Can Rights Contradict?

Do religious rights contradict other human rights?

I've heard multiple instances of religion being "against" something or other, or people using religion as a sort of excuse to behave a certain way towards others.

"Church and religious communities are often critical voices and successful fighters for the protection of human dignity and human rights. However, religion and human rights are often in contradiction to each other: forced marriages, religiously motivated terrorist attacks and the oppression of people with different religious beliefs are some examples. Moreover, some churches and religious communities still discriminate against women and homosexuals." The World Economic Forum (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2009/01/religion-and-human-rights-a-contradiction/)

Though people can be awful about religion and discriminate against different groups because of it for some reason, the right of religion itself doesn't actually seem to have any part of it.

According to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, freedom of religion is protected and everyone has the right to practice their own religion unless it interferes with someone's rights, health, or wellbeing.

No right in Canada gives another person the right to take away someone else's rights or cause them harm. Therefore rights cannot contradict, since the right of having rights over rules all the others and there are restrictions to all the rights when necessary.

Basically, you have rights as long as you use them as a decent human being would. You need to right responsibly.

What about the freedom from hate speech and the laws against hateful propaganda?

Does the freedom from hatred
contradict the freedom of expression?

"Hate speech is proscribed in Canada by the Criminal Code and, in three provinces, by human rights acts." -https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-restriction-hate-speech-canada

"The three provincial human rights acts that proscribe hate speech [British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan] do so in the context of publications. Typical language is:

7 (1) A person must not publish, issue or display, or cause to be published, issued or displayed, any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
…
(b) is likely to expose a person or a group or class of persons to hatred or contempt"
-https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-restriction-hate-speech-canada

So someone can't publish hate or promotion of hate or violence.

However, this is only in the context of publications. The promotion of hate or violence publicly is not allowed, but what about privately?

"Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction."
-https://cfe.ryerson.ca/key-resources/guidesadvice/legal-restriction-hate-speech-canada

So it's only a punishable offense if hatred is promoted to the public, not only in private conversations.

Hate speech is speech, and the freedom of expression gives people the freedom of speech, media, and other forms of expression.

Since the laws against hateful promotion limits people's use and content of expression in media, it could be considered an infringement of the freedom of expression.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression is not absolute. It has upheld restrictions on forms of expression that it has deemed to run contrary to the spirit of the Charter, such as hate speech, given that the purpose of such expression is to prevent the free exercise of another group’s rights"
-https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/201825E#a2

People have the freedom of expression, but that freedom doesn't apply to the promotion of hate, violence or crime, or prevent another group from having their own rights.