Category: News

The USCIRF 2018 Annual Report, released today, recommends 16 Countries be designated “Countries of Particular Concern”

CPCs are governments that engage in or tolerate systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. The 16 countries for CPC designation: 10 that the State Department so designated in December 2017—Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—and six others—Central African Republic, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Syria, and Vietnam.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Annual Report documents religious freedom violations and progress in 28 countries during calendar year 2017 and makes recommendations to the U.S. government.

“Sadly, religious freedom conditions deteriorated in many countries in 2017, often due to increasing authoritarianism or under the guise of countering terrorism,” said USCIRF Chairman Daniel Mark. “Yet there is also reason for optimism 20 years after the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act. The importance of this foundational right is appreciated more now than ever, and egregious violations are less likely to go unnoticed.”

The report also includes a second category, USCIRF’s Tier 2, for countries where the violations meet one or two, but not all three, of the elements of the systematic, ongoing, egregious test. In its 2018 report, USCIRF places 12 countries on its Tier 2: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Laos, Malaysia, and Turkey.

In addition, the report contains USCIRF’s recommendations of “entities of particular concern,” or EPCs, a designation created by the 2016 Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act for non-state actors committing systematic, ongoing, egregious violations. The act defines a non-state actor as “a non-sovereign entity that exercises significant political power and territorial control; is outside the control of a sovereign government; and often employs violence in pursuit of its objectives.” Based on their conduct and control of territory in 2017, USCIRF recommends three groups for designation as EPCs in 2018: the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria; the Taliban in Afghanistan; and al-Shabaab in Somalia.

“In its second year, the Trump Administration should build on stated commitments to elevate religious freedom as a priority in our foreign policy and national security strategy by vigorously implementing IRFA, the Frank Wolf Act, and the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act to pressure egregious violators,” said Chairman Mark. “USCIRF also urges the administration to prioritize seeking the release of religious prisoners of conscience abroad, and to work closely with international partners in efforts to promote freedom of religion or belief for all.”

Read the full USCIRF 2018 Annual Report 

Lord Suri asked “What director level staffing changes, if any, the Government intend to make in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to provide greater capacity for that department to co-ordinate, oversee and deliver policy to advance freedom of religion and belief?”

Watch the response and subsequent debate

Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Religion

Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the deputy director of the multilateral policy directorate at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office leads all FCO work at official level to promote freedom of religion or belief. Ambassadors and high commissioners lead work abroad in promoting and defending human rights including freedom of religion or belief, taking account of the situation in their host countries. In their day-to-day work, many desk officers in London and staff in the overseas network contribute to the promotion of freedom of religion or belief. I can confirm that we have no current plans to appoint new staff to work on freedom of religion or belief at director level.

Lord Suri (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. I am also pleased to see that several FCO and DfID country posts have responded positively to the letters sent by the Minister, Mark Field, and my noble friends Lord Ahmad and Lord Bates asking that they outline the strategic steps that they are taking to support and advance freedom of religion or belief at country level. Will she explain what resources and efforts are being applied to ensure that the steps outlined are carried out effectively and that country-specific strategies to advance freedom of religion or belief are being co-ordinated, developed, shared between posts and implemented effectively?

Baroness Stedman-Scott
We have received updates from a variety of UK missions on how they are promoting freedom of religion or belief. Resources and efforts will vary across these posts as each country faces its own set of unique challenges, and our freedom of religion or belief work needs to be tailored to suit the local context. Our interventions range from diplomatic interventions, our work at the Human Rights Council, dialogue and project support. Officials from the human rights policy unit remain in contact with the relevant leads, follow the progress of activities and share best practice.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister seen, in advance of this week’s Commonwealth Heads of Government conference meeting in London, that 95% of citizens of the Commonwealth have religious beliefs but that in 70% of Commonwealth countries there is some degree of persecution on the basis of freedom of religion or belief? How is it commensurate with that challenge to have only two desk officers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office dealing with this issue? How is it commensurate with our obligations under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which upholds the right of every citizen to believe, not to believe or to change their belief?

Baroness Stedman-Scott
I am delighted to hear that more than 90% of people in the Commonwealth have a religious belief; that is excellent. It is disturbing that 70% are unable to express it in the way that we would all want. On the noble Lord’s point about resources, I in no way wish to make light of this, but I cannot think that there is a government department that does not want more resources to do things. I cannot answer his question in as much detail as he would like, but I will go away, find out more information and let him have it. I just put in a plea that resources are tight in the current fiscal climate, but by 2019-20, the overall resource budget will be £1.24 billion.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, following on from that question, the Minister will be aware of the gathering at Lambeth Palace at the moment convened by my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is bringing together parliamentarians and religious leaders from across the Commonwealth to help them work on good local practice. Would not the sort of director-level appointment mentioned in the Question to increase capacity help Her Majesty’s Government to partner with such initiatives to take them on to the next stage and provide co-ordination across the Commonwealth?

Baroness Stedman-Scott
I congratulate the Church on hosting today’s meeting with people from across the Commonwealth and I am sure that they will gain much from it. When I was the chief executive of a charity and people asked for resources, I used to say, “I get the message”, so I get the message on a director-level appointment. The only thing I can confirm to give any comfort at this point is that we are actively reviewing the need for such a post.

Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has made this a political priority. He is the Minister for Human Rights. I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton: to have two desk members covering this issue is simply not good enough. If it is a priority, the Government should ensure that they can deliver on it. The fact is that 80% of the world’s population live in countries where oppression of religious belief takes place. That oppression ends in other human rights abuses. We should be prioritising this because we need to create a tolerant world.

Baroness Stedman-Scott
I completely agree with the noble Lord that we want a tolerant world. I completely agree that we must do everything we can to ensure that people have freedom of religion. On the face of it—I do not doubt what the noble Lord says—two desk people appears remarkably light. I could get in big trouble afterwards for agreeing with him on that, but noble Lords are all very kind to me. The Leader is laughing; I am all right.

My noble friend Lord Ahmad is absolutely committed to this agenda. He believes in it and there can be nobody better to be fighting this corner. I absolutely confirm that it is important and I hope the noble Lord will leave it with me.

Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, to spare the Minister’s blushes, there are not even two full-time FCO officers; there are two part-time members of staff. To keep my question very brief, you cannot have a priority unless it is properly funded. Things may be tight, but how will the Government demonstrate that this is a real priority and fund the necessary posts?

Baroness Stedman-Scott
It gets better. Let me say to the noble Baroness, it is a priority—I would not say that if it was not true. I do not want to repeat myself, but I will talk to people about the resources. It occurs to me, if I have got my facts correct, that we may have desk positions in London—part-time, as the noble Baroness points out—but we also have staff in other posts around the world, part of whose job is to promote and support freedom of religion. The resource-light situation that we are talking about may not be as bad as that, but I have got the message.

With the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) coming to London next week, Parliamentarians have been urging that Freedom of Religion or Belief is on the agenda and included in the final communique. Read more

Leaders from 53 countries in the Commonwealth of Nations will meet in the grounds of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle and Lancaster House, the Commonwealth’s international headquarters: CHOGM is one of the world’s largest international summits.

In a parallel event, the Archbishop of Canterbury will host a High-Level Roundtable on Freedom of Religion or Belief at Lambeth Palace, his official London residence.

The Commonwealth Charter includes this statement:

Tolerance, respect and understanding
We emphasise the need to promote tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom which are essential to the development of free and democratic societies, and recall that respect for the dignity of all human beings is critical to promoting peace and prosperity.

Yet 70% of the Commonwealth population live with high or very high government restrictions on the right to freedom of religion and belief.

Of the full list of 53 member countries, many appear in lists of countries of concern with respect to FoRB.

Bangladesh is a Human Rights Priority Country for the UK Government. In 2016, the frequency of violent and deadly attacks against religious minorities, secular bloggers, intellectuals, and foreigners by domestic and transnational extremist groups increased. Although the government, led by the ruling Awami League, has taken steps to investigate, arrest, and prosecute perpetrators and increase protection for likely targets, the threats and violence have heightened the sense of fear among Bangladeshi citizens of all religious groups. In addition, illegal land appropriations—commonly referred to as land-grabbing—and ownership disputes remain widespread, particularly against Hindus and Christians. (USCIRF)

Brunei is 26th on Open Doors list of the countries where it is most difficult to be a Christian. Their summary states “Converting away from Islam is illegal, and if believers from Muslim backgrounds are identified by the security services, they will be threatened to make them recant their new faith. Some Christians and members of other minority groups are denied official citizenship, making them stateless residents and causing them many difficulties. Authorities monitor churches, and their activities are restricted; for example, public celebrations of Christmas have been banned since 2014.”

India is 11th on the Open Doors list, with the activities of Hindu extremists causing increasing concern. It is a Tier 2 country for USCIRF, which states “In 2016, religious tolerance and religious freedom conditions continued to deteriorate in India. Hindu nationalist groups— such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)—and their sympathizers perpetrated numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence against religious minority communities and Hindu Dalits. These violations were most frequent and severe in 10 of India’s 29 states. National and state laws that restrict religious conversion, cow slaughter, and the foreign funding of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a constitutional provision deeming Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains to be Hindus helped create the conditions enabling these violations. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke publicly about the importance of communal tolerance and religious freedom, members of the ruling party have ties to Hindu nationalist groups implicated in religious freedom violations, used religiously divisive language to inflame tensions, and called for additional laws that would restrict religious freedom. These issues, combined with longstanding problems of police and judicial bias and inadequacies, have created a pervasive climate of impunity in which religious minorities feel increasingly insecure and have no recourse when religiously motivated crimes occur.”

Pakistan is 5th on the Open Doors list, and a country of concern to both the US and the UK. Last year’s Foreign Office Human Rights report stated “The country’s minority communities, including religious minorities – in particular Ahmadiyya,
Christian and Shia communities – suffered widespread persecution. We repeatedly expressed concerns about violations of freedom of religion or belief and misuse of the blasphemy laws.”

Other Commonwealth member countries with particular concerns about FoRB are Nigeria, Malaysia and Sri Lanka.

UPDATE

The CHOGM 2018 Communique has no specific reference to Freedom of Religion or Belief.

It includes this paragraph:

Fundamental Political Values
2. Heads affirmed their unwavering commitment to the Commonwealth’s Fundamental Political Values, reflected in the Commonwealth Charter. They recalled the Commonwealth’s proud history of acting to strengthen good governance and the rule of law, to protect and promote democratic principles and human rights, to promote peace and security and to strengthen democratic institutions. They emphasised that the full social, economic and political participation of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status, is essential for democracy and sustainable development to thrive. Heads also acknowledged the role of civil society organisations, including women’s rights’ organisations, in this context.

 

My heart goes out to all who this day, whatever their beliefs, are being persecuted on religious grounds. And at this time of Easter, when our minds are recalled to the suffering of Our Lord two thousand years ago, we think especially of those Christians who are suffering for their faith in many places around the world. I want to assure them that they are not forgotten and that they are in our prayers.

Over the years, I have met many who have had to flee for their faith and for their life – or have somehow endured the terrifying consequences of remaining in their country – and I have been so deeply moved, and humbled, by their truly remarkable courage and by their selfless capacity for forgiveness, despite all that they have suffered.

I have also heard that in the darkness there are small shafts of light, signs of Resurrection and of hope that, slowly but surely, Christians who have had to flee from their homelands are beginning to return and to rebuild their shattered homes.

Biblical lands, such as Syria and modern Iraq, were not always places of strife between people of different faiths. For centuries, in many countries, the three great Abrahamic faiths have lived side by side as neighbours and as friends. For example, I have heard how, in Lebanon, Muslims join with Christians at the Shrine of our Lady of Lebanon to honour her together. I know, too, of senior Muftis who believe in the essential importance of the Christian faith to maintaining the balance of the Middle East.

At Easter, as we recall the suffering of Our Lord, we also remember Mary his mother and the torment of grief she endured. Mary occupies a unique and elevated position in both Christianity and Islam. She is the mother of Our Lord and exalted in the Q’uran.

All three Abrahamic faiths have known and continue to know the bitterness of persecution when religion has fallen into the barbaric grip of those who distort and misrepresent faith.

This Easter I want to salute the fortitude of all those who, whatever their faith, are persecuted for remaining faithful to the true essence of their beliefs. I admire, and greatly respect, all those of you who find it in your hearts to pray for those who persecute you and, following the example of Christ, seek forgiveness for your enemies.

Jesus summarizes the Ten Commandments into two requirements – that we should love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. It is, therefore, my special prayer this Eastertide that they will be your guide and your inspiration.

Watch in full

Yezidi women: ISIS survivors is the title of an exhibition presented in Parliament’s Upper Waiting Hall from 26-29 March.

Artist Hannah Rose Thomas travelled last summer to Iraq, where she helped run art classes for Yezidi Women who had escaped ISIS captivity. The aim was to enable these women to share their stories through painting their self-portraits. More

The exhibition displays these self-portraits alongside Hannah’s own gold leaf portraits (below) which aim to convey the dignity and resilience of the Yezidi women, many of whom are still missing loved ones and are unsure of their own future.

There are still probably over 3,000 Yezidis in captivity and they continue to be widely persecuted. The exhibition is in collaboration with Open Doors UK, campaigning for Christians and other minorities through Hope for the Middle East, with Middle East Concern.

Dame Caroline Spelman MP says, “In March 2016 I met a delegation of Yezidi women in parliament. Ever since I’ve been keen to advocate on their behalf and assist in giving them a platform to voice their stories. They, along with Christians and other minorities in the Middle East, continue to face daily discrimination and huge challenges as they seek to reintegrate back into their local communities.”

One Yezidi woman, Nazu, 19, painted red tears streaming down her face to her lips. She explained that her mother used to say that tears are sadness which touches your lips but one day happiness will touch your lips and you will smile again. Nazu has not seen either of her parents since IS took them captive.

TOXIC PAIRING OF VULNERABILITIES
Zoe Smith, Head of Advocacy at Open Doors said: “If this exhibition does nothing else, it highlights the immense vulnerability of religious minorities in the Middle East. These women have suffered so horrendously and in such high numbers because they were from a religious minority that was considered expendable by IS.

“It is this toxic pairing of vulnerabilities – of gender and of faith – which led to the thousands of Yezidi women being forced into sex slavery. And it is not just happening in Iraq – only last week we heard the story of Boko Haram releasing scores of recently captured school girls in Nigeria but chillingly keeping the one Christian girl behind. This double vulnerability is a global phenomenon with the potential to blight the lives of all women within minority religious or ethnic communities. It’s been ignored. It cannot be any longer.”

A VOICE FOR MINORITIES
Rt Hon Alistair Burt MP, Minister of State for the Middle East at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Minister of State at the Department for International Development said, “Reading the individual stories are desperately harrowing. It is all very well to understand what has happened to these women in general, but when you read the individual stories of separation and abuse it is all very hard. It’s been important to see. I am very pleased the exhibition is here. I hope that in some way it makes a better contribution for these women and the areas in which they live.”

The artist, Hannah Rose Thomas said, “The purpose of the art project was to use art as a tool for advocacy, so I was teaching the women to paint their self-portraits as a way to share their testimonies and their stories of grief. The women themselves know that their paintings are in parliament. To be able to show their paintings here in the place where laws are made – a place of influence that can potentially change people’s hearts and policies towards the Middle East and help minority groups is such a privilege. To give them a voice is an incredible honour.”

Prime Minister’s questions 28 March:

Dame Caroline Spelman
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the young British artist Hannah Rose Thomas and the charity Open Doors? Together they organised the current exhibition in our Upper Waiting Hall to draw attention to the plight of Yazidi women, 3,000 of whom are still in captivity and subject to some form of the slavery that my right hon. Friend has fought so hard to combat.

The Prime Minister
I am very happy to welcome this awareness-raising exhibition, and to commend Hannah Rose Thomas and others who have been involved in bringing the plight of the Yazidi women to the attention of the House and those visiting the House. I know that people felt horror and consternation when they first saw the treatment of the Yazidis, particularly Yazidi women, which is, of course, continuing. As my right hon. Friend says, we must not forget, and we must do everything we can to ensure that those women are freed from what is, as she says, a life of slavery in many cases.

---

In a radio interview broadcast in the USA, a Yezidi says “The world saw the crime that happened to us.” The reporter comments “Yazidis, still suffering the aftermath of ISIS, believe the world has now turned away.”

 

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last Sunday, thousands of Iraqi Christians and Yazidis walked through the Nineveh Plains in northern Iraq to celebrate Palm Sunday. They have not done that for six years. That is welcome, as Iraqi Christians are one of the most persecuted religious groups in the world. All Christians celebrate Christ’s resurrection this weekend. Will the Prime Minister pledge her support to help persecuted Christians around the world?

The Prime Minister
Easter is of course the most important time in the Christian calendar. It is a time of new life and hope. The message of the cross and the resurrection help to support Christians around the world. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the very real persecution faced by too many Christians around the world. I was pleased to meet recently Father Daniel from Nineveh and Idlib, who talked about the very real persecution suffered by his congregations. He presented me with a bible that had been burned after a church had been set on fire. It was rescued and is now in No. 10 Downing Street. We stand with those persecuted Christians. We will be looking to see what more the Government can do to support them.

---

Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the young British artist Hannah Rose Thomas and the charity Open Doors? Together they organised the current exhibition in our Upper Waiting Hall to draw attention to the plight of Yazidi women, 3,000 of whom are still in captivity and subject to some form of the slavery that my right hon. Friend has fought so hard to combat.

The Prime Minister
I am very happy to welcome this awareness-raising exhibition, and to commend Hannah Rose Thomas and others who have been involved in bringing the plight of the Yazidi women to the attention of the House and those visiting the House. I know that people felt horror and consternation when they first saw the treatment of the Yazidis, particularly Yazidi women, which is, of course, continuing. As my right hon. Friend says, we must not forget, and we must do everything we can to ensure that those women are freed from what is, as she says, a life of slavery in many cases.

The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) will be held in London in the week beginning 16 April. Parliament has been pressing the government on what should be raised, discussed and communicated during the meeting.

Below is a summary of some of the issues around Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) that have been highlighted.

In a House of Lords debate on 22 March, Lord Alton underlined

“95% of people in the Commonwealth profess a religious belief, representing a huge variety of faiths and traditions. Yet, according to the Pew Research Centre, around 70% of the Commonwealth population live with high or very high government restrictions on the right to freedom of religion and belief.”

In a previous Lords debate, 2 November 2017, Baroness Berridge called on the Government to ensure that freedom of religion or belief was in the summit communiqué as a priority for the Commonwealth, under the summit’s “fairer future” theme.

FCO Minister Lord Ahmad responded that the fairness pillar within the Commonwealth summit, would allow heads of government to “to develop this [FoRB] further”.

Extracts from the 22 March debate:

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce this debate, just over a week after celebrating Commonwealth Day, and with less than a fortnight to go until the Commonwealth Games open on Australia’s Gold Coast. It provides a wonderful opportunity for your Lordships’ House to discuss the future of this great organisation and the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which will take place right here in London, in the United Kingdom, during the week of 16 April.

The Commonwealth is a unique global network. It is home to one-third of the world’s people, contains some of the world’s fastest growing economies and accounts for one-fifth of the world’s trade. With nearly two-thirds of its population—around 1 billion people—under the age of 30, the Commonwealth is well placed to be an influential player on the world stage in the years ahead. Indeed, one could even say that it has a responsibility to play such a role. Its diverse membership is committed to a set of values founded on democracy and the rule of law and embodied in the Commonwealth charter.

However, for the Commonwealth to face the global challenges of the 21st century and to truly represent its overwhelmingly young population, it must have a clear purpose, supported by all 53 member states. That is why this summit will focus on four clear priorities, on which leaders will seek to agree action. The first is to build a more prosperous future by making the compelling case for free trade as the best way to promote higher living standards around the world. The second is to build a safer future by addressing the security challenges, such as those posed by global terrorism, organised crime and cyberattacks. The third is to build a sustainable future, including by helping small and vulnerable states to mitigate the effects of climate change. The final priority focuses on building that fairer future by promoting the values of democracy, freedom and good governance set out in the Commonwealth charter. Our ambitions for the summit are encapsulated in the theme “Towards a Common Future”. We want the summit to contribute to rejuvenating the Commonwealth and to help to build a brighter and fairer future for its young citizens. Their interests and ambitions will be at the heart of this summit.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)

My Lords, last night, here in your Lordships’ House, I hosted a discussion on behalf of the Commonwealth Journalists Association. Its president, Rita Payne, said that in the past five years 57 journalists have been killed in Commonwealth countries. In my brief remarks today, I want to address ways in which the Commonwealth might raise its game in protecting such basic freedoms and in championing minorities, many of whom suffer grievously on grounds of religion, orientation or ethnicity.

But first I should thank those who have initiated this timely debate. It is a signal honour for the United Kingdom to be welcoming the heads of over 50 countries to the 25th iteration of Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. As the Minister said, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, more than ever we need to focus on the common values that we share across these nations—striving together to advance humanity in the face of so many challenges that risk tearing down the global human rights framework on which the Commonwealth is founded.

In the run-up to Easter, our minds turn naturally to one of the values that unites Commonwealth nations—that of faith. From a population of nearly 2.4 billion people—roughly one-third of the world’s population, spanning all six continents—95% of people in the Commonwealth profess a religious belief, representing a huge variety of faiths and traditions. Yet, according to the Pew Research Centre, around 70% of the Commonwealth population live with high or very high government restrictions on the right to freedom of religion and belief. The Commonwealth charter highlights faith or creed as a key uniting force, outlining the indivisibility of all rights and the opposition to any form of discrimination based on religion or any other affiliation. Specifically, the charter refers to,

“the need to promote tolerance, respect, understanding, moderation and religious freedom which are essential to the development of free and democratic societies, and recall that respect for the dignity of all human beings is critical to promoting peace and prosperity”.

The need to promote religious freedom, respect for the “other”, and to defend the rights of all communities was also articulated by Her Majesty the Queen on this year’s Commonwealth Day, when she said:

“The cornerstones on which peace is founded are, quite simply, respect and understanding for one another. Working together, we build peace by defending the dignity of every individual and community”.

With its origins in the horrors of the Holocaust, the political idea of the right to freedom of religion or belief is intended to respect the dignity of every individual and community. As the BBC’s courageous chief international correspondent, Lyse Doucet, reminds us, this has day-to-day application:

“If you don’t understand religion—including the abuse of religion—it’s becoming ever harder to understand our world”.

Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights insists on our right to believe, not to believe or to change our belief. It is one of very few non-derogable rights in the human rights arsenal. The drafters of the human rights framework knew its importance. It is not something that we can simply sweep aside, either because some believe it is irrelevant or because others are nervous of the potential for conflict. No, it is a right that must be upheld and promoted for the positive change it brings to the world. Freedom of religion or belief goes to the very essence of our humanity—the right to hold our deep-seated beliefs, think our own thoughts and follow our consciences. Without this right, CHOGM will be unable to answer its own points of focus: achieving a future that is more sustainable, fairer, more prosperous and more secure.

A study by Brian J Grim in 2014 examined economic growth in 173 countries and considered 24 different factors that could impact economic growth. He found that,

“religious freedom contributes to better economic and business outcomes and that advances in religious freedom”,

contribute to,

“successful and sustainable enterprises that benefit societies and individuals.”

High levels of religious conflict create unstable environments that drive away young entrepreneurs, disrupt economic sectors and deter investment. That makes the promotion of religious freedom a contributing factor to a society that is not only more stable but more prosperous, so it should be a high priority.

If we are serious about tackling issues like climate change, which is the route to greater sustainability, it must surely be done in partnership with all elements of society, including religious minorities, who are often ostracised and ignored by those in power and by contemptuous elites. Further, the Commonwealth’s own stated ambition to promote human rights to achieve a fairer future must include religious freedom as a central component. Wilfully keeping the right to religious freedom out of the debates at CHOGM would serve only to hamper the progress that might otherwise be made on the four prioritised issues.

CHOGM is a critical forum for tackling this right up front, not only acknowledging the rights abuses in member states but paving the way forwards, sharing best practice. It goes without saying that the United Kingdom has not always got it right. Coming from a religious minority myself, I am well aware of prejudice, discrimination and persecution—but I am also conscious of the great progress we have made in respecting the dignity of difference and in learning to live together.

Elsewhere the challenge remains—for instance, the assassination of Pakistan’s brave Minister for Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, the death sentence imposed on Asia Bibbi, the use of section 295(A) of India’s penal code to attack minorities, and the hunting down of girls by Boko Haram in Nigeria. It is obvious that there is still a long way to go, and that change must come the world over. I therefore hope that the Minister will say something when he replies about how we intend to share best practice and commit to change. I urge him to ensure that religious freedom is prioritised at CHOGM and reflected not only in his reply today but in the joint communiqué and the Prime Minister’s opening remarks at CHOGM.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester 

My Lords, the Anglican Communion extends significantly beyond the nations of the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, for obvious reasons of history, there is a very substantial Anglican presence in many Commonwealth countries. I am therefore pleased to speak from these Benches in this debate—and I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt.

Within the Anglican Communion we have a rich network of companion links between dioceses in different parts of the world, whereby most Lords spiritual will have an active engagement with the life of at least one Commonwealth country. The nature of the Commonwealth as a network of autonomous free nations also has some parallel with the life of the communion, wherein each province is autonomous yet links together through what one might call family likeness, and the position of honour granted to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The theme of the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, “Towards a Common Future”, resonates with the experience of these Benches. In our relationships with our companion dioceses within and beyond the Commonwealth, we are of course conscious of a shared past. Without it, the relationships would not exist. We are also conscious of some of the ambivalences of that shared past, especially the mixed legacies of colonialism. But these companion links that we nurture are devoted to sharing our common present and building our common future.

We share with the Commonwealth and our companion dioceses a great number of areas of concern and involvement, not least around, as some have already mentioned, climate change, resilience, sustainability, issues of human trafficking, modern slavery and gender violence, the roles of women and young people, and the building of positive frameworks in civil society. We are very pleased that people from across the Anglican Communion will be participating in some of the forums around the forthcoming meeting—for example those from Swaziland, Mozambique and Sri Lanka in the forums concerned with women and young people.

I am very grateful for the contribution just now from the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Unfortunately, it is the case that some of the worst-offending countries when it comes to religious freedom are found within the Commonwealth. In the margins of the Heads of Government meeting, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, working with the Commonwealth Initiative for Freedom of Religion and Belief, is convening a gathering of parliamentarians and religious leaders to discuss over two days how they may, among other things, hold their Governments and constituencies to account in relation to these concerns around religious freedom. I think that some Members of your Lordships’ House will be participating in that event. I trust that the Minister, in responding to the debate and to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will welcome the initiative of the most reverend Primate and might indicate how these efforts from within the churches and other faith communities in relation to religious freedom might usefully complement the Government’s engagement in these matters within the Heads of Government meeting and in other fora.

Lord Cashman (Lab)

As other noble Lords have said, the Commonwealth is a family of nations, but for many of us, including LGBTI people, it is a family where we are not welcomed, are not treated equally or with dignity, and often are denied our liberty. In 36 of the 53 states of the Commonwealth, homosexuality is criminalised and same-sex relationships are banned. Although these laws were imposed by the United Kingdom, these countries cling desperately to this alien imposition almost as a badge of honour. The repression is not diminishing: in some countries, people boast of it, often citing culture or religious belief as a reason or an excuse. Sadly, all too often, organised religions and religious leaders condone such repressions actively or by their silence.

I defend religious beliefs and always will—even as a born-again atheist—but I will never defend the right to impose such beliefs on others when in so doing it diminishes the rights or protections of another human being. We absolutely need the voice of religion and religious leaders, and we need them in support of equality and non-discrimination, regardless of difference. That which we demand for ourselves we must demand for others.

Lord Ahmad

On freedom of religion and belief, as with the previous summit in Malta in 2015, the Heads of the Commonwealth have recognised the freedom of religion and expression. The summit will encourage the Commonwealth to build on that. As noble Lords will know, the Government have also provided funding to the Royal Commonwealth Society’s inter-faith service, which was extremely well attended in Westminster Abbey on Commonwealth Day, 12 March. Freedom of religion and belief is a priority for the Prime Minister, for the Secretary-General and for me, as Minister for Human Rights. We will discuss this bilaterally and during the course of the Commonwealth summit through various forums. I also acknowledge the great work done by Lambeth Palace. We look forward to the event that is being organised on this issue in the margins of the Commonwealth summit during the course of the week. I pay particular tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for his continuing support and leadership on this important issue.

---

House of Lords 21 March 2018

Baroness Berridge asked Her Majesty’s Government what are their human rights priorities for the communiqué of the Commonwealth Summit in April 2018.

Lord Ahmad

My Lords, Commonwealth member states are meeting, as I speak, in London to negotiate the communiqué. While it would be inappropriate to comment on those negotiations or speculate on specific outcomes, the UK believes that the promotion and protection of human rights should be of central importance. Encouraging member states to uphold the values enshrined in the Commonwealth charter, which include democracy, freedom of expression, the rule of law, and opposition to all forms of discrimination, will be an important part of April’s summit.

Baroness Berridge

My Lords, on 28 February of last year the Prime Minister stated:

“We must reaffirm our determination to stand up for the freedom of people of all religions to practice their beliefs in peace and safety. And I hope to take further measures as a government to support this”.

That commitment, of course, is also outlined in the Commonwealth charter. While I am grateful for the Minister’s Answer, could he please provide details on how the Prime Minister’s commitment will be manifested in practical terms during the UK’s period of chair-in-office of the Commonwealth?

Lord Ahmad 

First, I acknowledge the formidable work my noble friend does, along with other noble Lords across this House, in the area of freedom of religion and belief. It remains a key priority for Her Majesty’s Government to focus on freedom of religion and belief in the context of the Commonwealth summit. During the summit week, various fora will be ​held, including the Commonwealth People’s Forum, where civil society groups will have an opportunity to directly raise issues, including freedom of religion and belief, and there will be an opportunity for Foreign Ministers and leaders to hear about the outcomes of those fora. The UK will be chair-in-office for two years. I assure my noble friend that we have received various bids and we will certainly be focusing on all elements of human rights, including freedom of religion and belief.

Lord Anderson of Swansea

Does the Minister agree that the Commonwealth has been strong on declaration —Harare and the charter—but less strong in practice? For example, of the 58 countries in the world where capital punishment is legal, 36 are in the Commonwealth. The recent report of Open Doors shows that, of those 50 countries in the world where it is difficult to be a Christian, seven are in the Commonwealth. Is this a priority of the Government?

Lord Ahmad

I assure the noble Lord that, on all issues of human rights and opposing the death penalty, the Government remain very clear and firm, including in the context of Commonwealth visits. For example, most recently I visited the Gambia and raised LGBT rights and the death penalty directly with the appropriate Ministers. We will continue to do so. I agree with the noble Lord that declarations from the Commonwealth are always strong but the actions have perhaps not delivered on those declarations. Together, working with the Secretary-General, it is our aim to revitalise and re-energise the Commonwealth.​

---

Written Questions

Tom Brake: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (21 March)

Jeremy Lefroy: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (21 March)

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (20 March)

Bishop of Leeds: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (20 November)

Bishop of Coventry: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (20 November)

Lord Alton: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting: Religious Freedom (11 July)

---

Lord Ahmad (15 January)

The importance of freedom of religion and belief is a priority for this Government. As the Minister responsible I am meeting with all groups, including people of no faith and the humanist society, to ensure that the agenda at the Commonwealth summit and the programme for the UK’s two-year chairmanship of the Commonwealth reflect those priorities.

---

Parliamentarians and religious leaders from around the Commonwealth will gather at Lambeth Palace next month to discuss ways to strengthen religious liberty. (Anglican News)

EARLY DAY MOTION

1141 COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING 2018 – FREEDOM OF WORSHIP

The Officers of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief are deeply concerned about the escalation in communal violence towards Muslims by ‘ultra-nationalist’ Buddhists in Sri Lanka.

On Tuesday 6 March, the Sri Lankan government declared a state of emergency after a number of mosques, houses, shops and vehicles were destroyed in Kandy, Sri Lanka. According to Al-Jazeera and CNN, at least 2 Muslims have been killed, one after the state of emergency had been declared.

The violence was triggered by the death of a Buddhist man after being attacked by four Muslim men over a traffic incident. According to Al Jazeera and the International Crisis Group, Buddhist monks connected to the Bodu Bala Sena and Maha Sohon Balakaya then arrived in Kandy with their supporters to stoke fury and spark the attacks.

Tensions are reported to have been rising between the two groups since 2012. During this time, Muslims have consistently been depicted as terrorists and attempting to demographically replace Buddhists through forced conversion.These narratives bear similarities to those propagated by some Buddhist groups in Myanmar.

The current government has been quick to condemn recent attacks on Muslims. However, according to International Crisis Group, the government has not done enough to investigate or prosecute leaders involved in previous attacks.

We urge the British government to support the Sri Lankan government to take more decisive action to end impunity for attacks on Muslims and to counter negative narratives around Muslims or any religious/belief group in the country.

This statement was issued by the APPG on 8 March.

Parliamentary Written Question: The Bishop of Coventry asked on 20 February 2018: “What are the details of the £600,000 worth of projects funded by the Magna Carta Fund in 2016–17 which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated have directly led to positive freedom of religion or belief outcomes in 20 countries; and what are those outcomes?”

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon answered on 05 March 2018

Several projects were funded by the Magna Carta Fund for Human Rights and Democracy in 2016-17, including:

• Hardwired Inc is running a project which promotes tolerance in secondary school curricula in 50 schools in Iraq, Morocco and Lebanon.
• Christian Solidarity Worldwide is running a project to support human rights defenders in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. This project raises awareness at the national, regional and international level of the unique challenges human rights defenders campaigning for FoRB face in South Asia and Central Asia. It also raises their security awareness and their advocacy capability.
• The Salzburg Global Seminar brings together experts and educational practitioners from Africa, Asia, and the Middle East to explore approaches for combating extremism, preventing genocide and promoting tolerance. There is a particular emphasis on Rwanda, South Africa and Cambodia.
• In Malaysia, we supported a project implemented by Article 19 which aimed to strengthen the ability of Malaysia’s national human rights institution to advance the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. The project engaged a range of influential religious groups, with the view to widening the space for constructive debate in the public sphere and encouraging greater tolerance in the socio-political discourse.
• Article 19 run a project in Tunisia and Egypt, to strengthen civil society to build consensus on institutional, legislative and policy change, engage with international human rights mechanisms and prevent intolerance and hate speech.
• The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, in Tajikistan and Turkmenistan run a project, which contributes to social stability and security in Central Asia through building the capacity of key state and non-state stakeholders to advance FoRB for all.
• Cumberland Lodge is running a project to promote understanding among overseas students studying in the UK of the right to FoRB. The students will be better sensitised to FoRB issues before returning to their native countries where we hope that they will act as informal advocates for human rights, including FoRB.

The report by Ahmed Shaheed, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief, analyses the relationships between State and religion and their impact on freedom of religion or belief. He stresses the obligation of States to act as impartial guarantor of freedom of religion or belief to all regardless of the relationships between State and religion or belief.

Here are some extracts from the report:

States in every region are increasingly confronting the challenge of safeguarding the right of all persons to freedom of religion or belief while protecting a range of other rights. Establishing a sound body of laws and policies for protecting freedom of religion or belief often involves balancing a range of fundamental rights guaranteed by international human rights instruments, amid manifold political, economic, social and cultural pressures.

Heightened security concerns emanating from ongoing acts of violence carried out by extremists… have resulted in greater State interference with religious expression. Religious minorities, in particular, are increasingly facing laws that in effect restrict their freedom, either alone or within a community, to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, teaching and practice.

The ever-evolving nature of the relationships between State and religion is of significance to those seeking to promote protections for freedom of religion or belief, because the degree to which States are entangled with various religions or beliefs has far-reaching implications for their disposition and ability to guarantee human rights, especially those rights exercised by persons belonging to religious or belief minorities.

All States support, regulate or limit religion and belief to some extent. Some Governments declare official religions; other Governments give preferential treatment to one or more religions; Governments also control or restrict religious organizations and practices within their domain; and some Governments single out the manifestation of certain religions or beliefs for restrictions that are not placed on all adherents within their territory.

A 2017 study, which focused on the official religion policies and reported State practices of all 193 States Members of the United Nations, concluded that some 42 per cent of States either declared official support for one religion (21 per cent) or conferred favour onto one or more religions (21 per cent).

States with official religions, typically, support religion more strongly, but declaring an official religion does not always lead to high levels of actual support for that religion. Consequently, a close examination of the practices that Governments adopt is also essential to understanding the implications that these relationships pose for freedom of religion or belief beyond what the mere existence of an official religion implies.

Social hostilities were the lowest in States with a negative view of religion in public life, with only one State having reportedly experienced a “high level” of social hostility motivated by religion, while 44 per cent of those States with an official religion were recorded as having experienced “very high” or “high levels” of social hostilities.

International human rights treaties are reticent on the sort of relationship a State should have with religion or belief. They do, however, impose a duty upon States to be impartial guarantors of the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, including the right to freedom from religion, for all individuals and groups within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction. The Human Rights Committee, in paragraph 9 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, states clearly that the fact that a religion is recognized as a State religion or that its followers comprise the majority of the population should not effectively impair the enjoyment of their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including articles 18 and 27, or result in discrimination against non-believers or adherents to minority religions.

The Human Rights Committee notes that this duty involves both negative obligations, like refraining from perpetuating discriminatory acts, and positive duties, such as the obligation to protect against third-party infringements, including incitement to religious hatred. States are also obliged to ensure that individuals belonging to minorities are able to practise their religions or beliefs or receive public support in the same manner as adherents to a State religion.

Where a State explicitly associates itself with particular religion(s) or truth claim(s), members of unaffiliated groups invariably suffer various forms of discrimination — including direct, indirect, or both — which have a negative impact on their ability to exercise their freedom of religion or belief. A State must, therefore, ensure that the “purpose” or “effect” of its entanglement with religion does not lead to “the nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis”.

The Special Rapporteur also notes with concern the increasing trend by some States, groups and individuals, to invoke “religious liberty” concerns in order to justify differential treatment against particular individuals or groups, including women and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. This trend is most often seen within the context of conscientious objection, including of government officials, regarding the provision of certain goods or services to members of the public.

It should be noted, however, that the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the regional human rights courts uphold that it is not permissible for individuals or groups to invoke “religious liberty” to perpetuate discrimination against groups in vulnerable situations, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, when it comes to the provision of goods or services in the public sphere.

Of significant note is the frequency at which States’ adherence to faith-based claims affect their capacity to protect the human rights of women. The voluminous religious-based reservations entered by States parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women are one case in point. The breadth of impositions on women’s rights justified by States in the name of religion, including those which limit their full participation in political, social and economic life, perpetuate an environment that enables harmful practices against women and prevents society from achieving gender equality. This includes the denial of access to reproductive health services and refusals to provide adequate legal and policy safeguards against domestic violence manifested in the form of marital rape and so-called “honour crimes”.

The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that freedom of religion or belief can never be used to justify violations of the rights of women and girls, and that it can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination. It would be contrary to both women’s human rights as well as freedom of religion or belief provisions to allow one set of rights (i.e. women’s rights) to be undermined on the basis of claims made in defence of the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Criticism of religion, religious leaders or doctrine, which is often an exercise of freedom of expression, is not a violation of freedom of religion or belief.

According to article 18 (3) of the Covenant, which must be strictly interpreted, all limitations on freedom of religion or belief must be prescribed by law and they must be necessary and directly related to pursue a legitimate aim: the protection of “public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. These restrictions must also be proportionate to the realization of the legitimate aim and, therefore, the least restrictive among all the adequate measures available.

Conclusions and recommendations

All States, regardless of their relationship with religion, face challenges in the field of human rights. However, aspects of two such relationships discussed in the present report appear highly incompatible with the range of States’ obligations to uphold freedom of religion or belief. These include those of “religious States” and those with a negative view of religion’s role in public life. The extent to which States support an official religion, the degree to which they enforce that religion and the extent to which they control, regulate and restrict the religion pose significant implications for States’ disposition to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. On the other hand, States with a negative view of religion tend to impose restrictions on all religion, including those held by the majority of persons under their jurisdiction. Ironically, even though they represent polar opposite models in terms of support for the role of religion in public life, States that “heavenly enforce” and those that “heavily restrict” religion are both motivated to establish a monopoly for their ideologies and, as such, often require force and generally involve discrimination against those that do not share their views.

States that enforce its official religion have very high levels of restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and often discriminate against persons belonging to religious minorities, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons, converts or apostates and non-believers. States with a negative view of religion have equally high levels of restrictions on freedom of religion or belief for any individual manifesting another belief contrary to State atheism. In both cases, the nexus of other interdependent and mutually reinforcing rights is invariably violated too, such as freedoms of opinion, expression, peaceful assembly and association. Thus, in these models, even persons belonging to the numerically majority religion may be subject to repression and persecution.
78. States that have preferences towards religion(s) frequently engage in practices that unduly restrict people’s freedom of religion or belief, in particular religious or belief minorities who may be singled out and discriminated against, as a result of a de facto or de jure “hierarchy of religions”. Those that are preferred by the State generally have a historical presence in the country and the preferential recognition accorded to them may be motivated by a desire to include also religious minorities in nation-building. However, this is often accompanied by discrimination against newer religions, including burdensome requirements for registration, along with denial of recognition, or attempts to maintain interreligious harmony through laws that proscribe religious offence or in other ways privilege the religious collective over individual rights.

States that have no identification to religion, being numerically the largest of the three categories, encompass a broad range and diversity of States. The hallmark of this category of States is the stance of treating all religious communities on an equal basis, although they range from those that are more positively inclined towards the role of religion in society to those who seek to privatize religious practice. While many States in this model are predisposed to respect freedom of religion or belief, there are also many challenges, including that of management of conflicts between different human rights. Where there is a high degree of convergence between social values and religious practices, there are fewer clashes between religious freedom and other human rights. However, where there is a plurality of social values, difference-blind policies might de facto create a hierarchy of rights where laws of general effect impose disproportionate burdens on religious minorities, unless there is reasonable accommodation.

While these three broad categories serve a useful analytical function, there are also important distinctions. States with “mild” forms of establishment, i.e. where the attachment is symbolic and shorn of any policy or legal significance, seem to have more in common with some versions of the non-identification model, especially where there are strong commitments to equality and non-discrimination, while at the same time recognizing the positive role that religions and beliefs play in society. Likewise, those in the non-identification category, especially those that privilege doctrinal secularism over religious concerns, and pursue difference-blind policies, risk violating its obligations to respect the freedom of religion or belief of persons belong to religious minorities.

International human rights law imposes a duty on States to be impartial guarantors of the enjoyment to freedom of religion or belief of all individuals and groups within their territory and those subject to their jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no hierarchy of human rights and where freedom of religion clashes with the right to non-discrimination and equality, or laws of general effect, the focus should be on ensuring that all human rights are protected, including through reasonable accommodation. Amid rising diversity, it appears axiomatic that the role of the State as an impartial guarantor of the rights of all is mostly likely to be fulfilled when the State adopts a posture of cooperation and accommodation without identification. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of an application of the concept of State Religion that in practice does not have discriminatory effects on the variety of “others” that are created.

While many States express commitments to guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief, some of the protections are narrower than those specified in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or include limitations that are inconsistent with international law. Some States do not provide any legal guarantees or indeed ban certain religious communities or subject them to burdensome registration processes, which deny them legal personality. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States’ legal framework must be aligned with the guarantees of freedom of religion or belief specified in international human rights law as a universal human right.

Anti-blasphemy laws, which frequently serve to uphold State-sponsored religion or truth claims (existing even in States that do not formally identify with one religion) stifle the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, and the ability to engage in a healthy dialogue about religion. They are also used to target political dissidents, humanists, non-believers or any religious thinker who expresses different theological views than the State-sponsored religion. As also called for in several recent international action plans, such anti-blasphemy laws must be repealed as a matter of priority and are incompatible with the Covenant.

The State must recognize that, although there are associational rights, freedom of religion or belief is a right that resides with the individual and not with a group per se. Therefore, anti-conversion laws are inconsistent with the international human rights framework and amounts to an illegal interference with an unqualified right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.

The right of parents to provide a moral and religious education, consistent with their religious worldviews and in accordance with the evolving capacities of the child, must be fully respected. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like to highlight the useful guidance provided in the Final Document of the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination and the Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religion and Beliefs in Public Schools.

When offering a privileged legal status position for certain religious or belief groups, such a specific status should be accorded in strict conformity with the principle of non-discrimination and should fully respect the right to freedom of religion or belief of all human beings. Privileged positions accorded to religious or belief groups should never be politicized for purposes of identity politics, as this may have detrimental effects on the situation of individuals from minority communities.

States are reminded of their obligation to provide protection to refugees and migrants, regardless of their specific religion or belief. The pretext that refugees and migrants would erode the traditional religious make-up of a country amounts to a “territorialization” of religion, which violates the spirit and the letter of the universal right to freedom of religion or belief. States should also reform family law and personal status law provisions that may amount to de jure or de facto discrimination against persons belonging to religious or belief minorities, for example in inheritance and custody matters. States should establish a policy of public symbolic actions by which they send a clear message that religious or belief minorities are part of the larger society. An example of such symbolic presence is the participation of political representatives in ceremonies held by minorities.

Respect for freedom of religion or belief is closely related to the degree of tolerance and respect for diversity within a society. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate the recommendations made by his predecessors on encouraging States to facilitate interfaith communication and to invest in both religious literacy and religious freedom literacy.

Finally, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate commitment IV of the “Faith for Rights” framework, which warns against the use of the notion of “State religion” to discriminate against any individual or group as well as against the use of “doctrinal secularism”, which risks reducing the space for religious or belief pluralism in practice. He stresses that States must satisfy a range of obligations, including to adopt measures that guarantee structural equality and to fully realize freedom of religion or belief. In the light of these obligations, the Special Rapporteur echoes the importance of adopting a model for the relationship between State and religion that is in harmony with the concept of “respectful distancing” — i.e. political and legal, but not social, disentanglement from religion — which rests on a “deep grounding of secularity based on human rights”. Such a model ensures “that the State does not resort to religious exclusivity or bias in culture, identity, schooling, or even symbolism for short-term ends and for vested interests, but will continually strive to create spaces of inclusiveness for all as an active and ongoing endeavour”.

The report in full