Statistics

In total, the Quicklaw database noted forty-three cases in which either a municipality or local residents challenged the right of religious organizations to establish, maintain or expand a place of worship. OMB hearings considered ten mosques, eight churches associated directly with people of colour, five Hindu temples, three orthodox Jewish synagogues and one succah, a temporary Jewish building, four Buddhist temples, and two Sikh gurdwaras. In addition, two Greek Orthodox churches and eight churches not explicitly identified by race also appeared before the OMB.

It is perhaps significant that thirty-three of forty-three places of worship are sacred spaces for members of visible minority groups. Indeed, it could be that the actual percentage of places of worship of persons of colour is higher than the 76% indicated. Unidentified churches could also be those of people of colour.

Synagogues belonging to traditional Orthodox Jews were included in the statistics above, because while these Jews are not persons of colour, Hassidic Jews are indeed a "visible" minority. With their black hats, distinctive black coats, long beards and ear locks, the men are visible as Jews in a way in which Jews belonging to other denominations are not. It is significant that Modern Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist12 synagogues built, renovated or expanded in the last twelve years have not required OMB hearings13.

Mainstream churches have also been established, renovated or expanded in the period under discussion. Their numbers are a minority among cases decided at the OMB. Only three of twenty or 15% of the cases examined, were churches unidentified by race. Some might argue that the large proportion of visible minority congregations appealing decisions merely reflects the difficulties associated with being recent arrivals in a location where desirable land is limited. This perspective, however, makes invisible generations of racialized persons living in Canada. It is not simply an issue of "who got here first."

For this paper, only twenty of the forty-three cases were thoroughly reviewed. The first twenty relevant cases that met the original search criteria were chosen. The religious institutions under consideration include six mosques, six churches associated with people of colour, three churches whose affiliations were unidentified, two Buddhist temples, and three Hindu temples14.

There were seven areas of opposition indicated in the decisions rendered by the OMB. These areas were, in descending order of frequency;

Insufficient parking (18/20) = 90%

Increased traffic (7/20) = 35%

Increased Noise (7/20) = 35%

Too close to another place of worship (5/20) = 25%

Congregants not local residents (4/20) = 20%

Storefront will detract from businesses (2/20) = 10%

Landscaping and/or architecture not in the neighbourhood vernacular (2/20) =10%

Insufficient Parking

This area of concern was mentioned in all but two cases. Different municipal jurisdictions within the G.T.A. offer different parking equations. Typically, calculations are based on the amount of gross floor area or alternatively, only the floor area specifically devoted to prayer. Various religious communities have argued against such universal parking formulas. Orthodox Jews explicitly do not use vehicles to travel on the Sabbath and holy days. They must walk. Muslims argue that calculating space devoted to prayer by the arrangement of seats does not accurately reflect real numbers as congregants pray on a mat. There are no chairs in their place of worship.

As a result of such incongruencies, congregations request variances from parking obligations. In some situations, the religious institution met the official parking requirements, but neighbourhood opposition demanded an excess15. Some people view high parking ratios as merely a smokescreen for racist and ethnocentric attitudes (Quadeer & Chaudry, 2000, Sandercock, 2000, Cole, 1998).

Increased Traffic

Opponents anticipated increases in neighbourhood traffic and subsequent congestion on both residential streets and arterial roads. Typically, those in opposition to a development inflated the number of congregants and consequently, the number of vehicles that would be present. One wonders whether those of European heritage viewed people of colour with such fear that they saw "hordes" where none existed. Chairs of the OMB made reference to such numerical discrepancies on at least two occasions16. In each situation, the chair preferred the calculations presented by the planner for the place of worship.

Increased Noise

Those in opposition also complained about the potential for increased noise from proposed services. OMB chairs sometimes reminded community members that "noise" from drumming, for example, was considered similar to the "noise" from an organ or loud singing. The opposition did not consider such customs parallel to their own worshipping behaviours17.

Proximity to another place of worship

One zoning by-law dictates that a proposed place of worship cannot be closer than a specific distance from another already established location. At least one proposed worship centre was denied approval soley on these grounds18. Older buildings, usually Christian churches, already occupy much residential neighbourhood ground. Newer buildings are forced to seek less desirable locations in order to maintain necessary distance.

Typically, those developing new places of worship are seeking sites on industrially zoned lands. This option is viewed less favourably by municipalities because of the potential loss of tax revenue (City of Toronto, 1998). Nonetheless, such locations generally provide larger spaces for parking and less vigorous opposition by neighbours.

Congregants Not Local Residents

Given that places of worship are built to serve local congregants, opposing forces often argued that such buildings are not properly located in their neighbourhood as worshippers resided elsewhere. It is common for people of colour to be viewed as outsiders. The remarks in this context established beyond a doubt that local residents could not envision non-Christians or people of colour as those living in their area. Even when congregations had proven that their base of support existed in a particular vicinity, individuals argued that street parking, for example, was for the locals and not for the people patronizing the mosque, etc19.

Storefront locations

Opposition to storefront locations was expressed by local business people who were concerned about possible changes to the commercial character of their neighbourhood. In one case, interestingly, a landlord renting space to a small church appealed on behalf of her tenant. As she said to the OMB; "They pray to God and pay the rent!"20

Landscaping, architecture not in the neighbourhood vernacular

Residents sometimes considered the architectural idioms of proposed buildings to be out of place in their neighbourhood. While they agreed that a church spire could extend beyond normal height regulations, they would not concede that a minaret was a structure similarly situated21. In another situation, a planner stated indirectly that she would agree to the development of a Chinese church if she did not have to look at it22.

Racism

Given the overwhelming majority of congregations of colour represented at the OMB, one cannot help but conclude that while there may not have been explicitly racist intentions when municipal by-laws were drafted, there are certainly racist repercussions. Zoning regulations are being used to exclude people of colour and members of minority faiths. The time, money and emotional energy necessary to establish a sacred space is unfairly increased for those already at a social disadvantage.

As a result of ignorance displayed or racist statements clearly articulated, chairs at OMB hearings sometimes offered basic information about religious practices related to Islam23. Chairs also reprimanded members of the public when remarks were oppressive.24 It may have been procedurally unfair to ask adjudicators to function as educators in an adversarial setting such as the OMB. Nonetheless, their words were a necessary salve on what might have been open festering wounds25.