Last Friday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was the only national political party leader to stand up for the right of four Canadian Sikhs to wear their ceremonial kirpans into the Quebec legislature building. Many in Canada who have an interest in religious freedom, myself included, cheered this defence of religious practice that is genuinely connected to sincerely held religious beliefs (which, by the way, is the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada in Syndicat Northcrest v Amselem).
Last night, Mr. Ignatieff was the guest of honour at a $500 per person cocktail reception hosted by a Sikh businessman, philanthropist and Liberal party supporter. This event was organized well before last Friday’s announcement and some have decried Mr. Ignatieff as an opportunist, standing for religious freedom because of the political advantage for the upcoming fundraiser.
(As a side note, kirpan wearing Sikhs – kirpans are religious daggers about the size of a pocket knife worn as a religious requirement for orthodox adult male Sikhs – are welcome in Parliament and the small group wearing the ones in question had been invited to address a committee of the Quebec legislature.)
Is Mr. Ignatieff a defender of religious freedom or an opportunist? If he is an opportunist, does it change the character of his initial statements? This is how I see it.
“What do you think?” Jesus asked. “There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ the son answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, Dad,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?” “The first,” those listening answered. (Matthew 21:28-31)
Mr. Ignatieff and I have disagreed on his approach to religious inclusion in the past (see, Liberal “Newthinkers” for Canada at 150: old speakers and borrowed ideas), but that doesn’t alter the fact that last Friday Michael Ignatieff did the right thing. He stood up for religious freedom; a religious freedom that should allow Sikhs to carry kirpans into the legislature, alongside Christians who by the same religious freedom should be allowed to carry our voices into the courts and public policy institutions of the nation.
Canada is a nation in which religious freedom is recognized in our constitution as “fundamental,” not optional. That freedom has been carefully defined by the Supreme Court of Canada – in regard to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne.
The compromise, infringement or violation of rights in regard to one religious community, affects all religious communities. So, thank you Mr. Ignatieff, for doing the right thing. Your motives are not my concern … and … I, for one, will be looking for consistency in your defence of religious freedom.