Religious freedom office faces uncertain future as Liberals consider wider human-rights proposals
2016/01/19 1 Comment
Good in-depth piece, with considerable commentary offering advice on what the Government should consider:
The Liberal government is considering whether to scrap Canada’s controversial Office of Religious Freedom — considered a signature achievement by the previous Conservative government — and instead focus on ways to champion a broader array of human rights abroad.
Unless the new government intervenes, current Ambassador for Religious Freedom Andrew Bennett’s three-year term will expire Feb. 18. The office’s mandate and funding, about $5 million a year, will run out on March 31.
Supporters of the office are urging the Liberals to save it. Others are calling for big changes, if not its outright abolition. The government is weighing its options.
“Beyond March, the government has not made a decision with respect to the mandate and associated budget of the office,” said Adam Barratt, a spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion. “The minister is examining options and how best to build on the work that has been accomplished in the area of religious freedom while promoting human rights as a whole.”
The Office of Religious Freedom was the subject of controversy even before it was formally established on Feb. 19, 2013. It was promised by the Conservatives during the 2011 election, but some worried it would be used to selectively champion Christianity, woo certain ethnic voter groups and pursue pet projects of the government.
Those who supported its creation argued there was is a growing link between religious freedom and democratic rights. They also said religion was becoming an increasingly important factor in international affairs, and having an office dedicated to the issue would benefit Canada abroad.
Bennett subscribes to that belief. Sitting in his office at the Department of Global Affairs, surrounded by religious symbols from different faiths, Bennett warned recently that Canadian diplomats risk a “blind spot” if they don’t have a strong grasp of how religion influences countries’ actions.
“We need to ensure that if we want to be really nuanced and winsome in how we engage countries that are deeply religious, that we can actually employ language that enables us to have a deeper engagement,” he told the Citizen. “If we can’t do that, then we risk developing or having a serious diplomatic blind spot.”
Even those who question the need for an Office for Religious Freedom have been impressed by Bennett, the well-spoken policy analyst at the Privy Council Office who also moonlights as a professor and dean at a small Christian college in Ottawa.
“Anytime I reached out for him, he was open, available and worked within the mandate,” said former NDP MP Paul Dewar, who was his party’s foreign affairs critic for years. “I think he did as good a job as he could to connect with groups from different religions and really try to engage to the extent he could.”
That doesn’t mean his term has escaped controversy. When the Conservative government appealed a court ruling that struck down a ban on face coverings during citizenship ceremonies, Dewar asked for Bennett’s position on the issue. The ambassador replied it was outside his mandate.
Bennett, however, admits that what happens in Canada has an impact on his ability to champion religious rights abroad. For instance, he says Turkish officials were quick to raise Quebec’s controversial Charter of Values two years ago when he was pressing them on the treatment of religious minorities in Turkey.
But even now, Bennett refuses to talk about the niqab debate, or the use of identity politics during the election debate. Mandate restrictions aside, he says Canada is different from Turkey and other places because it has a healthy democracy in which such issues can be debated.
“We need to be conscious as Canada that we have our own challenges that we have to engage,” he said. “But at least we’re able to engage them. In many countries, they can’t even talk about them.”
…Father Raymond de Souza wants the government to keep the office. A Roman Catholic priest and National Post columnist, de Souza is also chair of the Office of Religious Freedom’s external advisory committee. He says the federal government spends more on water treatment plants abroad than on the office each year.
“And if you ask why are there Syrian refugees in the first place, at least part of the answer is religious liberty,” he said. “People are fleeing religious persecution … The foreign policy issues that the government of Canada has at the top of its agenda are sort of shot through with religious liberty questions.”
…Alex Neve, the head of Amnesty International Canada, said the human rights group appreciated Bennett’s frequent public interventions on both individual and broader issues of religious persecution abroad. And he suggested the government might consider appointing ambassadors focused on other human rights.
“There is considerable value in devoting dedicated resources to a particular human rights concern, and appointing high level ambassadors or envoys to represent Canada globally with respect to that issue, as has been done with the Office of Religious Freedom,” he said.
Conservative foreign affairs critic Tony Clement hopes the Liberal government will keep the office and Bennett. He says both have contributed to religious freedom abroad, and transformed Canada into “a voice for research and advocacy and collaboration in order to protect people and their religious freedoms.”
But even some supporters question its impact. One is Imam Abdul Hai Patel, founder of the Canadian Council of Imams, Muslim chaplain for the University of Toronto and York Regional Police, and another member of the office’s external advisory board.
“I welcome the office. But then it has limited or no powers really to do anything,” said Patel. “I think it hasn’t really fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended, because it has no teeth and there was a limited budget.” He would like to see the office have more independence and influence, like its counterpart in the U.S.
Some Canadian diplomats have also quietly grumbled that the creation of the office politicized the issue of religious freedom, and hurt Canada’s ability to advance it abroad by putting it into a silo.
History might be against Bennett and the office surviving under the current Liberal government. Unlike the U.S. and some other countries, Canada has not traditionally appointed ambassadors for specific themes. And, fairly or not, the ambassador and office are inextricably linked to the previous Conservative government.
Bennett argues the office is needed more now than ever. In particular, he would like to offer more training to Canadian diplomats, to protect against that potential “blind spot” as religion and belief become more and more important in international politics.
And he says there’s an appetite for what the office has to offer. He says he has always acted as a non-partisan public servant. “My goal for the office is to just do the work. I just want to help people. I want to take that Canadian experience and try to assist as best we can people who are being persecution.”
Source: Religious freedom office faces uncertain future as Liberals consider wider human-rights proposals
About Andrew
Multicultural Meanderings 
A couple of questions: first: who decides what is a legitimate religion, and as a consequence who decides what is a ‘religious right’? Is murdering secular – non-religious – bloggers in Bangladesh a ‘religious right’? Is telling people in Africa that ‘condoms are part of the problem’ of HIV not part of the solution’, as Pope Benedict did, a religious right? Is stoning people to death or cutting off their heads for violations of Islamic Law in Saudi Arabia a religious right? Is banning girls from school and not allowing women to leave their homes – as the Taliban preaches – a religious right? Is murdering Israelis a ‘religious right’? Is expanding the settlements in the West Bank a ‘religious right’? Is not allowing women to wear the niqab or the hijab – or insisting that they do wear it – a ‘religious right’? Is killing – Christian – Canadians who are doing charitable work in Africa a ‘religious right’? Is condemning homosexuals to death, as certain ‘Christian’ African countries do, a religious right? This is not a trivial question. And the usual answer ‘well, that is not true religion’ is farcical and ethnocentric and naive. if people believe it is their religion, however evil it may be, then it is their religion. Is Scientology, with its intimidation techniques and other unsavory activities, a religion, and thus to be defended as an aspect of ‘religious rights’?The list could go on in various directions – religion is one of the great – explosive – tribal forces of our time, alas; and, yes, religion, alas, is becoming more important in human relations, but who decides what is a legitimate religion and what is not? Why not just defend human rights in general, of which freedom of conscience (widely denied by religious authorities in many parts of the world) is an essential and basic component? Second, does this ‘religious rights’ thing not put an unnecessary constraint upon the action of our diplomats, who already have a lot of conflicting values to juggle? Putting religious rights in a silo, as the diplomats complain, is, I think counterproductive. Diplomacy has to act on multiple fronts all the time, and flexibility, not dogmatism, is required, and, yes, of course, sensitivity to the local customs, beliefs, prejudices, phobias, taboos, and so on is necessary. So if the office is to be maintained – and I doubt that – then its mandate should be expanded to deal with human rights in general and not to privilege those who adhere to dogmas or practices defended by – frequently oppressive, patriarchal, obscurantist, extremely cruel and arrogant – institutions. Individuals – such as the bloggers in Bangladesh – are rarely defended by these institutions all of whom, underneath their – frequently extremely bloody – conflicts are selling the same snake oil: belief in the superiority of their own beliefs which means, fundamentally, belief in their own infallibility. . Third, what do you do when realpolitik and the defense of ‘religious rights’ conflict? Canada is about to sell heavily armed light armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia – one of the most religiously repressive regimes in the world and the origin and promoter of the violent fundamentalist obscurantist version of Islam, Wahhabism, which is behind most terrorism in the world today and countless murders – of other Muslims, of Christians, of secularists, of virtually anybody – in dozens of countries. How does the ‘office for religious freedom respond to that if it can’t even confront the niqab question in Canada. So – either expand the mandate, or, better, do away with the office. Apologies for the rant! Cheers to all!