Athée Canadien
Office of Religious Freedom moves forward
By Zak
The federal government held consultations this week on the construction of the Office of Religious Freedom. Questions and criticisms still remain.
Arvind Sharma, who teaches religious studies at McGill University, has just completed a book called Problematizing Religious Freedom.
Sharma argues that the very concept of religious freedom has become an excuse used by proselytizing religions, particularly Christianity, to convert people. He says that was the clear goal of the U.S. model from the start.
“My concern is that this office will be used … by missionary religions, especially by Christian missions, will be interpreted by them as giving them the right to proselytize,” Sharma says. “I agree that the right to change one’s religion is a part of religious freedom but I don’t agree that my right to change my religion is symmetrical with somebody else’s right to ask me to change my religion.”
If our government is going to spend $5 million every year to promote religious freedom, they need to first define what is means. As argued by some Americans, the similar US model was used to promote Christianity abroad so it’s important we don’t head down the same path.
Foreign Affairs minister John Baird gave a fluffy speech where he argued for the importance of the new office to promote human rights and religious freedom abroad. Yet, shouldn’t our Foreign Affairs department be doing that anyway, so why the need for a special office? Given the new office has no purpose that isn’t already covered by existing mandates, it leads me to think the government has special plans. My guess is they want to use the program to single out international action on behalf of targeted religions in order to gain votes in swing ridings.
I don’t have a problem promoting religious freedom as long as it includes all religions and no religion but did the consultations this week include any atheist representatives? Nope?
| Print article | This entry was posted by Zak on October 5, 2011 at 10:50 am, and is filed under Politics. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 7 months ago
Should that be “Nope?” or “Nope.”?
about 7 months ago
It’s an open question. I couldn’t find a list of delegates so I can’t confirm or deny any atheist participation. I suspect no atheists were there because I would have heard about it but I could be wrong.
about 7 months ago
I am fairly optimistic about this new office the government is creating, and I am glad that more money and people power is being devoted to this goal. Is the office going to be perfect and optimally protect all religious minorities? I don’t know, but doing nothing at all I think is unacceptable.
The speech mentioned the persecution of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and a few other groups. I guess it is somewhat disappointing that not every persecuted group was mentioned including atheists, but I do understand and realize that the groups that were mentioned are the ones facing the worst of the violence en masse. I want atheists to be protected, but I know that Coptic Christians, Shias and Sunnis (depending on area) are being extirpated by the other majorities.
I am glad our government has taken a strong stance against the appeasement of theocratic bullying and despots.
about 7 months ago
I don’t think that the current situation is ‘nothing at all’. As Zak notes, this kind of matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And considering that even voices within the USA, who tried and failed at creating an office that does EXACTLY what this one is claiming to be for, I don’t see where your optimism comes from. PM Harper’s track record of fairness and accountability?
about 7 months ago
I see this additional office as an add on to put more resources through money and people power for this specific issue. For example it is like a police force. The job of the police is to fight all crime, but police make specialized units to fight certain types of crime be it gangs, drugs, etc. The US fails at a great many of things I don’t see how that has any relevance to us. I do trust Harper’s track record for foreign policy and geo-politics, and that is why I voted conservative. I believe Harper has been the only prime minster to get a motion past at the UN to censure Iran for human rights abuses.
about 7 months ago
(snip)
Yup…
If a policy approach fails in country A, and country B initiates the exact same policy approach, there’s evidence to suggest that it will fail. Expecting it to succeed without making sufficient adjustments is folly. Considering that the CPC is, by all appearances, pursuing the exact same approach that failed in the USA, expecting it to succeed here is folly. I didn’t think that required explaining, but there ya go.
He’s also the only PM to fail to get Canada a seat on the UN Security Council. Neither of those facts are relevant to whether or not the office of religious freedoms is a good idea.
about 7 months ago
It is merely conjecture that Canada is making the “exact same policy approach”. To the contrary, the speech outlines protecting Muslims and Buddhists which seems antithetical to making a Christian apologetic machine. In the most vague terms of “protecting religious freedom” they are similar, but individual nuanced decisions taken may and will most likely be different. It’s like a country saying it supports “freedom of speech”, that doesn’t necessitate the country will take the US or Canadian model of freedom of speech.
The loss of the seat for the UN security council was because of the Euro zone backing its own to get Portugal on the security council, no PM could of done anything different to be honest. This was mainly an answer to your second question about confidence in Harper’s track record rather than on the office of religious freedom.
I could be daring and try and tie the two together if you wish. The young green revolutionaries in Iran are composed largely of secularists who wish to regain their Persian culture and to end the Islamic Republic. Harper has taken the side of the green revolutionaries/protesters and is firmly against the Mullahs. I think that shows that Harper will not just side to help Christians.
about 7 months ago
Zak asks, did the consultations this week include any atheist representatives?
I emailed John Baird to ask him that question:
‘Dear John Baird
According to the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website, you met and consulted with stakeholders in the construction of Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom. I have a few questions concerning the meeting and Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom:
Were any atheists invited to participate in the round-table consultation?
Will Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom “promote and protect freedom [from] religion and belief, consistent with core Canadian values such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law”?’
about 7 months ago
Whether the new office is about promoting genuine religious freedom or simply making the world safer for Christianity, the last thing Canada needs is to get even more deeply into the business of nagging other countries about their domestic affairs.