ABSTRACT
This chapter considers the implications of Naomi Goldenberg’s vestigial state theory for legislative approaches and case law relating to the category of “religion” and notions of “religious freedom”. Through initial observations about constitutional prioritising of religion in state governance of democracies like Canada, this chapter provides a new framework based on a notion of religious “SPIN” (as an acronym) to illuminate the way courts continue to rely on assumptions about the perceived Scope and Privilege of “religion” as derived from its presumed Inherent Nature. Integrating counter theories that recognise religion as a mutable and manipulated category, this investigation exposes the problematic way that movements traditionally associated with “religion” are able to perpetuate state-sanctioned discriminatory practices in relation to gender and sexuality through the human rights provisions intended to support equality.
