It would ensure “that the department of foreign affairs and the government broadly will address issues of persecution of religious minorities as part of our foreign policy.” It would monitor “a growing wave of violent persecution” against “minority faith communities,” and “make sure we look through a religious freedom and freedom of conscience lens when we are addressing different issues.” Also there would be research and analysis, and projects “that empower and advocate on behalf of religious minorities,” and a new ambassador who would “have a representational role around the world.” All for five million bucks. A steal at twice the price.
Stephen Harper, announcing the new office, offered a list of suitable faiths to be defended: Christians and Bahais in Iran, Shia Muslim pilgrims in Iraq, Coptic Christians in Egypt, Christians in Nigeria, Uighur Muslims in China, and others.
Fine. We know there’s persecution out there, and we know where. So why do we need to hire an “ambassador,” and staff a new office, when we already know the problem and have lots of facts to back it up? Why is Stephen Harper, scourge of the civil service, creating a whole new bureaucracy at the same time he’s firing members of the old one? Surely a couple of staffers in John Baird’s office, nervously checking their inter-office mail for pink slips, would have happily taken on the task for a whole lot less than $5 million.
Well, sure they would. And probably already do. But where would be the political profit in that? Financially the new office doesn’t make sense. Administratively it doesn’t make sense. Consistency-wise it doesn’t make sense. And in terms of effectiveness it doesn’t make sense. It’s no secret that the Chinese persecute the Uighurs, not to mention Chinese Catholics. It’s easy to collect data: just Google “China” and “Uighurs” et voila. The Prime Minister has already upbraided Beijing a couple of times on the human rights issue (though these days he kind of mumbles it briefly out the side of his mouth in between sales pitches for Canadian resources), and nothing is stopping him sending a firm note to Egypt’s president about the new constitution he pushed through marginalizing the Coptic Christians. Anyone out there in the dark about the state of religious freedom in Iran or Syria? No? Didn’t think so. Any reason Mr. Baird or Mr. Harper couldn’t already point this out to foreign leaders? Nope.
It’s a nice idea, in other words, but wholly unnecessary. Except on one front: if you’re the leader of a party that’s keen on attracting and keeping support among voters with strong religious beliefs, it’s a great idea. Shows that the Tories, unlike the godless socialists and prevaricating Liberals, are on the side of the gods. Any gods. Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Bahai, Hindu, Zoroastrian, you name it. The Tories can point out that they care so much they even opened an office and hired an “ambassador”, Andrew Bennett, dean of a small Christian college in Ottawa, who has previous experience as a government policy analyst in the Privy Council and other departments. While NDP candidates are sneering at organized religion and the Liberals are, as usual, trying to play both sides of the fence, Conservatives can travel the small towns of Canada attesting to their open embrace of religious faith as a fundamental value of Canadian culture.
So this is a political decision, price tag $5 million but with limited risk. It will please the party faithful, fulfill a campaign promise and clearly establish Conservative priorities. In the past Mr. Harper has chopped funding to arts programs, to a passel of activist programs for women, and to the Court Challenges program, which, in essence, paid for lawsuits against the government by people who thought their charter rights had been violated. But religion, that’s different. You can always scrape up $5 million to defend religion.
Even if they don’t like it, are the other parties going to attack an office that advocates for freedom of conscience? Hardly.
Original Article
Source: fullcomment.nationalpost.com
Author: Kelly McParland
No comments:
Post a Comment