At the fifty-eight session of the Commission, my predecessor submitted a study on freedom of religion or belief and the situation of women vis-à-vis religion and traditions[2]. He enlisted a number of areas of discrimination against women stemming from religious beliefs.................................

 

Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, sadly concluded that “Ancestral and historical norms in all religions have generally discriminated against women; there is a tendency to describe and accommodate such abuses as being “cultural” since when they are attributed to religion, debate is foreclosed – a less then honourable approach from the victim’s point of views.”

 

 

Let’s Move On

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your foresight in organizing this seminar. It is timely and critical. There is an urgent need for honest dialogue. It must seek the actual reasons behind rising religious intolerance in many parts of the world. A number of contentious issues have to be brought to the table and addressed with wisdom and calm. I believe that an exchange of words, ideas, and grievances is a way forward.

 

The mandate that I supervise is a sensitive one. It deals with faiths and beliefs that are ruled by deep convictions and emotions. In July 2004, the Commission on Human Rights appointed me as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Very soon, I came to realize that this mandate is intellectually extremely challenging as well as daunting. It is of key importance for other human rights issues. Indeed, I have come to see that religion lies at the heart and is often the origin of many potential or actual conflicts but can at the same time function as a tool for social cohesion. Above all, it is a source for comfort and a matter of divine belief for millions of individuals and groups.

 

This mandate was initially established by the Commission in 1986. The international legal standards on which the mandate relies are primarily article 18 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 1981 General Assembly Declaration on the Elimination of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief. The activities carried out under the mandate consist of official visits to countries, which have extended invitations so that I can assess the local situation in terms of freedom of religion or belief. The other main activity carried out under the mandate is the formal correspondence with Governments through communications containing allegations regarding violations of the freedom of religion or belief. These allegations are based on information received from NGO’s, individuals and various field presences. The past few years have seen an overwhelming increase in information reaching the Special Rapporteur and thus in the amount of communications sent.

 

Over the past couple of years, I have tried to develop this mandate on the lines of my predecessor but placed greater emphasis on the protection aspect of the mandate. The reports on this mandate testify that religious tensions increased over the years. There are numerous reports of religious discrimination in a number of countries as well as of violent acts carried out in the name of religion. Over the past years a number of governments have either condoned or even justified such acts of violence and these have increasingly been carried out with impunity. At a global level, religious tolerance was increasingly under pressure but following the tragic events of 11 September 2001, the Madrid attacks on 11 March 2004, the bombings in London on 7 July 2005, polarization has escalated. It has created an atmosphere which makes honest debate difficult to sustain. At the same time, a number of contentious issues remain and are re-emerging to challenge the human rights discourse. The mandate I hold has identified some of these in the reports that have been presented to the United Nation Commission on Human Rights and the Third Committee of United Nations, General Assembly. I will take this opportunity to share some of these concerns here.

 

A constant issue of concern has been the freedom to have, adopt or change a religion of one’s choice and targets specifically the problem of conversion. Individuals are both protected against acts aiming at forced conversions and their freedom to adopt a religion of their choice or to change their religion without fear. In this regard, the Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment  held that:

“the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one’s current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one’s religion or belief”.

 

During my missions over the last few years I found that, a number of religious groups accepted the principle of freedom to adopt or change one’s religion, as long as, the change or conversion was in their favor. Many such individuals representing their religious community emphasized that proselytizing was an integral part of their religion, and indeed constituted freedom of religion, but were unable to grant this very right to people or communities of religions other than their own. In one case, they maintained that anyone could freely accept the religion they represented, but none could abandon it with impunity. In a few countries, apostasy is punishable and can even beget death penalty. 

 

There is a genuine apprehension, particularly amongst religions that find themselves in a minority at the global level, of being marginalized or overtaken by aggressive forms of proselytization of some major religions. At least in two countries, India and Sri Lanka, there has been a strong resentment, followed by violence, against conversions carried out by some Christian missionary groups through inducement and other acts described as “unethical”. These complaints grew louder during the Tsunami relief efforts. A number of Buddhist leaders, in Sri Lanka, complained that new Christian groups were instrumental in damaging the existing religious harmony by employing aggressive methods of proselytism. It was claimed that some groups promised material benefits such as food and medicine but also means of transportation like bicycle or even housing. On the other hand, the recipients of this so-called generosity argue that there is some level of inducement in all religions, for example, the promise of heaven or hell for performing religious acts. They also insisted that timely assistance in their hour of need was for them “divine” intervention.

 

The Indian experience, where anti-conversion laws exist in some States, shows that while laws against forced or fraudulent conversions protect the freedom of religion or belief of individuals, yet criminalizing “unethical” ways of conversion is a tool for exploitation and for keeping religious tensions alive. The law should significantly consider the freedom of religion of the person being converted but interpreting acts constituting unethical behaviour would always remain controversial.

 

Religious controversies are historical. They will continue to demand our attention and challenge us to find creative ways of dealing with it. The classic recipes of enactment of laws may not always work. Much more needs to be done. A continuing dialogue is essential, but it must not remain confined to religious representatives alone. I have strongly suggested that all such dialogues must include women as well as non-traditional religions.

 

In the experience of my mandate, I have noticed that “non-traditional” religions are often discriminated against. Some live under constant threat and the number of these religions is always increasing.. A number of governments have expressed discomfort in recognizing these groups or new religious movements as religious entities. There are allegations that some groups are formed to advance a political agenda or operate as religious identities to avoid taxes. Other groups, which claim to be offshoots of a traditional religion, are denounced for having distorted an established version of a grand religion. They are persecuted by members of their own parent religion and such abuses are tolerated by governments. There are also reports of blocking email access, in educational institutions, to the websites of new religions. There are reports of practices followed by some non-traditional religions that threaten health rights and other human rights norms. The complexity of recognizing any group as “religious” or “non-religious” or as a belief cannot be exaggerated. Who should recognize it? What ought to be the criteria? Surely if religions or beliefs are to be accepted on the premise of being wholly compatible with human rights norms then even some traditional religions would also fall short of meeting this standard. Governments therefore have a delicate role in negotiating a balanced approach in this field.

 

My predecessor, in his report, to the Commission on Human Rights, drew attention to this issue[1]. He wrote:

“It should be noted that the line between the two types of religious community is not always clear-cut, insofar as certain communities may be classified, by insiders or external observers, as a perceived part of a major religion, or as a separate religion, or a belief or organization whose goals are unconnected with any religion or belief. In this connection, among the communities of religion or belief to which the unqualified and indiscriminate appellation of sects is appended by certain people, there exist a number of movements, which are manifestly movements of religion or belief, just as there are groups, and movements that, disguised under freedom of religion or belief, engage in activities that are sometimes criminal. The excesses of some of these movements have aroused considerable emotion in public opinion, inducing some States as a result to adopt legislation sometimes of a very dubious nature in terms of international law”.

 

At the fifty-eight session of the Commission, my predecessor submitted a study on freedom of religion or belief and the situation of women vis-à-vis religion and traditions[2]. He enlisted a number of areas of discrimination against women stemming from religious beliefs. He pointed out how citizenship laws also applied gender discrimination. A number of inhuman practices against women are tolerated by governments or societies under the label of religious sanctions. Burning of widows, though outlawed, is still tolerated by some Hindus. Incidents of infanticide, Deuki and female sacrifice continue to occur. Deuki is sacred prostitution of girls to deities still found in Nepal. Ritual slavery, where unmarried girls are offered as appeasement to deities is reported to take place in Ghana. Levirate, originally a Jewish mythology requires that where there is no female descendant a widow must marry her brother-in-law and is practiced in Congo, Burkino Faso (until recently), Kenya, Chad and Cameroon.

 

 Restriction of women’s rights to property or to appear as witnesses (in certain circumstances) are effected in some countries where this is seen as being part of Islamic tradition. Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, sadly concluded that “Ancestral and historical norms in all religions have generally discriminated against women; there is a tendency to describe and accommodate such abuses as being “cultural” since when they are attributed to religion, debate is foreclosed – a less then honourable approach from the victim’s point of views.”

 

In the context of display of religious symbols, women’s dress code remains central to the debate. In some countries, women are often subjected to strict codes of clothing especially in their professional work. In other situations, women themselves desire a form of dress approved by their religion. However, religious symbols are not limited to dress alone and can sometimes not be distinguished as signs of religion or of trends. It would not be appropriate to respond to these issues in a superficial manner. The nature of every society has its own political aspirations but there are some fundamental rules to be followed in order to ensure neutrality of the State in matters of religion. A judge, who displays certain bias, in terms of belief or religion can undermine faith in the system of justice.

 

The controversy on wearing or being forced to wear a certain dress code has been discussed under  at least three mandates of the Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the Hugh Commissioner and have been the subject of national or regional legal decisions. There is almost unanimity that no one should be forced to wear religious symbols but the voluntary wearing of it in certain areas of work or teaching remains controversial. The use of religious symbols by students in school is also under intense debate.

 

The right to freedom of religion or belief would include the right to manifest it. A law banning or making it mandatory for anyone to display symbols required by religious belief would constitute a limitation to the right to manifest a religion or belief. However, Article 18(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides such limitations under restrictive conditions. The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No.22 emphasizes that article 18(3) of the ICCPR “is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified there, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant, such as national security. Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner”.

 

In September 2005, I carried out an in situ visit to France. The visit was of the highest interest because France is a model of its own. The French society generally respects the right to freedom of religion or belief and is firmly committed to the principles of ”laïcité”. The State remains neutral in matters of religion. The law of 9 December 1905, which is the primary piece of legislation relevant to the issue of religion, provides for separation between the “State and the churches”. To reaffirm the spirit of ”laïcité a law was passed on 15 March 2004 prohibiting wearing of ostensible religious signs in public school. This law has been the object of careful consideration by the United Nations treaty bodies. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its Concluding Observation, expressed it concern that, “the new legislation on wearing religious signs in public schools may be counterproductive, by neglecting the principle of the best interests of the child and the right of the child to access to education […]” The Committee further recommended that the State party […] consider alternative means, including mediation, of ensuring the secular character of public schools, while guaranteeing that individual rights are not infringed upon and that children are not excluded or marginalized from the school system […]. The dress code in schools may be better addressed within the public schools themselves, encouraging participation of children”.

 

On concluding my visit, I reported that the law has had a profound indirect effect on the Muslim community in France. Although the law was intended to apply equally to all religions,  it mainly affected certain minorities, and notably, people of Muslim background. The wide political support for the law conveyed a demoralizing message to religious minorities in France. In my report, I expressed serious concerns with regard to the indirect consequences of the law in the longer term. The implementation of the law by educational establishments has led, in a number of cases, to abuses that provoked humiliation, in particular amongst young Muslim women. According to many voices, such public humiliation can only lead to the radicalization of the affected persons and those associated with them. Moreover, the stigmatization of the headscarf has triggered a wave of religious intolerance when women wear it outside school, at university or in the workplace.

 

The right to freedom of religion or belief has a very broad and diverse scope and because each situation in which freedom of religion plays a role requires a response specific to the exigencies of that particular situation, the overall climate has to be taken into account. At the same time, principles of justice and human rights must not become subservient to intolerance and bigotry.

 

I regret that the agenda on human rights and in particular freedom of religion or belief is being led by intolerant forces. This has led to misgivings, knowledge deficit and cultural incompatibility among people of different beliefs. I am particularly concerned about the rights of religious minorities and of the voiceless within religious communities. Anger and fear are ruling over an atmosphere of polarization.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe respect begets respect. It is therefore critical that governments commit themselves to full respect to the norms of human rights and play a role of bridge builders rather than join the alarmists in widening the gap of understanding and mutual trust. Rising religious intolerance deteriorates the quality of life for all people of the world.

 

In a number of studies, lack of education, has been identified as one of the root causes of denial of freedom of religion or belief. In my experience, it is not the lack of education but the right orientation to education, which is crucial for promoting religious harmony. It is also important to support democratization of societies in order to amicably resolve tensions based on religion or belief.

 

Since my appointment, I have drawn attention to the complex issue of the intersection between two fundamental human rights: freedom of expression and religion or belief. The current controversy and violence following the publication of caricatures depicting the Prophet Muhammad, first in a Danish newspaper and later in a number of publications around the world has raised serious concern. I recognise that freedom of expression is a cornerstone for democracy but the way this has been misused in this instance must be discouraged . The expression of deliberate provocation, insult, and hurt is most inappropriate. While the right to freedom of religion or belief may not per se or directly have been violated by these publications, they have contributed to a climate of intolerance and stigmatized followers of Islam. More chilling is the violent response to this irresponsible incident. The space for pluralism has narrowed. Pluralism means that all parties must to a certain degree show the will to compromise and attempt to solve conflicts through peaceful means such as dialogue or peaceful protest and not resort to violence. There are allegations of promoting double standards from all sides. Sadly, there is duplicity across the board but the possibilities to redress them are lost in a heightened form of tension. Amongst heated talk of revenge and bigotry, there is a danger of losing sight of the underlying reason for this overreaction and for the debate to be hijacked by reactionary forces.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the crucial question thus remains where to draw the line? There are different levels of tolerance and development of societies. The media is now globalized and therefore its expressions must take into account the sensitivity of a diverse global family. There is an urgent need for leading journalists, writers, and artists of diverse religious backgrounds to hold consultations for overcoming the challenge they are facing. While in no way wanting to promote censorship, I would like to recall that journalists, writers, and artists have special responsibilities when they express themselves on issues of public interest such as religious beliefs. Placing important issues on the agenda, even when they are sensitive, is a key responsibility of the media but it cannot be the purpose to deliberately hurt and insult part of the audience.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, the way forward is political education of all communities and to pay respect to the common denominator of upholding the dignity of all human beings regardless of their religious leanings. In this regard governments have a specialized task.. They must remain neutral  yet sensitive to spiritual needs of all their citizens. Finally, I admit that the solutions are not easy and can simply not materialize in an uneven playing field. There is an opportunity for a more candid dialogue because in my view a battle of words and ideas can only show the way forward.