Introduction

Since 2010, there has been a noted increase in actions that seek to defend and contest religious rights. These actions have occurred from both inside and outside the legal system. Examples abound: we can think here of houses or spaces of worship, whose very presence and aesthetics are challenged by way of a referendum, the use of local ordinances against the wearing of religious clothing in public spaces, or religious lobbying in parliamentary institutions. We can also consider the State's choice to define and take over the responsibility of religious heritage, leaning on the presence of religious symbols in public institutions to justify their intervention. These examples and processes invite us to question how we understand democratic imperatives and religious rights, as well as their governance in a variety of settings.

This special issue is the fruit of a workshop held at the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) in January 2020, organized by professors Dia Dabby (Département des sciences juridiques, UQAM) and David Koussens (Faculté de droit, Université de Sherbrooke). Funded by the Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la diversité et la démocratie (CRIDAQ), an interdisciplinary research centre on diversity and democracy, as well as Koussens' Chaire de recherche, Droit, religion et laïcité, and the Centre de recherche, Société, droit et religions de Université de Sherbrooke (SoDRUS), this workshop sought to explore, analyze and critically evaluate how processes such as referendum, legislation and local ordinances allow for the circumvention of religious rights in the name of the "public" or "common good". The special issue takes up and pushes these conversations further, engaging with public law mechanisms that can unduly restrain religious expression and, in many instances, directly affect minority religious populations. Public law mechanisms are often invoked in the name of the common good and democratic principles. While the intended recipients of these public law mechanisms can be individuals (and thus result in individual restrictions), they can also target houses of worship and other spaces which hold religious significance.¹

While this workshop and special issue were envisioned prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the questions addressed here have been further illuminated by the health emergency. Imprudent or expansive reliance by governments on rule by decree, rather than enduring the seemingly laborious (and generally more accountable) process of rule of law, has emerged as a favourite tool by some.² Others have instead contested the jurisdiction of the secular state in religious affairs, even in the context of the pandemic, claiming "God's jurisdiction"³ rather than that of the State.⁴ The jurisdictional tussle over houses of worship and their adherents has, as a result, reshaped religious practices. It should be noted that the refashioning of religious practices can also lead to innovative practices in the face of a shared pandemic, solutions often crafted with religious groups working hand in hand with the state. These jurisdictional interrogations further highlight the inherent complexity of religious practices and, conversely, offered a classification or hierarchy of what is considered an "essential good" in the time of a worldwide health crisis.⁵ And religious expression often doesn't make the cut. Others, still, have attempted to adopt broad security laws during the pandemic, citing national interests, which would result in a profound reshaping of religious rights.⁶ Whether in a time of emergency or not, an important narrative emerges on democracy and the common good and how religious rights "fit" into that account.

The illustrations offered at the outset of our introduction point to many transversal and common issues, which are examined in the articles in this special issue. First, we note that recourse to democratic imperatives is often mobilized to justify bypassing religious rights. Yet this exercise reveals itself to be, at best, a partial and minimal democratic exercise which limits fundamental rights. Second, these tendencies, often resonant at the local level, can also hold important sway when considering the large-scale regulation of religious diversity. Such mechanisms are not without consequences on religious and spiritual groups, which can ultimately contribute to their renewal, or even to the (pre-emptive) redefinition...