On 30 May, a judge of the Court of Quebec ruled on a case of Watch Tower's non-compliance with film classification rules. The Society was prosecuted for showing The Story of Josiah movie during the 2019 summer convention in Quebec City, without it first being examined by the age rating authority, an offence punishable by fine of up to CA$2800 for the first time and up to CA$14,000 subsequently.
The offence was indeed committed, the court found, but the law in question violates religious freedom, freedom of expression and parental freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses and therefore doesn't apply to the defendant. It imposes the requirement to provide up to hundreds of religious instruction and worship videos for prior review, along with associated costs and formalities that are pretty burdensome. The government failed to justify this "censorship regime", as the court described the scheme. The stated objectives of protecting children and informing parents and general public are legitimate, but applying the rules in question to the defendant doesn't serve these aims in light of the following facts:
(1) as admitted by classification officials, all the convention videos would be rated 'G' anyway;
(2) the law provides for numerous exceptions, e.g. for promotional videos, educational videos used in schools, colleges, libraries, museums etc., instructional videos, films on sporting events, and films exhibited at festivals and similar events. There is no rational basis for not exempting worship videos as well:
[235] Moreover, by failing to provide an exemption for religious organizations or places of worship, section 77 effectively infringes on the freedoms of religion and expression and the right to freedom of Watch Tower. Thus, while it provides an exemption for films produced for educational purposes, it fails to consider religious education and the places of worship where it is provided.
[236] Similarly, section 77 grants, among other things, an exemption to films on language learning, sports and physical fitness, whose values, while appreciable, in no way require the protection of section 2(a) of the Charter on freedom of religion or section 2(b) on freedom of religious expression, unlike the videos produced by Watch Tower.
[237] Moreover, section 77 grants an exemption to films on sporting events, leaving parents free to judge for themselves whether or not they are appropriate for their children. And yet, these films are sometimes so violent that the examiners themselves submit them to the classification process, even though no exception is made to section 77(5°).
[267] If Jehovah's Witness films were shown in a public library or museum, rather than in a Kingdom Hall or multi-purpose complex such as the Pavillon de la jeunesse, they would be exempt from classification under section 77(2). Wouldn't it be more logical for them to be exempted from classification at the very place where their religious celebrations are held?
[268] In fact, there is no logical link between the objectives of protection and information and showing a film in a museum or public library rather than in a place of worship?
[269] Similarly, there is no logical connection between exempting films about sporting events from classification under section 77(5) of the Act, even though some of them may be extremely violent, but not films about biblical stories.
The court's approach seems correct to me. It is often a case that neutral laws (e.g., those relating to film classification or data protection), which are very broad in their terms, provide for numerous exceptions for, say, news media, cultural institutions etc. but not for religious or other constitutionally protected activities. Such a difference may be reasonable but it shouldn't go unnoticed or be taken for granted.