Posts tagged Archbishop

STATEMENT FROM THE PRIME MINISTER IN RESPONSE TO THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP

The reported comments by the Catholic Archbishop of Suva that the Constitution deprives Fijians of the right to practice religious beliefs in the public sphere are incorrect.

Nowhere in the 2013 Constitution is there any limitation on expressing religious belief publicly, individually or in a group.

In fact, the Bill of Rights expressly guarantees a Fijian’s right to freedom of religion, conscience and belief and right to freedom of expression.

Section 22(2) clearly states “Every person has the right, either individually or in community with others, in private or in public, to manifest and practice their religion or belief in worship, observance, practice or teaching.” This section could not be any clearer in its protection of the right to practice religion and to talk about and discuss religion in the public sphere.

The Constitution also protects the right of all Fijians to freedom of expression in all aspects of community life, including in the practice of religion. This right is only limited to prevent the spread of hate speech or incitement to violence.

What’s more, the fact that the Archbishop is able to freely discuss the role of religion in public life, as he did in the media today, contradicts the very premise of his argument.

It is also deeply troubling that the Archbishop has demonstrated such a fundamental lack of understanding of the Constitution’s provision for a Secular State. The Archbishop ought to be aware that the principle that underlines any Secular State is that the State cannot favour any specific denomination, belief or religion. A Secular State means that religion is a matter for people to decide for themselves, not for the State to decide for them.

Section 4 of the Constitution establishes the Secular State. It protects the religious liberty of all Fijians in the State, and provides that religion and the State are separate.

In this context, the statement that religious beliefs are personal means that they are not for the state to dictate. It means that the State cannot subscribe to a religious belief, force a religious belief on others, or regard a particular religion as the official religion of the State. Section 4, including the statement that religious beliefs are personal, is similar to the Ghai Draft.

It is very disappointing that someone of the Archbishop’s stature does not appear to have read those provisions of the Constitution in their totality. We fear he is relying on the advise of some who may be deliberately misleading him.

Such comments clearly have the potential to inflame public opinion.  The Archbishop and other religious leaders have a special responsibility not to spread misinformation, and they must uphold that responsibility.