Friday, May 25, 2012

Baird on Religious Freedom

Foreign Minister John Baird said recently that Canada has gone soft on defending rights like Religious Freedom. He said this in front of an American audience at the Religious Liberty Dinner. Canada went soft on religious freedom after world war two, the Harper government intends to reverse that trend, was the message They have a plan to fund a religious freedom office within Foreign Affairs at the cost of 5 million dollars. The purpose is to help Canada support religious freedom throughout the world. It is an ambitious goal. And a worthy one.

In his speech he spoke of defending all religious groups for persecution, though the body of the speech dealt with Christian and Jewish persecution. He noted the thousands of years of persecution of the Jewish people. Throwing in the he ubiquitous your with us or the appeasers Baird saying;

 "The world cannot take the words of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime as mere rhetoric and cannot risk appeasing these malicious actors in the same way as it once appeased the Nazis."


He is right, on the issue of appeasement, it tends to embolden the aggressor. He is wrong on directly comparing the situation Israel with Nazi era Europe. 


Or here where Baird levels the usual charge, though muted slightly, that criticizing Israel springs from bigotry.


"We contend that modern anti-Semitism is alive in the disproportionate criticism Israel receives, and the refusal to accept its right to exist." 


This part of the speech was an affirmation of Israel and Canada's unwavering support for them. With Baird saying,


"Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and under this foreign affairs minister, Canada will stand with the Jewish state and people as they struggle to protect their very right to exist." 


Israel is in a tough spot no one can disagree. That it is partly of their own making can also not be argued. But they are lucky enough to have over 200 nuclear weapons, the best trained/technologically advanced armed forces in the region, and the support of the United States of America. 


He makes mention of repression of Muslims,


"Burma, despite recent reforms, the regime continues to discriminate against certain forms of Buddhism and restricts the activities of Muslims."


But as he is addressing a Christian group he moves on quickly to the plight of Christians. 


We have grave concerns about the persistent and serious violations in Iran of the rights of Iranian citizens to practise Christianity, including those facing charges of apostasy."


A nod is thrown out to the neocons in the crowd.


"In Iraq, where the United States has fought mightily and paid dearly to combat tyranny and secure for the people a better, brighter future, many challenges remain. Fundamental freedoms are the domain of the select few. And Christians are not always among the few."


The speech includes a veiled shot at Liberals for i guess, abandoning the theme of religious freedom.


"Canada has a tradition that some in our country seemed to forget during the latter half of the last century: a tradition of standing for freedom and fundamental rights, a tradition of standing against oppression."


"So I’m proud to say Canada no longer simply “goes along to get along” in the conduct of its foreign policy."


The elevation of terrorism. 


"Just as fascism and communism were the great struggles of his generation, terrorism is the great struggle of ours."


The remainder of the speech talks about the importance of religious freedom. How Democracy and religious freedom are inseparable. 


"Simply put, societies that protect religious freedom are more likely to protect other fundamental freedoms.

They are typically more stable and more prosperous.
When you have religious freedom, other freedoms follow."

The inference here is a bit blurry but i get the idea that Baird is trying to say that without religious freedom there is no Democracy. True, but i can say that about freedom of speech, press, against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. The core idea of Democracy is recognition that the citizen has rights that the state may not unduly abridge.


Since Baird was talking to a religious audience it is not unreasonable he would emphasize that aspect of democracy.


This was a political speech. It's content directed towards a conservative audience. I won't fault the idea behind the speech. It is important that people are free to practise their beliefs; that minorities are safe from persecution. That tolerance of the other is a key democratic principle. The coating of the speech is just not to my liking.


A last note, atheism made no appearance. In many places it is also unsafe to express no belief.







No comments:

Post a Comment