There's a list in the charter. They could have written it in a different way, but that's how they chose to write it, that the first freedom is of conscience and religion. As Professor Le Blanc mentioned, conscience and religion are where those ideas often form, which are then expressed in thought, belief, etc. If you don't protect the inner sanctuary of the person, it's very hard to protect the outer expression of the person. That's why it's not accidental that they're in there first. They're not optional. There is a hierarchy. I mean, they're all fundamental freedoms, but there's a reason that was chosen.
When it comes to our public life together, people of faith should not feel that, because their views on a particular public issue are formed in their faith, they're somehow secondary or less worthy of consideration, as if a secular idea, somehow, has greater validity because of its origin. That's not usually a legal problem. However, it is often the case that, even in our public debates, arguments that proceed from conscience and religion are sometimes treated as second-class arguments.