Religious freedom office defended by Baird
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
I find it odd that the 'conservative' party, who mouth words about smaller government etc find it necessary to create a government office to promote something that only needs promotion because of other government departments.
Aren't they the ones who campaigned on smaller government and then set out to create about 10 new ministries? And doesn't Baird look like a dork?
The Conservatives always campaign on smaller government. Their supporters simply have no credibility when they point their "fiscally responsible" fingers at the other parties.
I'd sure like to know what this Office of Religious Freedom is supposed to do and why anyone would think it's useful. What can it do, monitor religious persecution around the world and report on it to the Minister? And what can he do about it except report it to Parliament or the public, or both? And what will that achieve? Seems to me there are NGOs around that already do that. I envision a pack of swivel servants spending their days doing Google searches for reports, then producing another one that I'd bet would be strongly focused on the persecution of Christian minorities by non-Christian majorities and wouldn't pay much attention to things like Hindus and Muslims, or even different Christian sects, pounding on each other.
This is part of the crazy social conservative agenda. Of course he is going to say
it won't be used for domestic politics etc, that is exactly what it is. Religion should
be under the mandate of the law. Yes there is religious freedom but when the law
conflicts with religious beliefs the law of the land should prevail. Religion should
not get a pass from obeying the law like everyone else that simple.
it won't be used for domestic politics etc, that is exactly what it is. Religion should
be under the mandate of the law. Yes there is religious freedom but when the law
conflicts with religious beliefs the law of the land should prevail. Religion should
not get a pass from obeying the law like everyone else that simple.
For many of us freedom of religion has evolved into freedom from religion. The tories don't get that change at all. Most of the world doesn't have that much political freedom, to push for religious freedom is a waste of resources in these days of deficits. And its confusing. It reinforces the idea that a Western nation, Canada, is still crusading for christianity, and most of the country lacks the religious zeal of yore. A misguided example of how naive Canadians permeate every party in their attempt to improve the world. This is strictly bumpkin stuff.
I would say it ought to be used for domestic politics. If this office can criticize religious discrimination abroad, it ought to have free reign to make recommendations to revise the Canadian constitution too where it conflicts with religious equality. Why the double-standard?
Maybe it's better to think of it in these terms:
Are the religious persecuted in Canada?
No!
however, if we're going to preach justice abroad, we ought to practice it at home too and have higher standards for ourselves. how can we criticize foreign countries while our own constitution discriminates on the basis of religion on a number of points?
Because there are varying levels of discrimination and whether we (not them) require higher standards is a contentious point. We're already practically in the lead when it comes to religious freedom.
Maybe these sorts of measures would be necessary in a country like Iran, but do we really need it?
Well, if we have failed to change our own constitution to remove religious discrimination, how competent will we be in removing such policies from foreign constitions. Let's get real.
I don't know the extent of the purpose of this office - no one really does yet.
I also don't know if we would have the right to change another state's constitution. We can try and convince them to change it through some constructive dialog, but the decision remains up to them.
Also, if this is only about changing our own constitution, we don't really need an office for that either. That's something that any government should do as part of their platform in order to satisfy their constituents.
Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I see the Office as pointless too, if that's what you're getting at, and for the same reasons you do.
Domestically, if the people do not want religious equality in the Constitution, there is nothing such an Office can do in the face of a Parliament dependent on votes. And if such an office does not know how to convince even our own officials to revise the constitution, then how will it know how to convince foreign politicians to change theirs.
So in conclusion the concept of this office is flawed both at the domestic and the international level.
And if the purpose is to oversee injustices abroad, then it's redundant since we already have the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights doing just that already.
They are free to demonstrate. just not to destroy other peoples property or disrupt others lives.
I'm betting it will be more like jeting around the wirld doing conferences in vacation hot spots all on the taxpayers dollar. Don't expect any of them to show up anyplace dangerous.