the religious ones can be fun. “Please Jesus, Protect me from your Followers,” “Yoga is for Posers,” “Jew-jitsu”, and one that I’m undecided whether it’s tongue in cheek religious, or pro atheist; it shows praying hands and says “I am too stupid for Science.” But religious freedom in Canada’s increasingly diverse schools comes with the need for a fine balance. On the one hand, students need to be free to express religious beliefs, but on the other, they need to do it in a considerate way that doesn’t disavow other people’s faith or lack thereof. This means that while absolutely supporting students’ rights to expression, they must also protect students from not having their own beliefs or orientations unreasonably criticized. A shirt with an anti-gay slogan, for example, should not be tolerated even if based on one’s religious teachings. It infringes on the rights of another group and creates a toxic environment. Public schools are not venues for aggressive preaching or spreading hate. In the right environment, our schools offer a unique opportunity to learn about diversity, and how to handle differences, while at the same time encouraging students to develop their own ideas, freely and with confidence. Mahatma Gandhi said: “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” Rev. GEOFFREY KERSLAKE is a priest of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Ottawa. Freedom of speech and religion are two foundational human rights but their exercise is not unlimited. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us: “The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in religious and moral matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of man. But the exercise of freedom does not entail the putative right to say or do anything (CCC, n.1747). In exercising our rights in a democratic society, we must balance them with our responsibilities to the common good and with the rights of others. Having returned recently from the United States, one of the big differences that struck me was that Canada was not founded on exactly the same principles as our neighbour to the south. We did not endorse “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” but rather “peace, order and good government” (Constitution Act 1867). We might debate the relative strengths and weaknesses of these two starting points in guaranteeing basic human rights and question which one is most conducive to ensuring the best starting point for an individual’s pursuit of the ‘good life’ as she or he conceives it. But in both cases, we recognize that society has the obligation to set the boundaries around where individual rights end and the welfare of others or the community begin in cases of conflict. Ultimately, the Catholic Church endorses the right of individuals to freedom of religion but reminds us that we are responsible for the use of our freedom: “freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him” (CCC, n.1745). Freedom entails its responsible use and sometimes that limits what we may do but discerning the right thing to do can be challenging.

KEVIN SMITH is on the board of directors for the Centre of Inquiry, Canada’s premier venue for humanists, skeptics and freethinkers. An issue surfaced this spring where a Grade 12 student in Nova Scotia decided to wear one of his favourite T-shirts to school. That would seem to be a rather typical high school dress code except his shirt was emblazoned with, “Life is wasted without Jesus.” As a proud evangelical Christian, he felt he and his attire were simply spreading the good news. The principal disagreed, and he was suspended for five days. I sympathize with him. There’s an arsenal of pro-atheist shirts in my closet, and, if the spirit moves me, I’ll grab one to wear. Two years ago, while picking up some groceries, I was wearing one of my favourites, and became an unexpected participant in a brief war of the world views. A Goliath of a man, wearing a Bible Camp shirt, glanced at my godless garb. We locked eyes and he advanced toward me. Seconds before impact, he changed course, emitting a sound which I hoped was only a grunt. The idea that I could be “Good without God” did not make this gentleman a happy camper. The fact that he wore a T-shirt inscribed with religious hype didn’t bother me in the least. I was more concerned that he was going to knock me halfway back into aisle five. In matters of religion, there is no right not to be offended. I give one thumb-up to the student for exercising his right to freedom of expression. On one hand, his statement irritates me, but, on the other, no one has the right to censor him. I was surprised that religious propaganda was deemed offensive enough to be banned. Historically, it’s atheists who’ve been demonized for daring to challenge religious sensitivities. Thank Zeus we’re finally speaking out and spreading our good news. Rev. RAY INNEN PARCHELO is a novice Tendai priest and founder of the Red Maple Sangha, the first lay Buddhist community in Eastern Ontario. Religious expression in schools remains a contentious issue, one requiring more discussion before decisions about T-shirts can be made. Although some school jurisdictions attempt to define themselves as isolated religion-free islands, it does not seem consistent with the role of the school system in preparing young people for adult life to attempt to purge the school environment of any religious expression at all. For most people, student years span as much as one quarter of our lives. This represents huge and radical transformation as a person grows from a dependent toddler to a mature and independent adult. During that time, the individual’s understanding and expression of any religious dimension in their lives similarly expands and deepens in the direction of a mature and thoughtful belief system. Therefore, religious expression will be a different matter for a five-year-old, a 15-year-old, and the 25-year-old. Were there to be rules about expressive clothing, they would need to account for this differential. Assuming religious expression were permitted in the school environment, I would wonder whether a T-shirt is a particularly effective medium for religious ideas. Typically, shirt-space is most suitable for slogans, cartoons, media-idol representations or sports team affiliation. Religious expression hardly seems appropriate. I understand that some individuals use that space for provocation, a means of pushing religious preference or doctrine at those who may have no interest. In this sense, such expression is more related to billboards, unwanted phone solicitations or spam e-mail. These are more like pushy marketing than proclamation, and should be treated as such.