Category: News

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) released its 2015 Annual Report last month. This year’s report, the 16th since the Commission’s creation in 1998, documents religious freedom violations in 33 countries, makes country-specific recommendations, and assesses the U.S. government’s implementation of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

“Not a day goes by without at least one country from these lists appearing on the front page of a major newspaper. Humanitarian crises fuelled by waves of terror, intimidation and violence have engulfed an alarming number of countries over the past year,” said USCIRF Chair Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett.

“With serious religious freedom violations occurring all around the world, these horrors speak volumes about how and why religious freedom and the protection of the rights of vulnerable religious communities matter. All nations should care about abuses beyond their borders not only for humanitarian reasons but because what goes on in other nations rarely remains there. In the long run, there is only one permanent guarantor of the safety, security and survival of the persecuted and vulnerable. It is the full recognition of religious freedom.”

Read the full report

USCIRF, in its role as an independent U.S. federal government advisory body, recommends that the State Department add eight more nations to its list of “countries of particular concern,” or CPCs, where particularly severe violations of religious freedom are perpetrated or tolerated. These countries are: Central African Republic (first time recommendation); Egypt; Iraq; Nigeria; Pakistan; Syria; Tajikistan; Vietnam.

USCIRF also recommends that the State Department redesignate as CPCs the following nine countries and take additional actions to promote religious freedom: Burma; China; Eritrea; Iran; North Korea; Saudi Arabia; Sudan; Turkmenistan; Uzbekistan.

Along with recommending CPC designations, USCIRF also places 10 countries on its 2015 “Tier 2” list, a Commission designation for governments that engage in or tolerate violations that are serious but not CPC-level. USCIRF urges increased U.S. government attention to the following countries: Afghanistan; Azerbaijan; Cuba; India; Indonesia; Kazakhstan; Laos; Malaysia; Russia; Turkey

The USCIRF Report also highlights religious freedom concerns in countries that do not meet Tier 1 (CPC) or Tier 2 thresholds, but should also be the focus of concern. These countries are: Bahrain; Bangladesh; Belarus; Cyprus; Kyrgyzstan; Sri Lanka.

As a new parliament convenes following the General Election, here is what the parties that mentioned Freedom of Religion or Belief said in their official manifestos:

Conservative Party: We will stand up for the freedom of people of all religions – and non-religious people – to practise their beliefs in peace and safety, for example by supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East.

Labour Party: We will appoint a Global Envoy for Religious Freedom, and establish a multi-faith advisory council on religious freedom within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Liberal Democrats:  We will appoint an Ambassador-level Champion for Freedom of Belief to drive British diplomatic efforts in this field, and we will campaign for the abolition of blasphemy, sedition, apostasy and criminal libel laws worldwide, having already been responsible for ending them in this country.

DUP: Supporting Persecuted Minorities – In the last Parliament, the DUP urged the government to take seriously international human rights abuses against Christians and other faith groups. We continue to be concerned about the persecution of religious
minorities. We will continue to use our influence to ensure that this issue is taken seriously and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office actively engage with the leadership of the countries in which these human rights violations occur.

Green Party: We will uphold the principles of freedom of speech and peaceful protest, including support for vulnerable communities of all religious faiths and none.

UKIP mentioned only the situation in the UK, with a specific mention of Article 18:

UKIP: UKIP will recognise that British values include tolerance of religion. UKIP is committed to protecting religious freedoms for all believers in the UK, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We believe, however, that those faiths and beliefs must exist firmly within a British framework. We will not condone any faith position which is itself intolerant and refuses to recognise the human rights of others

Human Rights and Democracy 2014 presents the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s analysis of human rights around the world and its work to make a difference to peoples’ lives, helping to build the capacity of governments and civil society to promote and protect human rights.

In the Foreword by Minister for Human Rights Baroness Anelay. she highlights Freedom of Religion or Belief as one of six thematic priorities, and writes “On freedom of religion or belief, I am indebted to my predecessor, Baroness Warsi, for the way she developed this agenda. A global study by the Pew Forum in 2014 found that restrictions on religion were at a six-year high. Where freedom of religion or belief is under attack, other fundamental freedoms often face threat too. In response, we set up a new, expert advisory group, increased training to improve the FCO’s religious literacy and used these insights to inform our work in multilateral fora and individual country situations, including a whole of government approach to defeating the so-called Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant and addressing extremism more widely. We are motivated by deep concern for religious communities in the Middle East; and by a desire to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with all parties of goodwill. I found such allies on visits to the Holy See and to Morocco. I have discussed strategies with people of many different religions, and people of none.”

In financial year 2014-15, The Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund funded several projects across South East Asia that focused on promoting and protecting freedom of religion or belief.

In Indonesia we funded a project to enhance the role of the judiciary in protecting religious minority groups. In early 2015, the implementer, ELSAM, will train over 100 Indonesian judges on human rights standards concerning freedom of religion and belief. At the end of the project, the training materials will be integrated into the Supreme Court internal training program.

We also funded a project with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, focused on Burma and Indonesia, to build relationships between religious freedom activists in both countries, sharing their experiences and common challenges. The project has provided training for these activists, by equipping them to share information, advocate effectively for religious freedom, and identify solutions to religious intolerance in both countries.

In CHAPTER VI: Equality and Non-discrimination there is a significant section on Freedom of Religion or Belief – here it is in full:

Freedom of religion or belief, based on the full definition set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, has continued to be a human rights priority for the UK government throughout the course of 2014. It is one of the most difficult areas in which to make visible progress, but it is a fundamental human right, and one that impacts on many other rights. A particular focus of government activity has been combating extremism, and preventing it from taking root. Our policies and initiatives in this area have focused on a wide range of countries where we judge that the UK is best placed to make an impact and have been aimed at promoting societies where everyone may freely practise his or her religion, change religion, or exclude religion from their own world view; and where everyone is encouraged to accept that others are entitled to live out their own belief, without persecution.

2014 presented a challenging global environment for the exercise of freedom of religion or belief. Particularly devastating has been the march across Iraq and Syria of ISIL, with its war cry of “convert, or die!” and its murderous rejection of all who do not subscribe to its perverted version of Islam. Muslims, Christians, Yezidis and others have all been affected. In Iraq, as in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa, the space for Christians has continued to close, with the Christian population in Iraq reportedly shrinking from 1.2 million before 2003 to just 350,000 today. In Syria, the continued brutality of the Syrian regime has radicalised many and stoked sectarian tensions, while extremist groups such as ISIL have obstructed the exercise of religious freedom, dramatically increased attacks on religious communities and buildings, and continued to target civilians on the basis of religion or belief. And across the Middle East and many parts of Africa, the extremist religious ideology espoused by groups such as the Taliban, Boko Haram and El Shabaab has spawned widespread human rights abuses directed at all whose beliefs are different from their own.

As in previous years, there have been many heart-rending individual cases, in many different countries, where individuals have been persecuted, imprisoned and discriminated against because of their faith or belief. Most of these cases do not attract wide public attention. However, during 2014, one story in particular prompted campaigning around the world – the case of Meriam Ibrahim, charged with apostasy and adultery and imprisoned in Sudan with her young son while heavily pregnant. Meriam, who was tried for choosing to follow and marry into the Christian faith while her father was a Muslim, was obliged to give birth to her daughter in chains. Prime Minister David Cameron, Secretary of State for International Development, Justine Greening, and the then Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) Minister for Africa, Mark Simmonds, all publicly condemned the treatment of Ms Ibrahim, and called on the government of Sudan to respect her human rights, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. Following wide media coverage and concerted pressure from the international community, plus support from her legal team (one of whom was trained in the UK) who worked tirelessly on the case, Meriam was eventually released. However, she was forced to flee the country and is now in the United States.

This was not an isolated case. Ms Ibrahim’s situation caught the world’s imagination; however, others, facing similar charges and pressures, but without publicity, are forced to renounce their faith and their families. We continue to press the government of Sudan to undertake a comprehensive review of the relevant legal issues to ensure its laws reflect both its own constitution and international human rights standards. On her departure to the United States, Mr Simmonds issued a statement that called on the government of Sudan to “reflect on the lessons of Meriam’s case and ensure that [freedom of religion or belief] is upheld for all.”

In Pakistan, the arbitrary application and misuse of blasphemy laws, and the lack of accountability for those who discriminate against or attack those from religious minorities, has led to many abuses of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Mr Cameron raised our concerns about the blasphemy laws with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in both April and December. The Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, also raised these concerns with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on 13 November and FCO Minister for Pakistan, Tobias Ellwood, discussed the misuse of these laws with Pakistan’s High Commissioner in October. We will continue to raise these issues at the highest level in Pakistan; and to urge the government to guarantee human rights as laid down in Pakistan’s Constitution, and in accordance with international standards. We are concerned that Asia Bibi’s latest appeal against her sentence for blasphemy was rejected, and have expressed our hope that the verdict will be overturned on appeal. We were also shocked by the violent murder of a couple accused of blasphemy in November. FCO Minister for Human Rights, Baroness Anelay, issued a statement in response, urging the authorities to investigate and to bring to justice those responsible.

In addition, during the year there were increasing concerns about the high level of discrimination against the Ahmadiyya in Pakistan. In July, the then FCO Minister for Human Rights, Baroness Warsi, expressed her concern about the killing of an Ahmadiyya woman and two children in Gujranwala when a mob set fire to houses, following accusations of Ahmadiyyas posting blasphemous content on social media sites.

There has been no real improvement in the treatment of minority religious groups in Iran in 2014. The Baha’i community continue to be systematically persecuted. 2014 saw the desecration of a prominent Baha’i cemetery in Shiraz, which was halted following international outcry, but resumed a few months later. The Baha’i community continue to face restrictions on access to education and employment, and the seven leaders of the Baha’i faith remain in prison. Christians, and especially Christian converts, continued to face widespread persecution in 2014. Many Christians were arrested in the course of the year, the majority for their involvement in the house church movement. Sunni Muslims and Dervishes also suffered discrimination and human rights abuses. We continue to raise these issues at the UN and other international fora.

In Burma, 2014 saw continuing prejudice and discrimination against the country’s religious minorities. In addition to the ongoing desperate situation of the Rohingya Muslim community in Rakhine State, violence against Muslim minority communities flared up in locations across the country. This has corresponded with an alarming increase in hate speech and the rise of vocal minority Buddhist nationalist movements within Burma. Deeply troubling new laws have also been proposed on interfaith marriage and religious conversion. There have been reports of harassment, intimidation and threats against civil society activists who have voiced criticism of these laws. We have expressed strong concerns over religious intolerance and the proposed faith-based legislation to the Burmese government and parliamentarians. We are also pressing the Burmese authorities to take steps toward a long-term solution in Rakhine that brings peace and reconciliation, and protects the human rights of all communities. FCO Minister for Asia, Hugo Swire, spoke out publicly to this end on his visit to Burma in January 2014, and met representatives of the Rohingya community to hear their concerns first-hand.

Case Study: Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East
Case Study: Freedom of Religion or Belief in South East Asia

Worldwide, we have continued to promote the right to freedom of religion or belief in four ways. We have: acted through multilateral organisations and with a wide range of international partners; raised issues bilaterally; funded targeted project work; and continued to improve the religious literacy of our own staff, to equip them better to engage with faith groups and to appreciate the many ways in which the right to freedom of religion or belief may be violated.

In the multilateral system we have worked to ensure that the two resolutions on this subject – the EU-sponsored text on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the parallel text led by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on combating religious intolerance – were again adopted by consensus at the March session of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and then at the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

We recognise that individual countries’ actions to promote and protect the right to freedom of religion or belief and combat religious intolerance are more important than action in the UN. However, we continue to believe that preserving the UN consensus gives us a valuable point of departure for discussions on this issue with countries whose perspective differs radically from our own. Experience shows that language that gains currency in UN resolutions does slowly trickle down into domestic legislation. Again this year, we were able to strengthen the EU resolution on freedom of religion or belief slightly, including with a reference to the protection of religious minorities. We continued to support the work of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Heiner Bielefeldt, and were pleased to be able to host a discussion of his report, “Tackling Religious Intolerance and Discrimination at the Workplace”, in the margins of the UNGA in New York. We also worked to ensure that country-specific resolutions, such as that adopted by the Iraq Special Session of the HRC in September, contained language on the right of people from all religions or beliefs to contribute equally to society.

Over the course of the year, every FCO minister has raised individual cases and discriminatory legislation and practices in the countries for which they are responsible. In addition to the Pakistan and Sudan examples cited above, Mr Ellwood spoke out in July to condemn attacks by ISIL on Christians and other religious minorities. He called on the international community to support the government of Iraq in its fight against ISIL. Baroness Warsi visited Oman and Saudi Arabia in February to discuss freedom of religion or belief. She gave a speech at the Grand Mosque in Muscat which commended Oman for pursuing mutual respect and understanding between religious groups. She raised the importance of this in Saudi Arabia with the Governor and Mayor of Makkah, the Presidency of the Two Holy Mosques, and the head of the OIC. In April she visited Malaysia, to deliver a speech on freedom of religion or belief to an audience convened by the Global Movement of Moderates; and she attended a Christian church on Easter Day in Brunei.

Within the EU, we continued to work with partners and the European External Action Service to ensure that the EU’s Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief were implemented at country level and incorporated into national action plans and strategies. We also worked closely with EU partners on joint statements and démarches in individual countries, for example in Sudan and Pakistan.

Beyond the EU, we welcomed the creation, by the office of Canada’s Ambassador for International Religious Freedom, of an international contact group on freedom of religion or belief. We were also encouraged by the efforts of parliamentarians from across the globe to work more closely to raise the profile of freedom of religion or belief through the creation of an international parliamentary network.

Despite the intrinsic difficulty of designing effective projects on this topic, we increased the number of good quality bids to our Human Rights and Democracy Programme Fund. Amongst other projects, we funded a series of workshops to promote responsible media reporting on sensitive issues around religion and conflict in Burma, and worked to enhance the role of the judiciary through policy reform and training in Indonesia. We also pledged a contribution to and joined the Executive Board of the Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund (GCERF). This is a new global fund, drawing on resources from both public and private sectors, dedicated to building resilience against violent extremist agendas through local community based projects.

We continued to run our programme of religious literacy training for our staff, holding our one-day training course three times in the year and continuing our regular series of lunchtime seminars. Topics covered this year have included the role of religion in Israel/Palestine, media reporting from religious hotspots, understanding Hinduism, militant Buddhism, and World Christianity and its influence on international affairs. A prominent speaker in this series was former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Rowan Williams. We have continued to welcome colleagues from different UK government agencies to take part in our courses.

A new development has been the setting up of an advisory group on freedom of religion or belief, as a sub-group to the Foreign Secretary’s Advisory Group on Human Rights. Its members are acknowledged experts in the field, drawn from a wide range of different backgrounds and perspectives. Like the other advisory groups, it met twice during the year, and we have consulted its members on an ad hoc basis between meetings. Their expert advice and challenge has strengthened policy formation in this area.

Looking ahead to 2015, we will aim, in particular, to encourage closer cooperation between EU member states on this issue, including through the convening of an international workshop in February, and to play an active part in the new Canadian contact group. We will continue to consult the advisory group and will design a religious literacy element of the foundation level curriculum for the FCO’s new Diplomatic Academy. We will be vigilant in ensuring that individual cases of persecution are raised promptly and at the highest level. We will do all that we can to stem the tide of persecution of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief.

Antisemitism
Throughout 2014, the government continued to develop and implement strategies to address rising antisemitism both in the UK and internationally. We engage closely with civil society groups and law enforcement agencies to build greater victim confidence in coming forward to report incidents, as well as tackling hate crime itself. We encourage our Embassies and High Commissions across the world to remain vigilant to resurgent antisemitism and report to London on developing issues of concern. We work actively through multilateral organisations and bilaterally to tackle antisemitism wherever it is found. The UK is highly regarded within the international community for its efforts in this field, and is often invited to share best practice in international fora.

The FCO plays an active part in the Cross-Government Working Group on Antisemitism. Over the course of 2014, the group has continued to provide an invaluable opportunity to review long-term efforts between government and the Jewish community to discuss and tackle antisemitism. The group is coordinated by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), and consists of civil servants from across Whitehall, representatives of the Community Security Trust. Jewish Leadership Council, Board of Deputies of British Jews, and the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism. In this way, the government is kept fully informed of trends in antisemitism and threats to the Jewish community. The group also provides a forum for Jewish community leaders to hear directly from the government about steps being taken to address antisemitism.

During 2014, the group was addressed by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and Communities Minister Stephen Williams. It also met the Cross Government Working Group on Anti-Muslim Hatred in order to share best practice. The government is fully committed to ensuring that the group continues in its current form. This has been welcomed by the Jewish community, which has expressed public and private support for its continuation.

In 2014, the group stepped up its efforts to tackle internet hate crime, engaging with major international social media sites to ensure perpetrators of such crimes cannot remain anonymous. Its government members collaborated to produce a report, published in December, “Government Action Against Antisemitism”, which constituted the government’s final response to the Enquiry of the All-Party Group on Antisemitism (2006).

In November, the Swiss Chairmanship-in-Office of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) organised a “High Level Commemorative Event” in Berlin to mark the 10th anniversary of the Berlin Conference on Antisemitism. The event took reviewed commitments made in 2004 in light of new challenges relating to the rise of antisemitism in continental Europe, including after last year’s Gaza conflict. The UK sent a strong delegation, led by DCLG Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Penny Mordaunt. UK engagement was multidisciplinary, including the Ministry of Justice policy lead on hate crime, the Head of the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Department, and civil society in the form of the Community Security Trust. The Chair of the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism, John Mann, spoke at the event.

OSCE participating states followed up the Berlin meeting by agreeing a “Declaration on Enhancing Efforts to Combat Antisemitism” at the annual OSCE Ministerial Conference in Basel in December. The declaration expressed concern at the number of antisemitic incidents taking place in the OSCE area, condemned manifestations of antisemitism, intolerance and discrimination against Jews, and called on political leaders and public figures to speak out against antisemitic incidents whenever they occur. We attach importance to the work of the ODIHR in supporting the efforts of OSCE participating states to counter antisemitism, including through the facilitation of cooperation on issues such as hate crime and Holocaust remembrance.

IHRA (see below) continued to play an active role in monitoring and challenging antisemitism through its Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial. The committee considered reports on a number of countries during its meetings in London and Manchester as part of the UK Chairmanship programme, and made recommendations to the Plenary on how to fight antisemitism in all its forms.

Anti-Muslim Hatred
Measures to combat hate crimes against Muslims at local community level were the focus of an expert meeting on 28 April 2014 in Vienna, organised jointly by the Swiss OSCE Chairmanship and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The meeting brought together government officials, community leaders, civil society representatives and academics from 26 OSCE participating states. Iqbal Bhana from the UK’s Independent Advisory Group on Hate Crimes spoke at the event.

During the meeting, participants discussed a number of projects and initiatives aimed at enhancing cooperation between law enforcement officers and Muslim communities to combat hate crimes, including training police about anti- Muslim prejudice, and measures to increase inclusiveness and diversity in law enforcement agencies.

We attach importance to the work that ODIHR does to combat anti-Muslim hatred, including through the delivery of training workshops for community leaders and civil society representatives, as well as policy advice and training for law enforcement personnel, on preventing, responding to, and reporting on hate crimes against Muslims.

We also raise anti-Muslim hatred in our bilateral contacts. A current example of anti-Muslim discrimination is that of Burma, and its 2015 elections, which represent both an opportunity and a risk for human rights (see above). The UK is one of the largest bilateral donors in Rakhine and, since 2012, we have provided £12 million in humanitarian aid, and a further £4.5 million towards projects that support livelihoods. We are also supporting work throughout Burma, including through projects aimed at assisting activists in tackling religious intolerance, including through interfaith dialogue.

The UK’s cross-government Anti-Muslim Hatred Working Group brings together leading representatives from the British Muslim community, academics, and government departments. Although a large part of the group’s work is devoted to domestic issues, some of its activities have an international focus. After the rise of ISIL during 2014, the group discussed what actions might be taken, and held meetings with local Imams.

The group extended its relationship with international organisations to work on a definition of anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia, and ways of addressing hatred on the internet. The UK continues to share best practice internationally, and is seen as an example of effective collaboration between government officials, police and civil society, who work together to combat hate crime. The Community Security Trust, a Jewish organisation with extensive experience in reporting antisemitic hate crime, has continued to assist the UK charity Faith Matters and its TELL MAMA reporting programme in further developing its data collection system.

Case Study: ISIL

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) and a coalition of human rights groups have today called for a resolution proposed by Jordan in advance of the 132nd Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) — which starts tomorrow — to be “firmly rejected.”

The resolution proposed “strongly condemns insults against any religion, its values, principles, books, symbols, practices or holy shrines” and “calls for an international convention to prevent disrespect for religions and religious symbols, which constitutes a fertile breeding ground for disputes between believers and represents a danger to all humanity.”

An open letter to IPU delegates, co-signed by dozens of human rights advocacy organizations highlights that the “Respect for Religions” resolution “is incompatible with international human rights law”.

Read the resolution in full

Read the response from the IHEU

UPDATE – faced with a choice of four emergency items, the IPU delegates chose to debate a different topic.

Letter to Inter-Parliamentary Union on Jordan’s proposal to legitimize blasphemy laws
Friday, March 27, 2015

The following is a joint open letter to the Inter-Parliamentary Union initiated by ARTICLE 19 and signed by IFEX members and other concerned organisations:

CJFE adds its voice to ARTICLE 19 and the undersigned organisations to urge Members of Parliament delegations to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to reject a proposed emergency resolution at its 132nd Assembly on “respect for religions and religious symbols, respect for freedom of opinion and expression”, as it is incompatible with international human rights law.

The initiative, tabled by Jordan, incorrectly underscores that “freedom of opinion and expression are fundamental rights for all but do not permit insults against religions or their symbols and followers”, and proposes the creation of “an international convention to prevent disrespect for religions and religious symbols”.

The draft resolution, and the instrument it proposes to create, contradict international standards on freedom of expression, which are clear that restrictions on this right for the protection of religions per se, or to shield the feelings of believers from offence or criticism, are illegitimate.

We are concerned that the draft IPU resolution, if adopted, would legitimise and encourage criminal prohibitions to “prevent” religious insult or so-called “defamation of religions”. As such, we fear this also threatens to undermine the crucial consensus achieved at the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) in Resolution 16/18. That landmark 2011 resolution rejected the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ in favour of a consensus and human rights compatible approach to tackling religious intolerance. The IPU set a positive example by rejecting a previous draft proposal in 2012, which looked to criminalise “defamation of religions”, and we urge that the IPU continue to uphold this high standard.

On the initiative of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), the HRC will this week likely adopt a follow-up to Resolution 16/18 at its 28th Session, stressing the importance of its implementation. Attempts to undermine the spirit of Resolution 16/18 by introducing concepts akin to ‘defamation of religion’ in other international forums, such as the IPU, must be resisted.

Contrary to the Jordanian delegation’s claim that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) supports the purposes of the resolution, the Human Rights Committee, tasked with monitoring the implementation of the ICCPR, has been unequivocal that “prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant”. Numerous HRC special procedures have observed that such laws are often abused to stifle open and critical debates, as well as to discriminate against religious minorities as well as non-believers.

The positions of the Human Rights Committee and HRC special procedures are supported by the Rabat Plan of Action , a United Nations OHCHR document that provides authoritative guidance to States on implementing their obligations under Article 20(2) of the ICCPR to prohibit “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”. Importantly, the Rabat Plan of Action distinguishes the protection of religions and ideas, which is not permissible under international law, from protecting individuals and groups from discrimination, violence or hostility on the basis of their religion or belief. In respect of the latter, limitations on freedom of expression are considered a last resort, and can only be imposed if shown to reach a very high threshold, in line with Articles 19 and 20(2) of the ICCPR.

As legislators and opinion-makers, we encourage IPU delegations to reflect on their potentially positive role in creating a climate of open but frank debate on all issues, which requires the full protection for the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. In line with HRC Resolution 16/18, and the Rabat Plan of Action, this would include, inter alia, supporting measures to repeal blasphemy laws, to enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, and to speak out against instances of intolerance.

Should the draft IPU resolution proceed to consideration for adoption at the 132nd IPU Assembly, we urge all delegates to unequivocally reject it.

Yours sincerely,

ARTICLE 19
Africa Freedom of Information Centre
Bahrain Center for Human Rights
Canadian Journalists for Free Expression
Center for Independent Journalism – Romania
Centre for Independent Journalism – Malaysia
Foro de Periodismo Argentino
Freedom Forum
Freedom Foundation
Index on Censorship
Institute for the Studies on Free Flow of Information
International Federation of Journalists
International Press Institute
Maharat Foundation
Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance
Media Institute of Southern Africa
Media Rights Agenda
Media Watch
PEN Canada
Reporters Without Borders
World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers
World Press Freedom Committee
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum Asia)
Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Romania
British Humanist Association
Center for Inquiry
Christian Solidarity Worldwide
Human Rights Movement
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Humanist and Ethical Union
OPEN ASIA-Armanshahr Foundation
Open Doors International

Baroness Berridge, the chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief, today is encouraging Christians in Britain to write letters of solidarity to persecuted fellow believers across the world. The call comes as part of the 40acts programme, which prompts people do a different act of generosity each day during Lent.

This multi-award-winning campaign from the charity Stewardship has more than 70,000 people across the UK signed up to take the challenge. Every day during Lent, a Christian figure blogs about generosity and then suggests a random act of kindness to encourage participants to think outside of themselves and ‘give out’ rather than just giving something up.

Today Baroness Berridge writes: “Research suggests that every 11 hours a Christian is killed simply for being a follower of Jesus. It is shocking to those of us in the West that a person might be killed or persecuted simply for their faith, but it is true. Research indicates Christians are the most persecuted faith group in the world — facing persecution in over 60 countries (and discrimination in over 100).”

One of the suggested actions is to write to a persecuted Christian to encourage them to stand firm.

Last year the 40acts challenge caused a wave of over 1.8 million acts of generosity as Christians worldwide chose to celebrate Lent through living generously. Bear Grylls, adventurer, Chief Scout of the Scout Movement in the UK and contributor to this year’s 40acts, said: “I’m proud to be able to contribute to 40acts this year. As a Christian and a leader of the Scouts, I believe we can all have an impact on our communities by living life with generosity and compassion.”

Explore 40acts further

At least 17 people were killed, and 80 others injured, as two churches in the main Christian district of Lahore, Pakistan, were attacked yesterday, reports World Watch Monitor. An Islamist group, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, linked to the Pakistan Taliban, has claimed responsibility.

At least two of the young attackers blew themselves up – one at each church – when volunteer security guards, working with local police, confronted them at the entrances to the churches.

The attacks were timed to cause maximum damage; more than 2,000 worshippers were present in the two churches for Sunday services. But prompt action by the Christian volunteers prevented the attackers from entering the buildings.

The incidents took place in Yahounabad, the poverty-stricken Christian neighbourhood in Lahore, outside two churches, St. John’s Catholic Church and the Protestant Christ Church, separated by just 400 metres.

Christ Church attack
It was 11 a.m. and several shops in front of Christ Church were open when one of the suicide bombers blew himself up.
Elias Masih, the manager of one of the shops, died in the attack; his brother, Maqbool Bhatti, told World Watch Monitor they had been watching a cricket match when they heard gunshots.

“I rushed to see [what was happening] and saw a young boy approaching the church entrance, while aiming at everyone in front of him with an automatic machine gun,” Bhatti said. “He shot the policeman standing outside the church, killing him instantly.”

Asher Wasim, a member of Christ Church who reached the scene within a few minutes, said the shooter acted as a battering ram, “clearing the way for the bomber [as he approached] the entrance from the opposite side.”

One volunteer security guard, Yousuf Goga, died next to the policeman, while another, Shamim Bhatti, was at the time of this report in a critical condition in hospital.

Riaz Anjum, a resident of Yahounabad whose brother runs a medical store in front of Christ Church, told World Watch Monitor that another volunteer, 32-year-old Obaid Sardar Khokhar, overpowered the suicide bomber and dragged him away from the entrance.

The bomber blew himself up instantly, killing Alias Masih, Khokhar and his pregnant wife Ambreen. The couple’s bodies were taken to their home village, Stuntzabad, where they were buried on Monday (16 March).

Talking to World Watch Monitor, Ambreen Khokhar’s father, Mukhtar Joseph, said they had been on their way to meet their daughter when the incident took place.

He said that his daughter was leaving the church with her three-year-old daughter, Angelina, when the attack took place.
“Obaid rushed to the scene and overpowered the suicide bomber but [the bomber’s] accomplice shot Obaid in the head. [Angelina] ran after her father, so Ambreen hurried to save her. The terrorist firing also shot and killed Ambreen. She died saving her daughter.”

St. John Catholic Church attack
The impact of the attack outside the St. John Catholic Church was lessened by a security volunteer, Akash Bashir, 16. Akash’s father, Bashir Emmanuel, told World Watch Monitor that Akash’s family often tried to stop Akash from joining church security volunteers, but that he wanted to offer his life for the security of his community.

“One man approached the church from one side while firing, while the other one – in a suicide jacket – attempted to scale the church boundary wall,” said Emmanuel.

“Akash rushed to grab him by his leg. The suicide bomber warned him to get away, as he had a suicide jacket. But Akash pulled him down and left the bomber with no choice but to blow himself up, instantly killing Akash and several others.”

Asher Wasim, a member of Christ Church who arrived there within 5 minutes of that attack, said that he’d been later told that, despite the claim from government that police thwarted the attacks, two of the three policemen outside St. John’s Catholic Church had been watching the cricket in a shop near the church.

The news immediately spread across the country, and other churches quickly brought their services to a halt.

Aftermath
Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a splinter group of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan that for a brief period pledged allegiance to the self-proclaimed Islamic State, has claimed responsibility for orchestrating the attacks.

“We promise that until an Islamic system is put into place in Pakistan, such attacks will continue. If Pakistan’s rulers think they can stop us, they should try to do so,” their representative told al-Jazeera.

Jamaat-ul-Ahrar claimed the attack was carried out by the Aafia Siddiqui Brigade, named after Aafia Siddiqi, a Pakistani woman sentenced in the United States to 86 years in jail for helping the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan condemned the incident, saying that “terrorists are now trying to persecute easy targets.”
Imran Khan, leader of the country’s second largest political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, in a tweet described the incidents as “shameful”.

Pakistan Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif ordered an inquiry into the incident.

Angry protestors immediately came out and blocked Ferozepur Road, the main road to the nearby border with India – at one end of the Yahounabad colony. They pelted cars with stones and did not allow the police to enter the colony for about three hours.

Yahounabad residents had helped to elect the Chief Minister of Punjab, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, from the ruling party, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). But the protestors were not willing to negotiate with Senator Kamran Michael, from his party, a well-known Christian leader in politics.

There are conflicting reports about two Muslims who were set upon by an angry mob. Some reports said they carried weapons, other reports said they had been firing them. Some media reported they were suspects thought to have attacked the churches. Other reports said they were, separately, planning to attack another small church in Khaliqnagar, a Christian settlement next to Yahounabad.

What is known for certain is the two Muslims were beaten by an angry mob and eventually burned alive on Ferozepur Road. A man spoke out on Monday to say that his brother Naeem, a glasscutter, was one of them and that he had nothing to do with the church attacks.

The burning of two suspects on Sunday divided Muslims in Pakistan over the tragedy. One young Muslim commented on a post on the Yahounabad issue as following:

“Christians (Chuhras) have set on fire two Muslims today. I am only sad about their death.” Chuhra is a pejorative term often used to describe Christians.

As a response, relations between beleaguered Christians in small pockets deteriorated. A protest rally by Muslims was staged March 16 in Dulam, a mile away from Yahounabad, where about 25 Christian households are located. Christians living in Dulam immediately called Christians of other areas, fearing anattack by the rally, which changed its route after police warnings.

Minority-rights activist Napoleon Qayyum told World Watch Monitor that a Christian, Riaz Masih, was battered with the butt of a gun angry by Muslims on March 16 in Kasur, about 50 miles from Lahore.

“Riaz took part in a rally to condemn the Yahounabad attacks,” Qayyum said. “But a number of Muslims gathered there took offence and critically beat Riaz, who was later hospitalized.”

Qayyum, who lives 100 yards from St. John’s Catholic Church, said police were not providing security to the church. “The local police station had been requested to provide a walk-through gate for security, but no such measure was put in place,” he said.

A Catholic nun, identified as Sister Arsene, who had reached one church 30 minutes after it had been attacked, tried to explain to the BBC why the subsequent anger had spilled out of control. “We’re treated as second class citizens,” she said. “We’d like the government to give Christians our due place and due right. That’s why the angry youths reacted.”

All Christian mission educational institutions closed March 16 to denounce the attacks.

However, the Christians of Yahounabad again took to the streets and again blocked the Ferozepur Road. The situation between Christians and Muslims of the area deteriorated to the point that police used tear gas and water cannon to disperse protesters, after at least seven people were injured.

By the evening of March 16, the Pakistan Rangers were deployed to keep order. The Rangers are part of the paramilitary forces of Pakistan, and operate directly under the Interior Ministry.

One Pakistani Christian told World watch Monitor: “Yesterday it was terrorism. Today it’s turning into communal strife. Just one stupid act, and we are all now at risk,” the Christian said, in reference to the killing of the two Muslims.

Christians, about 2 percent of Pakistan’s population, are mostly concentrated in small settlements. They are often poorly educated and illiterate due to lack of opportunity and discrimination.

Anjum and Qayyum suggested that the two church security volunteers who died, Akash and Obaid, be given a civil award to recognize their valour and service to the Christian community and the country. “In the past, Aitzaz Hassan was awarded for stopping a suicide bomber from entering his school. He was awarded by the government. But when such an act of bravery is done by a Christian the government doesn’t recognize their service.”

In October 2013, shortly after twin suicide bombers killed 96 and injured 133 in Peshawar, three men were arrested, after they were spotted at a wedding in St. John’s Catholic church, the same church attacked on March 15.

The men, Pashtoon in origin, were spotted by security guards, who noticed the outsiders and asked why they had come to the wedding. When they could not provide a reason, they were handed over to the police.

Locals say they have noticed Pashtoons, from the north-west region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan, moving into Yahounabad – one of the largest Christian settlements in South Asia – in recent years. They add that they are concerned not only by possible terrorist attacks, but also of increasing hostilities to the long-term residents, such as trying to manoeuvre them out of this prime area of the city, by buying up land.

The UN Human Rights Council has been told by United Nations human rights expert Heiner Bielefeldt, presenting his latest report, that violence committed in the name of religion does not simply ‘erupt’, but is typically caused by contemporary factors and actors that provide the fertile ground for the seeds of hatred.

The Geneva press release continues:

“That kind of violence typically originates from geographic, historical, political, social, economic circumstances as well as communal, local, regional and international ones,” Mr. Bielefeldt noted.

In his study on preventing violence committed in the name of religion, the human rights expert warns that “while it would be wrong to focus on religion in isolation when analysing the problem, it would be equally simplistic to reduce religious motives to mere ‘excuses’ for violent crimes perpetrated in their name.”

In his view, an all-inclusive understanding of the various factors involved in violence committed in the name of religion is needed. “Above all, it is important to overcome fatalistic attitude,” he stressed.

Typical factors, Mr. Bielefeldt notes in his report, are the lack of trust in the rule of law and fair functioning of public institutions; narrow-minded and polarizing interpretations of religious traditions that may bring about societal fragmentation processes with far-reaching negative repercussions on social relations.

He also draws attention to “policies of deliberate exclusion, often in conjunction with narrowly defined national identity politics and other factors; denial and impunity for serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.”

“Violence committed in the name of religion disproportionately targets religious dissidents, members of religious minorities or converts,” the expert highlighted. “People suspected of undermining national cohesion are also frequent targets of intolerant violence.”

“Attacks will also likely increase where there is a recognized ‘official’ or State religion or when a religion is used as a medium to define national identity,” the Special Rapporteur warned.

Mr. Bielefeldt highlighted that violence against women and against LGBT persons is often justified and given legitimacy by discriminatory laws based on religious laws or supported by religious authorities, such as laws criminalizing adultery, homosexuality or cross-dressing.

“Only a full account of the various root causes of the problems can build an awareness of the joint responsibility, which a broad range of actors have in fighting violence committed in the name of religion,” he stated.

The Special Rapporteur also recommended concerted actions of all relevant stakeholders – States, religious communities, interreligious dialogue initiatives, civil society organizations, media representatives, etc. – in order to contain and eliminate eventually the scourge of violence committed in the name of religion.

(*) Read the Special Rapporteur’s report on preventing violence committed in the name of religion (A/HRC/28/66):

ENDS

Heiner Bielefeldt assumed his mandate on 1 August 2010. As Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, he is independent from any government, and acts in his individual capacity. Mr. Bielefeldt is Professor of Human Rights and Human Rights Politics at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg. From 2003 to 2009, he was Director of Germany’s National Human Rights Institution. The Special Rapporteur’s research interests include various interdisciplinary facets of human rights theory and practice, with a focus on freedom of religion or belief. Learn more

The Special Rapporteurs are part of what is known as the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Special Procedures, the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, is the general name of the Council’s independent fact-finding and monitoring mechanisms that address either specific country situations or thematic issues in all parts of the world. Special Procedures’ experts work on a voluntary basis; they are not UN staff and do not receive a salary for their work. They are independent from any government or organization and serve in their individual capacity.

The Special Rapporteur also presented reports on his country visits to Kazakhstan (A/HRC/28/66/Add.1) and Viet Nam (A/HRC/28/66/Add.2): 

Today the Christians in Parliament All Party Parliamentary Group and the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief launched a joint report on The Persecution of Christians in Iran.

In the introduction to the report, the Co-Chairs of the Enquiry, David Burrowes MP and Baroness Berridge of the Vale of Catmose, write:

“This is a subject that weighs heavily on our hearts, particularly following our initial Inquiry, where MPs visited the Middle East in 2012 to meet personally with Iranians who had endured severe maltreatment in their homeland because of their faith.

It was with cautious optimism that we watched Hassan Rouhani become President of Iran in August 2013. We joined with many Iranians in hoping that his influence would soften Iran’s harsh policies toward the nation’s religious and ethnic minorities.

Sadly, we have been disappointed that his positive promises and moderate language have not translated into any meaningful improvement. The persecution remains as severe today as it was in 2012, when the Christians in Parliament All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) produced its first report on the Persecution of Christians in Iran.”

the report concludes that Iran’s Christians and other persecuted religious minorities are faring no better under the supposedly moderate Rouhani than they did under his presidential predecessor.

The report is based on evidence gathered from Iranian witnesses during hearings in Parliament, and written submissions by human rights experts, including Dr Ahmed Shaheed, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It cites President Rouhani’s campaign pledges to provide justice for religious minorities, but goes on to conclude on the basis of the evidence examined that respect for freedom of religion or belief has not improved since the 2013 election, and for some Christians it has worsened. Though the inquiry focused on the plight of the Christian community, the report recognises that the persecution of other religious minorities also persists very strongly.

Baroness Berridge, chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief, said: “The panel heard first-hand testimony about the daily pressures and traumas that Iran’s Christians face, simply because of their faith. I am particularly concerned about the harsh treatment of those who convert to Christianity from Islam. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes clear that every person has the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the right to convert: to change one’s faith or beliefs. We hope, pray and labour for a day when Iranians of all faiths and none can live in their homeland without fear of persecution or harassment, with the full spectrum of their rights protected.”

The report was launched at a meeting in the Houses of Parliament addressed by Tobias Ellwood MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It has been widely reported in the media, including this report on Premier after their radio interview with Baroness Berridge.

Baroness Cox has contributed today’s Credo in The Times:

Don’t walk on by: the persecuted of all creeds need you

Some passages in the Bible resound with what I think of as a “reverse echo”. Like an echo, they reverberate through the generations, repeating the same message, but unlike an echo, whose sound becomes fainter over time, their import becomes louder, more insistent, every year.

In Luke’s Gospel, we read about a man described as an “expert in the law” who challenges Jesus about the command to love our neighbours as ourselves. “He wanted to justify himself,” says Luke, “so he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’”

It is such a small question, but it sums up the human instinct to recoil from God’s call to love others in an extravagant, capacious way. In effect, the lawyer is asking “I know I should love my neighbour, but if I can restrict the definition of “neighbour” to just the people who live next door to me, then the whole thing looks a lot more doable.”

This question, posed disingenuously many centuries ago, can be asked with some integrity in 2015. With cheap air fares and round-the-clock news about people in far-flung corners of the globe, so many stories can require me to ask, to whom, out of the millions of people whom I hear about, do I owe this extravagant debt of love?

It is a question I am confronted with as founder of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), which provides aid and advocacy for victims of persecution and oppression. There are advantages that come with our size. A small NGO such as HART, working with local partners, can slip in under the radar to places overlooked by international media. Also, the major aid organisations can visit only with the permission of a sovereign government, something not likely to be forthcoming if that government is oppressing its own people. So HART focuses on these “forgotten” people suffering hidden persecutions, unreached by the international media.
Jesus’s answer to the lawyer is one of the most well-known Bible passages of all — the parable of the good Samaritan. He knows that in our human frailty we would prefer to restrict that command to love our neighbour to those who are like ourselves, and he is having none of it. The Samaritan whom Jesus holds up as an example would have been, to the lawyer, ethically inferior and a heretic. Those you should love, says Jesus, include those who look different from you, who speak differently, and who have different beliefs from yours.

That is why HART, a Christian organisation, advocates on behalf of Rohingya Muslims and the predominantly Buddhist Shan in Burma, as well as the predominantly Christian Kachin people, all of whom are victims of sustained offensives by the army as their government looks on. In Nigeria, we have visited Boko Haram-afflicted territory where the persecution of Muslims who will not support the group has escalated, as well as the mass slaughter and abduction of Christians.

In 2012 I co-founded the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief. We campaign for freedom of religion or belief for all people across the world — who through our availability to travel and communicate like never before, have become our neighbours. In so doing I seek, albeit painfully inadequately, to follow the God who said: “Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

If we all do something, we can share in the privilege of making a little bit of a difference for our neighbours in some of the most challenging parts of our world today.

Baroness Cox is a crossbench peer and the founder and CEO of the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust

 

“My husband Raif Badawi was punished with 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes for voicing his opinion on a blog. Now I hear he could even be executed — but in 48 hours, Germany’s Minister of Economic Affairs Sigmar Gabriel will travel to Saudi Arabia and a huge call from all of us can push him to negotiate Raif’s release.”

In an email circulated via Avaaz, Ensaf Haidar urges their members to sign a petition at this crucial time. it reads:

Dear Avaaz members,

His hands and feet in shackles, his face contorted with pain, for everyone to see. It’s unbearable to think this is how they publicly flogged my husband, 50 times over. Now I hear he could even be executed — but you can help me save him!

My name is Ensaf Haidar and Raif is my husband. Last year, he was sentenced to 10 years in jail and 1,000 lashes for “insulting Islam” — his crime was that he voiced his opinion on a blog. Raif is a peaceful man and a loving father — our three children and I miss him dearly and we fear for his life.

Now Germany could help us free him: in 48 hours, Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Minister of Economic Affairs, will travel to Saudi Arabia — and if he uses his influence to take a stand for Raif, he could spur Saudi leaders to reconsider.

I have personally asked Sigmar Gabriel for help. But my voice alone is not strong enough. That’s why I ask you to support my appeal so that we can see him off with a huge call from around the world to negotiate Raif’s release. Please join me now and share this with everyone you know:

A few years ago, my husband Raif Badawi started a blog called “Free Saudi Liberals”. He wanted to write about politics and religion, and address social and political issues. But the Saudi judiciary accused him of insulting Islam — a charge that carries harsh punishments. And Raif’s penalty doesn’t only affect him: his public lashing sends a warning signal to anyone wanting to express similar thoughts.

Raif and I met 15 years ago. We married two years later and soon after I was already pregnant with my first child. When my husband got into trouble with the authorities in 2008, he asked us to flee the country: we travelled from Egypt to Lebanon and finally arrived in Canada, where my children and I were granted asylum. But now we can’t just sit here and watch — we want Raif to come back to us!

Many people in my country want reform and international attention to Raif’s plight is rising. Sigmar Gabriel has already said he’ll address human rights during his visit. Please add your voice to my plea — our appeal now could set my husband free.

With deep gratitude,

Ensaf and the entire Avaaz team.

It finishes

Add your voice now:
SIGN THE PETITION