Interdependent, Universal and Indivisible

                                                   http://quotesideas.com/

As a sop to his evangelical base, Stephen Harper established the Office of Religious Freedom back in 2013. The tenure of its present Ambassador, Andrew Bennett,  expires at the end of March. Bruce Ryder and Luka Ryder Bunting argue that, rather than replace Bennett, the Liberals should shut down the office.

The office is problematic for a number of reasons:

The international promotion of religious freedom by Western states risks repeating “civilizing” colonial missions, imposing fixed standards without sensitivity to cultural and historical specificities, adding to the already overburdened social salience of religious difference, and neglecting other sources of tension and conflict. The international promotion of religious freedom is a fraught project if it does not engage local populations appropriately or undermines plural and contextualized understandings of religious freedom across the globe. Canada must not assume that our model fits well with the experiences and needs of other states.

To make matters worse, the Harper government provided a stellar example of religious hypocrisy by

promoting religious freedom abroad while simultaneously undermining it at home, most blatantly in the case of the niqab. Moreover, by creating an office dedicated solely to the promotion of religious freedom, the Harper government appeared to attach more importance to religious freedom than it did to other human rights.

Ryder and Bunting believe that separating religious freedom from other human rights creates a human rights hierarchy:

There should be no hierarchy of human rights, no privileging of some over others. The promotion of religious freedom alone can lead us to see only part of people’s experiences, and can obscure other equally important issues. For example, women and children may be denied basic rights across an entire society, whether or not they are members of religious minorities. States may imprison individuals solely on the basis of their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Viewing complex and interwoven issues through the lens of a single human right will not produce adequate responses. Canada should take an expansive view and advocate for the protection of all human rights.

They suggest that the government establish a Human Rights Office which recognizes -- as Stephane Dion has said -- that human rights are "interdependent, universal and indivisible."

If Only They Could Ditch The Charter

Frances Russell is puzzled about why we need an Office of Religious Freedom:

One question: why not just celebrate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It’s right there at the top of the charter’s Fundamental Freedoms section: “freedom of consicence and religion.” Were the Conservatives unaware? Had they read it? Or are they elevating “freedom of conscience and religion” above other fundamental human rights and freedoms — creating a hierarchy of human rights?

The answer is that what the Harperites call "religious freedom" trumps all other rights. It's a pat formula for a government which acts on faith rather than reason. For the Harper Party, the Charter is infuriating. That's why they did not celebrate its thirtieth anniversary:

A year ago, the Harper government all but ignored the Charter’s 30th anniversary. Asked why, Harper referred to “constitutional divisions” created by the refusal of the separatist Parti Quebecois government to sign the patriation package. (Incidentally, virtually the entire Quebec Liberal caucus voted to support it.)

Many social and religious conservatives — Harper’s bedrock base — loathe the charter. Many of them see it as violating the natural order of things: “The rich man in his castle, the poor man at the gate”, in the words of the old hymn. Or Ephesians 5:22 — “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.”

If they could replace the Charter with the Office of Religious Freedom they could  rest in the bosom of Abraham. For people who firmly believe that they make the rules, the notion of universal human rights is anathema. Russell rightly sees through the facade:

Not only do the Harper Conservatives tacitly reject the concept of universal human rights, he (and many of his party members) want to be able to pick and choose the rights to be deemed fundamental — and the people they deem worthy of enjoying them.
  

 If only they could ditch the Charter.