(g) Freedom of conscience (Covenant, art* 18) 677. In case Ho. 446/1991 (J.P. v. Canada), the author had refused payment of taxes that would be used for military purposes. She invoked article 18 of the Covenant, which guarantees freedom of conscience. In declaring the communication inadmissible, the Committee observed: "The Committee notes that the author seeks to apply the idea of conscientious objection to the disposition by the State of the taxes it collects from persons under its jurisdiction. Although article 18 of the Covenant certainly protects the right to hold, express and disseminate opinions and convictions, including conscientious objection to military activities and expenditures, the refusal to pay taxes on grounds of conscientious objection clearly falls outside the scope of the protection of this article." (annex X, sect. Y, para. 4.2) (h) The right to take part in the conduct of public affairs (Covenant, art. 25 (a)) 678. Article 25 (a) of the Covenant gives every citizen the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives. In case No. 205/1986 (Mikmaq v. Canada), the authors, Canadian Indians belonging to the Mikmaq tribal society in Nova Scotia, Canada, complained that this right had been denied them. Since 1982, several constitutional conferences had been convened by the Prime Minister of Canada to identify and clarify the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Representatives of four national associations had been invited to represent the interest of approximately 600 aboriginal groups at the conferences, which were attended by the Prime Minister and the first ministers of the provinces. The authors had sought, unsuccessfully, to be invited to attend the conferences as representatives of the Mikmaq tribal society and argued that the failure to invite them infringed their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, as they did not feel represented by the national associations. 679. The Committee considered that, in the light of the composition, nature and scope of the activities of the constitutional conferences, the conferences did indeed constitute "a conduct of public affairs". As to the scope of the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, the Committee found that it was for the legal and constitutional system of States to provide for the modalities of such participation. The right could not be understood as meaning that any group, large or small, that was directly affected by a particular conduct of public affairs had the unconditional right to choose how they would participate. In the view of the Committee, the participation and representation at the Canadian constitutional conferences had not been subjected to unreasonable restrictions. Accordingly, the Committee did not find a violation of the right to talte part in the conduct of public affairs (annex IX, sect. A ) . (i) Non-discrimination (Covenant, art. 26) 680. Article 26 of the Covenant guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law without any discrimination. In its jurisprudence, the Committee has consistently expressed the view that this article does not make -162-