OTTAWA—Canada’s top court was urged Tuesday to halt a Quebec municipal council’s practice of public prayer before meetings by declaring it an unconstitutional breach of freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court of Canada reserved decision in the case that advocates say could have broad implications for other Quebec and Ontario municipalities that allow such prayers. It raises a central question of how far should the state go in striving to be neutral and to respect religious differences? Should all forms of public prayer or religious symbolism be tbanned?

Justice Michael Moldaver asked whether any interference with a non-believer’s rights should be seen as “trivial and unsubstantial” or whether a “live and let live” notion should prevail.

Tuesday’s challenge was initiated by the Quebec Secular Movement and Alain Simoneau, a former resident of the city. Simoneau went to a Quebec Human Rights Tribunal to contest the practice by Jean Tremblay, Saguenay’s colourful Catholic mayor, of leading council in public prayer.

Tremblay and the city are fighting back, claiming the public prayer is not an attempt to impose religious worship, or favour one religion over any other — but merely a tradition that reflects the city’s historical “cultural” heritage.

Lawyer Richard Bergeron said Saguenay devised a “non-denominational” prayer as a way to express widely held Canadian “moral” values, while not infringing anyone’s rights.

Lawyer Luc Alarie, arguing for the secular group and Simoneau, a self-described non-believer (who was ill and absent for the hearing), said the purpose of the council prayer was clearly a religious one. It took place at the start of council meetings, with the mayor and councilors making the sign of the cross, under a crucifix, with a “sacred heart of Jesus” statue in the room. The text is laid out in a 2008 Saguenay bylaw:

“Almighty God, we thank you for the many favours that you have granted Saguenay and its citizens, including freedom, opportunities for development and peace. Guide us in our deliberations as members of the municipal council and help us to be well aware of our duties and responsibilities. Grant us the wisdom, knowledge and understanding that will enable us to preserve the advantages that our city enjoys, so that everyone can benefit from them and we can make wise decisions. Amen.”

A provincial tribunal found Simoneau’s rights were infringed. He was subsequently awarded $15,000 in damages after being subjected to criminal harassment and threats after raising his complaints. But a Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the ruling.

Supreme Court justices grilled all sides Tuesday.

“I have difficulty seeing this bylaw as something other than a religious thing,” said Justice Rosalie Abella. “We’re talking about the purpose here: how can we say there is no religious purpose here?”

Bergeron said no one is forced to either recite or listen to the prayer. He argued Canada is not an atheist state but a nation where religion has a place in public life, pointing to the preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which expressly mentions “the supremacy of God.”

“How much of our public space is rife with some kind of oath and the oath ends with ‘May God help us, may God protect us.’ So it’s a tradition,” said Bergeron.

Lawyers referenced other such symbols, pointing to prayers said by parliamentarians before the Commons galleries are open to the public, the oaths sworn by Supreme Court judges as they take up their judicial seats, and to the constitutional preamble to the Charter that recognizes “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”

“The Canadian state recognizes the divine as a moral value and an inclusive one . . . . If the Canadian Constitution has such a reference, then why would a (prayer) text that has such a reference be unconstitutional?” asked Bergeron.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“Perhaps because it’s accompanied by a sign of the cross immediately afterward,” said Justice Richard Wagner. “So if we have to analyze the context and not just the text of a document that may be what the problem is.”

“Where do we draw the line then?” asked Bergeron. “This almost amounts to a collective allergy.”