March 2010
|
The Palais des Nations can be quite a shattering experience, even outside the Dome. On every floor there’s an exhibition, paintings of Roma families with desperate looks in their huge black eyes, then in the Salle des Pas Perdus a special for Women’s Day, “Congo Women: portraits of war and Women on the frontline” showing near life-size black and white photographs which turn one into direct witnesses to the rapes, the massacres, the maiming and cannibalism, to the loss of humanity. And just beyond the guarded Palais gate, a sad looking group called the Jumma indigenous people from the Chittagong Hill Tracts stood around meekly demanding justice as their villages were being burned down with the help of the Bangladeshi army.
Fortunately for all of us, under this dreamlike dome there are many exceptional people who stand up to speak for the voiceless, often at the risk of their own lives. Asma Jahangir is one of them.
Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur (SR) on the right to Freedom of Religion or Belief presented her annual report to the 13th session of the Human Rights Council.
THE REPORT 1
An overview
As it was her last report, Ms Jahangir took the opportunity to give an overview of her activities connected with the mandate she held for six years. The following thematic issues have been analysed:
Conversions from one religion to another;
- freedom of religion or belief of detainees;
- religious symbols;
- incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance;
- religious intolerance and the rights of women;
- adverse effects of some measures of counter-terrorism on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief;
- religious minorities and new religious movements;
- the situation of refugees, asylum seekers and internally displaced persons;
- the situation of persons with atheistic or non-theistic beliefs;
- citizenship issues and religious discrimination in administrative procedures;
- discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on social, economic and cultural rights;
- the situation of persons in vulnerable situations as regards their ability to freely exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief
The mandate of the SR includes communications with governments for monitoring and verifying allegations of human rights violations and follow-up activities as well as country visits, i.e. missions to interact with various State officials, religious leaders and other representatives of civil society. Ms Jahangir visited 30 countries during her term of office. (There are a number of other countries she would have liked to visit, but had not been invited.)
General patterns and issues of concern
Ms Jahangir distinguishes between
a) discrimination and violence “on the grounds of religion or belief”, i.e. based on the religion of the victim and
b) discrimination and violence “in the name of religion or belief” i.e. based on the religious tenet of the perpetrator.
a) Discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief
There is a general pattern of discrimination against religious minorities all over the world both by State and non-State actors, whether by registration requirements, denial of employment in government and enterprises, admission to schools as well as by threats and violence by groups of individuals such as the targeting of places of worship and the desecration of cemeteries.
Measures to counter terrorism, especially since 11 September 2001, have reinforced discriminatory measures based on religious affiliation with registration requirements, controls, etc
Discriminatory practices often curb the freedom of religion or beliefs of minority communities such as indigenous groups and adepts of the new religions and spiritual movements. Religious practices of some religions are also restricted in some countries such as the wearing of distinctive clothing and head covering.
Mention is made of a serious ongoing problem discussed in-depth elsewhere in the mandate as well as by the SR on racism which is the hostility and violence arising from the criticism of specific religions. The SR emphasizes that although the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges States to prohibit the advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, this is destined to protect the rights of individuals, not of religions: the right to freedom of religion or belief does not include the right to have a religion or belief free from criticism or ridicule. The right to freedom of expression cannot be curtailed.
b) Discrimination and violence in the name of religion
This sort of discrimination and violence in the name of religion is usually intertwined with ethnic, traditional and societal beliefs attributed to religion and easily takes on extremist proportions. It affects members of the same religious affiliation or belief system, often women and children. In the name of religion the enjoyment of human rights by women and girls can be severely restricted, and can in extreme cases lead to death. (honour killings, female genital mutilation, etc).
Extremism is also manifest in some of the new religions or cults where followers are led to commit mass suicide or incited to commit terrorist acts in the name of religion. Children can easily be indoctrinated with religious intolerance and in some countries are encouraged to commit acts of violence.
Early warning signals
The new theme analysed in this report concerns early warning signs of discrimination on the grounds of or in the name of religion, the detection of which is also part of the SR’s mandate. Prevention through rapid intervention by the State or by individuals is the best way to achieve an atmosphere of tolerance and avoid the outburst of violence.
Regarding State actors, several early warning signs are considered: the lack of adequate legislation ensuring freedom of religion or belief (restricting citizenship or denying official documents); the lack of accountability for crimes and patterns of impunity following a human rights violation targeting members of a specific religious community (especially when no legal redress is available); patterns of religious discrimination in State practices and social and educational policies; and persistent negative stereotyping by officials targeting members of a specific religion.
As for non-State actors, certain acts and behaviour may also be early warning signals of discrimination on religious grounds. Among these, attacks and harassment of people owing to their religion, deliberate destruction and attacks on places of worship and religious sites. The spread of religious hate messages especially those coming from religious leaders and opinion makers but also from individuals on Internet can be an early sign as well. An educational system encouraging bigotry presents dangers. Persistent religious tensions between different religions or branches of the same religion require extreme vigilance.
International or external factors such as political events in a neighbouring country, coup d’états, or persecution of minorities etc. may also be a cause of discrimination and violence.
Conclusions and recommendations
Prevention of discrimination and violence is the key and State actors have the main responsibility for maintaining harmonious relations among different religious groups. Good governance, the implementation of human rights standards, a fair educational system are essential components. Religious leaders and civil society can also play an important role in defusing tensions. On the international level, the right to freedom of religion or belief must continue to be monitored internationally by the human rights mechanism through letters of allegation and mission reports.
THE PLENARY
Addressing the Plenary, Ms Jahangir said it was rewarding to see that States, civil society and individuals had taken up difficult challenges to confront the forces of intolerance. Regrettably those voices were few and far between. State actors had a tendency to deny the religious origin of conflicts (ref Nigeria).Another important point was that the acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals were often committed with impunity.
Religious intolerance was not a natural outcome of diverse societies but all too often it was manipulated by a few groups or individuals for various reasons. Issues of religion and belief are highly emotive and, once the germs of intolerance spread, it is hard to contain them.
The current mandate could only be a truly living one if it addressed openly discriminatory practices that women have to suffer in the name of religion or belief. There can never be true gender equality in the public sector if women continued to be the object of discrimination in their own homes.
An Interactive dialogue followed the presentation
A large number of States and a few national human rights institutions and NGOs took the floor either to thank the SR for her work in general or with a special focus on the early warning signs, welcoming her analysis. Pakistan representing the Organization of Islamic Conference asked tauntingly whether a ban on the construction of minarets or the prohibition of wearing religious clothing in public could be considered as early warning signs. The SR replied that she had issued a press release on the Swiss minaret ban expressing her deep concern over the vote and the possible negative consequences to the Muslim community in Switzerland.
Some States drew attention to the plight of religious minorities, either Christian, Jewish or Bahai in Iran, Iraq and Nigeria. Others expressed concern about restrictions on changing one’s religion and on blasphemy laws. It was suggested that less focus be placed on the religious identity of individuals and more on common ground. Several other issues were mentioned such as the role of education and inter-faith dialogue in promoting religious tolerance, the use of Internet to incite religious violence, the indoctrination of children with intolerance - and women as a constant target of religious intolerance. On this last question which came from two Scandinavian countries, Ms Jahangir explained that women’s respectability is sometimes linked to the observation of religious traditions, noting that governments hesitate to address “culturally sensitive” issues.
Syria raised the issue that the “defamation of religion” had a marked effect on certain religious minorities although widely accepted “in the guise of freedom of expression”. Egypt, referring to the SR’s discussion on violence in the name of religion, asked wittily how freedom of religion could be protected if secularism was so stretched, and was it not time to study freedom of religion in the name of secularism?
Once again, said Mas Jahangir, they would agree to disagree. In her concluding remarks she said
“she had always stood for consensus, but had drawn a distinction between a consensus that promoted human rights, and a compromise that undermined these, particularly in the context of freedom of religion or belief”…
and her last words concerned women:
“On the rights of women within religious minorities, they suffered on two counts - first in their communities, where religious minorities jealously guarded what they called "their own culture", sometimes to the detriment of women; and in society as a whole. She regretted she had not been able to effectively communicate to the Member States of the Human Rights Council the desperate pleas she heard from people on the ground who were asking for help, and who attached great hopes to this august body.
(from meeting summaries)
PUBLIC DIALOGUE WITH MS JAHANGIR AND MISCELLANEOUS
Ms Jahangir thanked the NGO community for their support and assistance in bringing to her attention instances of discrimination on the basis of religion. She is very popular with NGOs and greatly admired for her brilliant mind and outspokenness, and will be missed.
She said it was a difficult mandate because compromising is not possible. It was a mentally challenging mandate because it was not black and white.
The main concerns for the future related to the emerging new religious movements and cults; to the obstacles to human rights for women in the name of religion and tradition; and to conversions to another religion.
Several questions followed, including who would be her successor? She didn’t know, nominations could still be presented and NGOs were encouraged to do so. Her successor would be announced at the 14th HRC.
Who is Asma Jahangir?
Before her appointment as SR for Freedom of Religion or Belief, she had been the SR for Extrajudicial, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, which obviously was a tough mandate.
Asma Jahangir is a Pakistani lawyer, a Muslim and a human rights activist. Together with other lawyers and activists including her sister, Hilani Jalani, she formed the first law firm established by women in Pakistan. They actively supported campaigns against Pakistan’s discriminatory legislation notably the Law of Evidence whereby a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s, blasphemy laws and the Hudood Ordinance whereby the woman raped is usually considered the culprit. Ms Jahangir took up the defence of many cases of gross discrimination against girls and women and members of religious minorities. As a human rights activist she stood firmly against religious extremism and military dictatorship which resulted in her being beaten up during demonstrations and placed under house arrest and even jailed on one occasion. She has received a number of death threats from extremist groups. Several prestigious international awards and prizes recognize her work and courage as a human rights defender.
As UN Special Rapporteur, Asma Jahangir continued to act with courage and the same uncompromising attitude.
Recommendations to religious leaders and civil society
There is much to learn and understand from the SR, a Pakistani Muslim, who, when it comes to tensions with the Muslim communities in the West, has both an insider and an outsider view. The SR emphasizes the role which members can play through dialogue and initiatives at the grass-root level. Interreligious dialogue with a wide number of participants including the less passionate non-believers is to be encouraged. While such dialogue cannot solve the underlying problems, it is a step in the right direction.
Artists can play an important role in educating the public and building bridges among different religious communities, so can the media. Human rights education is of great importance.
The situation in France
Regarding the future, the SR expressed concern about possible discrimination against the “new religions” as she calls spiritual movements and cults. This is a problem in a few countries where religious and spiritual practices are legally not tolerated, but also in Western democracies where there are no legal restrictions, such as in France.
The SR was invited to France in 2005 in connection with the list of cults and the wearing of religious symbols in schools, especially headscarves. The following are extracts about the headscarves issue from a statement made by Ms Jahangir in Paris:
I have also noted that the situation prevailing today in France is different to the one which existed at the time of the adoption of the 1905 law, which constitutes the basis of the principle of "laïcité" in the French Republic. While recognizing that the organization of a society according to this principle of "laïcité" may not only be healthy, but also guarantee the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief, I am concerned that, in some circumstances, the selective interpretation and rigid application of the law has operated at the expense of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
The law of March 2004 on conspicuous religious symbols in public schools has a positive element as it takes into account the autonomy of a female child who may be subjected to gender discrimination at a stage when she is unable to realize the consequences of being lured or forced into wearing a headscarf. At the same time, the law denies the right to those teenagers who have freely chosen to wear a religious symbol in school as part of their religious belief. In particular, the law denies innocent expression of religious beliefs even if it is conspicuous as in the case of Sikh children.
It is my impression that the direct and, in particular, the indirect consequences of this law have not been properly considered. Although many interlocutors feel satisfied with the results of the implementation of the law, I have noticed that the figures given are often disputed, including because the criteria used for the assessment vary. Moreover the issue is one of principle and not a number game. My concerns are more serious with regard to the indirect consequences of the law in the longer term. The implementation of the law by school establishments has in a number of cases lead to abuses that provoked feelings of humiliation, in particular amongst young Muslim women. According to many voices, such public humiliation can only lead to radicalization of the affected persons and those associated with them. Moreover, the stigmatization of the so called Islamic headscarf has triggered a wave of religious intolerance when women wear it outside school, at university or at their workplace.
(UN press release)
So will the wearing of burqas in public places in Europe be the next issue?
KC 14.5.10
1 A/HRC/13/40