Monday, January 9, 2012

The Urgency and Value of Religious Freedom


For those familiar with the harsh realities of persecuted religious minorities abroad, the new level of foreign-policy attention to religious freedom is a welcome development. The government’s plan to open an Office of Religious Freedom builds on decades of non-partisan Canadian support for promoting human rights abroad.
In view of the deplorable state of religious freedom in the world today, the need for greater international attention to this human right cannot be overstated. A recent study by the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 per cent of the world’s people live in countries with “high restrictions on religion, the brunt of which often falls on religious minorities.” Christians were the subject of government or social harassment in 130 countries, Muslims in 117 countries, and Jews, while making up far less than one per cent of the world’s population, faced harassment in 75 countries.



Related: Religious Freedom Compliments of the West


From 2006-09, one-third of the world’s people experienced increased restrictions on freedom of religion. Restrictions loosened for only one per cent of the world’s population during this time. The report raised concern at a pattern of “gradual polarization … with restrictive countries becoming even more so.”
From a humanitarian perspective alone, these are shocking statistics. Viewed more broadly, restrictions on religion also contribute to higher levels of social tension and violence, undermining the prospects for long-term human development.
In countries with harsh restrictions, violations of religious freedom are accomplished by undermining human rights in general. It is impossible to understand such persecution without appreciating the particular religious dimension.
To take one of countless examples worldwide, the Baha’i community in Iran has faced systematic persecution for more than 30 years. The Baha’i Faith is a post-Islamic religion and on that basis the Islamic Republic denies Baha’is access to basic civil, social, and economic rights. Baha’is are denied jobs, business licences, and access to universities. They are arbitrarily arrested and detained for months or years on end. All for the simple reason that their religion is considered illegitimate by the Iranian government.
Canada’s policy on freedom of religion or belief has always been clear – for the Baha’is and for other religious minorities that are persecuted for their beliefs. Whether under Liberal or Conservative leadership, such issues of human rights have never been partisan in nature.
The right to freedom of religion or belief, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to change one’s religion or belief, and to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance (article 18).
On the one hand, promoting religious freedom requires international accountability for states that routinely repress their religious minorities. A number of UN mechanisms exist for this purpose, and the international community has felt it necessary to give special attention to the question of religious freedom in naming a Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. States can also use bilateral diplomacy and public statements to call one another to account.
On the other hand, supporting religious freedom calls for a broader engagement to support a discourse about the value of religious diversity in increasingly plural societies. Such an approach requires state-to-state diplomacy, as well as the inclusion of religious leaders, scholars, and citizens in dialogue about the value of religious freedom.



Related: God Keep Our Land? Imagining a Secular Canada


Religious freedom is not only a basic right, it is a human value that requires consultation and practical action to bring into reality. Some of the issues that arise in conversations regarding religious freedom are not easy to resolve – typically, issues related to the public manifestation of belief through teaching, practice, or worship. The freedom to hold or change one’s belief, for example, relates directly to the freedom to share these beliefs with others. However, some states criminalize the teaching of religions in the name of protecting "morality" or "maintaining public order." While extreme measures such as incitement to hatred and violence should be condemned, people need to otherwise remain free to be exposed to new ideas and to share information. In this vein, support is necessary for civil society and government initiatives that promote religious understanding and mutual regard.
The focus of such efforts should be to uphold the rights and dignity of the individual. This means that the individual’s right to independently search for truth needs to be safeguarded, and also that religious communities should eschew coercive methods and material inducements in their teaching activities.
Ultimately, the realization of religious freedom requires a culture of education, where people are free to read a variety of religious scriptures, to ask questions and discuss openly their views with others, and to apply knowledge acquired in the process. Such an aspiration is not ‘western’ in its conception, and it is foundational to every world religion: that people may discover in Scripture a vision of life beyond material conceptions of reality, and embrace such ideals as justice, reconciliation, love, and service to the common good.
When the Canadian government’s Office of Religious Freedom opens its doors, it will be in the early stages of a learning process, as it tries to figure out how to implement a difficult mandate. It will benefit from the ideas generated by the public and civil society to the extent that this input is informed by the real nature and challenges involved with promoting religious freedom. It’s time to have a broad and inclusive national conversation about how the cause of religious freedom can be supported abroad.
Photo courtesy of Compfight

2011 in Review: Most Uplifting Story


They say “no news is good news,” but even in a year as chaotic as 2011, some truly positive and heartening stories emerged. What was your favourite?
1. Best in Science and Technology
2.Best Political Blunder
3.Best Books
4.Best Films

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Addressing Inequality: Is Government the Answer?


Inequality is finally, mercifully, a topic of common concern. Articles are regularly popping up in the mainstream media, expressing relief at our newfound willingness to address the topic, from people who had a platform for addressing such issues well before the Occupy movement did.
Lately these articles seem to support a common premise: Inequality is driven by complex forces some of which are, to quote Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, “beyond the reach of government.”
Technology and globalization are most often singled out as examples of these forces. From global editor-at-large Chrystia Freeland of Reuters, “[Rapidly rising inequality] is the consequence of a massive – and broadly positive – economic transformation … the big drivers are the twin revolutions reshaping the world economy – globalization and new technology.” From Vancouver Sun columnist Craig McInnes, “Why are we working harder and earning less? … technological change and globalization.”
Certainly, technology and globalization – if they can be so neatly separated for analytical sake – are playing a major role in structuring the world. But instead of simply suggesting that this explanation is “politically inconvenient,” as Freeland does, we need to take a careful look at how government shapes, is shaped by, and responds to these forces.
Globalization and technological change are the result of our collective actions. So, we need to remember, is government. It doesn’t take much to realize that very selective, government-driven trade liberalization is a key component of globalization. Government decisions to enter trade deals also coincided with decisions to de-fund education and social services – to ignore the effect that both globalization and technology would have on the working class, who faced either a transition into high-skilled labour, or the decline into informal and low-paying service-sector jobs that has gutted wages on the lower end of the spectrum.



Related: Questioning the Merits of Globalization


To be clear, looking back to government doesn’t mean blind support for the postwar consensus model of big government. It’s past time for us to innovate beyond that model, – not by abandoning the idea of government, but by being both imaginative and pragmatic about what it can look like in a networked society. Abandoning the idea that government – which, we easily forget, can simply mean the body of people who make and enforce laws, a body we are all potentially part of – can solve problems is some of what has gotten us into this mess of inequality in the first place.
When people are increasingly in dire need, we should be loath to see government get smaller. Even many economists would agree with this statement. Instead we should focus on seeing how it can become more open, more democratic, and more widely distributed. Words like “capitalism,” “socialism,” or “anarchism” have utterly failed to help all of us come together to agree on what a more equitable distribution of governing powers might look like.
Looking to government is essential if we want a meaningful democracy that combats inequality. So is re-conceiving what government means to us. What we’re learning from this crisis and the response of Occupy movements is that “grassroots” democracy is the logical response to political systems that have lost touch with the body politic. That lesson is long overdue.
What we may be learning, too, is that democracy at a “grassroots” level is the only real kind of democracy, since the alternative – representative and bureaucratic – has failed to meet the basic condition of striving to serve all people equally. The postwar consensus was fantastic for producing a large middle class – a great achievement – but let’s not forget that it still left a marginalized underclass who were alienated both from and by the bureaucratic structures of a centralized government.



Related: Some Accountability, Please


That bureaucracy, which is more easily navigated and manipulated by those with power and resources than by anyone else, has also contributed to the creation of a dominant class who can curse and cajole the state into doing its bidding. This undermines democracy. That shouldn’t shock us, as former American president Franklin Roosevelt predicted it in 1938 and former president Thomas Jefferson predicted it almost 200 years ago.
Globalization and technology have helped produce such shocking inequality in large part because the policies that shape the development of these two forces have systematically been made through bureaucratic processes that exclude and alienate the “grassroots.” As a result, “public” policy has failed to prioritize the public good. Turning away from government now because of the complexity or inconvenience of these two forces would only increase their negative effects.
Inequality cannot be addressed without confronting complex technological and globalizing forces – forces that both drive, and are driven by, government policies. If we ignore either of those realities, we’re mystifying a conversation that desperately calls for clarity. Let’s focus like a laser on re-imagining what democratic government looks like by returning to the pure and simple roots of the concept: equal participation in making laws and policies that leave us free to flourish, that help refine and articulate our notion of and commitment to the public good. Almost nothing is beyond the reach of this force.

[VIDEO] The Battle Against Blood Diamonds


The Kimberley Process, which established an international certification scheme once admired for successfully filtering conflict diamonds out of circulation, has recently come under fire for overlooking certain human rights abuses. Ignoring the violent conflict surrounding Zimbabwe's diamond exports has damaged its legitimacy and led to various member states pulling out of the agreement in protests.