2 replies ›

1. This is what some Canadians think of the Office of Religions Freedom, published in the Toronto Star.

   A tricky juggling act, Editorial Feb. 20

   There is a problem associated with Canada’s new Office of Religious Freedom that the media does not seem to be covering. It is being established at the time when the basic definition of “religious freedom” is actually reversing its meaning.

   Religious freedom used to mean the freedom of individuals and religious institutions to hold unusual religious beliefs, for people to join with fellow believers in religious services, to prostelyze freely, etc. Persecution generally came from governments and other large faith groups, and the victims were typically a smaller faith groups.

   Examples in Canada’s past were the persecution of the Jehovah’s Witnesses by the government of Quebec, and persecutions of Native spirituality by the government of Canada. A more recent example is the elimination of all or almost all non-Christian chaplains in federal prisoners.

   Today, a new definition of religious freedom is emerging. The direction of the persecution is reversed. It is now some religious groups that are claiming the religious freedom to oppress, denigrate, and limit the civil rights of others — typically women and sexual minorities like lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgender persons and transsexuals (the LGBT community).

   A typical example is the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate of the U.S. government in which some employers claim the religious freedom to prevent access to free birth control for their female employees. Another is the organized opposition to marriage equality in the U.S. by religious conservatives that is impeding the transition to marriage for all loving, committed couples whether of the opposite-sex or same-sex.

   This shift in definition of “religious freedom” makes the choice of the office’s ambassador very critical. If Andrew Bennett holds to the traditional definition of religious liberty, then the office should perform a very helpful function. If he follows the emerging definition, then most Canadians, including women and sexual minorities have reason to fear.

   Bruce A Robinson, Co-ordinator, Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, Kingston

   An office for religious freedom opens the door for any practice to be deemed acceptable as long as it is sanctioned by a religious group. If any citizen dared to question the legitimacy of the practice, that citizen could be charged with religious persecution.

   What protection is there for citizens who want to preserve a separation of religion and state, and who don’t want tax dollars to fund a “job with a fancy title and handsome perks”?

   There are far more pressing issues for the Canadian government to take up than the persecution of religious groups in foreign countries. Harper’s creation of an office for religious freedom is a diversion from concerns such as the environment and Aboriginal poverty.

   Diane Sullivan, Toronto

   So I guess Stephen Harper may finally publicly thank Madame Justice Louise Arbour for her valiant work as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2004 to 2008, and for her years in the late 1990s appointed by the UN Security Council as Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, and for Rwanda, (before she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada, from which she retired in 2004 and began her work as Human Rights High Commissioner).

   Shea Hoffmitz, Hamilton

   Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s introduction to the Office of Religious Freedom embellished the Canadian Bill of Rights as presented in 1960 during “Progressive” Conservative John Diefenbaker’s term as prime minister but no mention of when Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau enshrined the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into The Constitution Act of 1982.

   Harper’s disdain for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and Liberals) was evident in 2012 when he did nothing to recognize the 30th anniversary in favour of spending millions of taxpayer dollars on celebrating the War of 1812.

   Interestingly the first fundamental freedom of every Canadian is “the freedom of conscience and religion.” I wish Andrew Bennett every success in his important role but does he yet know who he will report to — John Baird or Harper?

   Douglas Loewen, Alliston

   Finally, we have an ambassador of religious freedom in Canada. This is of course the first of our fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Charter of Rights. So I suppose Prime Minister Harper was honouring the 30th anniversary of the Charter in his own way.

   It’s such an important posting; I don’t know how we’ve managed this long without it. Let’s hope we don’t have to wait another 30 years for our ambassadors of thought, belief and opinion (may I humbly suggest Barbara Amiel and Conrad Black not being a citizen and all), freedom of peaceful assembly (Pam Palmater?) and freedom of association (Sid Ryan?).

   Margaret Opatovsky, Port Colborne

   It is a shame the Harper government abolished the highly respected and effective International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, and seemingly replaced it with a narrow focus on religious freedom.

   However, if we are to focus on a single area of rights, may I respectfully suggest we establish a high level office or institution led by an ambassador that promotes equality and security for women around the world.

   We have daily evidence of the pain caused by the abuse of women, often rooted in the patriarchal and misogynist traditions of some of the world’s major religions.

   G.W. Byron, Toronto

   Loading...

   Reply

2. Thanks for the comment!
   What most of the people have missed is that the center is part of Foreign affairs and as such will raise voice about religious freedom at international level. Canada is haven for religiously persecuted people and as such the government understands the dire need for such a center to raise voice at the international level.

   Loading...

   Reply