2011 ORDINARY SESSION

_________________

(Second part)

REPORT

Twelfth sitting

Tuesday 12 April 2011 at 10 a.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr Çavuşoğlu, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 10.05 a.m.

1. Opening of the sitting

THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

On behalf of the Assembly, I condemn most strongly what appears to have been a terrorist act, which happened yesterday evening in the Minsk underground. The explosion, which has already taken away the lives of at least 11 people and injured many others, was a barbarous act which is completely incompatible with the values and principles that the Assembly stands for. I express our deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and convey our greatest solidarity to those injured and their families.

I suggest that we now all stand for a minute of silence in memory of the victims.

(The Assembly observed a minute’s silence.)

2. Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of
Norway and Switzerland

THE PRESIDENT – This morning and this afternoon the agenda calls for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland.

The list of candidates and biographical notices is to be found in Doc. 12527. The voting will take place in the area behind the President’s chair.

At 1 p.m. the voting will be suspended, and it will resume at 3 p.m. At 5 p.m. I shall announce the closing of the poll. As usual, counting will then take place under the supervision of two tellers.

I shall now draw by lot the names of the two tellers who will supervise the counting of the votes.

The names of Ms Zohrabyan and Mr Baghdasaryan have been drawn. They should go to the back of the President’s chair at 5 p.m.

I now declare the ballot open.

3. The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

THE PRESIDENT – We now come to the debate on a report from the Committee on Culture, Science and Education on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue (Doc. 12553), presented by Ms Brasseur with an opinion presented by Mr Toshev on behalf of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12576), and statements by His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania; His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican; Professor Mehmet Görmez, Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey; Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia; and Prelate Bernhard Felmberg, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union.

We must interrupt the list of speakers at about 1 p.m. The debate will then resume at around 4 p.m., followed by a vote on the draft recommendation. I remind the Assembly that at yesterday’s sitting it was agreed that speaking times in all debates today be limited to three minutes.

I call Ms Brasseur, rapporteur, to present the report. You have 13 minutes in total.

Ms BRASSEUR (Luxembourg) said that Boutros Boutros-Ghali had said “Let us find what unites us, appreciate what differentiates us and avoid what separates us.” This was the main thrust of the committee’s report. Today’s debate was an initiative of the President of the Assembly. The committee’s work had been enriched by its extraordinary meeting on the 18 February 2011 with senior representatives from several religions, and by the contribution of Professor Francis Messner. The report drew on various publications, listed in the appendix, but it was not exhaustive as there had not been enough time for this. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights formed the basis of the report, but unfortunately, this article was sometimes set aside or forgotten. If it were applied and respected by all, the debate would not have been needed.

Cicero had been perhaps the first author to try to define religion, and many other definitions had followed. Essentially, religion was belief in a system in which sacred matters were united in a Church of all those who shared those beliefs. However, some argued that religion should not be defined, since belief was an individual matter. Religion had been used by power seekers, which in some cases had led to atrocities. Today, society was rejected by some, as a result of which social cohesion suffered. Diversity should be accepted and respected, and people should not feign ignorance or be threatened by others’ beliefs. It was the Assembly’s responsibility, as well as that of religious authorities, to rise to the challenge and stress what united people not what separated them: this was the thrust of the report.

No movement could change fundamental values. All religions should protect the European Convention on Human Rights and, as outlined in paragraph 18 of the report, stress the importance of human rights. Religions in Europe had a special role to play in the development of understanding and mutual respect. Discrimination and hatred should be denounced and contempt for others should not be tolerated. Article XII of the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights of 1981 set out that no individual should disdain the religious beliefs of others or call for hostility. There should be freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. The question was whether the Council of Europe should become involved in this intercultural dialogue. Although public authorities should not be involved in theological debate, the Council of Europe should establish a common interfaith platform, on which public and religious authorities were each represented. It was important that a place for dialogue be created internationally and institutionally, both nationally and regionally. Opportunities for dialogue should be created in regions and communities.

Education was essential. All student teachers should study religion, including monotheistic faiths. This would enable them to understand and respect pupils better. Addressing the five religious leaders present, she underlined the fact that it was the responsibility of religious representatives to train their teachers: those with religious authority were responsible for opening dialogue with other faiths. It was also important to respect international law and human rights.

Recent events had reminded us of how impotent humans were in the face of nature. As human beings, we had to be more humble, not only in our beliefs, but also in our relations with others. We had to be more humble in building a society where the individual had the right both to have a faith and to live that faith. Finally, we had to be more humble in creating a society where people did not just live together, but lived together well.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Brasseur. I call Mr Toshev, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, to present the committee’s opinion. You have three minutes.

Mr TOSHEV (Bulgaria) – Your Beatitude, your Eminence, Reverend Fathers, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, intercultural dialogue is at the core of the concept of a united Europe. Europe is a multicultural community of interdependent nations and a union of its citizens, who are committed to sharing a common future despite their ethnic and religious differences.

Europe has many different historical backgrounds, but it is united by common values such as mutual respect, protection of human rights, democracy, tolerance and the acceptance that differences are normal. Those values form our joint identity. Dialogue among the people of Europe informs the European community. The religious dimension of this dialogue has a very important role to play.

Religions in Europe have played an important role during its history, not only in establishing a system of values, but in strengthening their legitimacy and the interaction between different cultures. That created the environment for multiculturalism.

During the hearing that was held some months ago, we accepted that for some people, religion is just a tradition, but for others it is the essence of life, integrity, faith, justice, love, mercy and peace. The positive examples of that should be made widely known.

The rescue of the entire Bulgarian Jewish community, with the active participation of the High Representatives of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church in 1943 during the Holocaust, was not without risk and is an exemplary event. To explain that remarkable event, when values spoke louder than ethnic and religious differences, I would like to remind the Assembly of the slogan of the church struggles in Bulgaria in the 19^th century: “Freedom in order – unity in diversity.” It sounds quite contemporary.

Secularism in today’s Europe has not led to eliminating the public role of religions as promoters of values. That is why the religious aspect of intercultural dialogue is important for European society.

Religions should be encouraged to participate actively in the debates on the common wealth, the protection of religious freedom, respect for human rights and democratic citizenship, and the fight against racism, xenophobia and intolerance. In a pluralist society, it is expected that religious people should recognise others’ freedom of beliefs as well as those that they enjoy.

Against that background, the Political Affairs Committee has taken note of the report prepared by Ms Anne Brasseur, in which the Committee on Culture, Science and Education again participated. The Assembly has already taken a position on the matter. The Political Affairs Committee is in general agreement with the thrust of the draft recommendation. However, it feels that some of the text could be made more consistent with past positions adopted by the Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you.

Dear colleagues, religions are founded on tolerance, compassion and respect for human dignity. They make an invaluable contribution to promoting respect and mutual understanding between peoples, and strengthening solidarity between individuals and communities, as well as reinforcing social cohesion. Most importantly, they play a vital role in promoting the fundamental values on which our societies are based – values that create the environment in which intercultural dialogue can flourish.

We are therefore deeply honoured by the presence among us today of five religious personalities, whose great contribution to promoting intercultural dialogue is well known. Your Beatitude Patriarch Daniel, your background is truly multicultural, as you studied theology in Romania, in France – in Strasbourg itself 30 years ago – and in Germany. That multicultural experience will make your contribution to our discussion most interesting.

Your Eminence Cardinal Tauran, you represent the Holy See in many different countries throughout the world as well as in international organisations. We greatly value your knowledge of diversity and your diplomatic experience of consensus building.

Chief Rabbi Lazar, you took up the position of Rabbi in Russia in 1990, when the country was undergoing enormous transformation from religious nihilism and communist authoritarian rule to a modern and diverse society based on non-discrimination and mutual respect. I am sure that your thoughts and ideas, based on your personal experience, will greatly enrich our debate.

Professor Görmez, you represent the religious authorities of Turkey, the European country with the most Muslim communities. In that country, Muslim traditions co-exist with many other religious identities, so your experience of managing diversity will be most interesting to Assembly members.

Dr Felmberg, you are not only a religious personality, but a great diplomat, representing the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany at the European Union. I am sure that your contribution will help us learn from the best practices of interaction between religious communities in the Europe of 27 so that we can replicate them in a wider Europe of 47 member states.

I now give the floor to our honoured guests so that they can share their thoughts and ideas with us about the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue as well as the report that we are currently debating. I now welcome His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania and invite him to make a statement.

HIS BEATITUDE PATRIARCH DANIEL OF ROMANIA recalled that after the election of the President, religious dialogue had been put at the heart of the Assembly’s work. This morning’s debate, with five religious leaders present, had been organised to express views on and better understand European religious traditions. Welcoming the work of the Council of Europe on intercultural dialogue, he stressed that the religious dimension was the deepest part of this. The efforts of the Council of Europe to promote common reflexion on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue in Europe were worthy of attention and praise. The Council of Europe recognised that religious diversity had become a source of tension and division, which threatened to undermine social cohesion. It was imperative to develop dialogue and co-operation between various communities, both religious and non-religious.

The Committee on Culture, Science and Education had noted in its report the role of democracy and human rights. The draft recommendation emphasised that the teaching of religion should be an opportunity for understanding and fostering intercultural dialogue. Europe was becoming more aware of its origins and of what had not hitherto been taken properly into account: the religious dimension of culture. Politicians had often focused on cultural, social and even military problems. But recently, there had been religious tensions between communities of a worrying intensity and extent. Dramatic events, such as violence against Christians in Iraq and Iran and the burning of the Koran, meant that political leaders had to think about these issues and act to prevent further incidences. These events made it more urgent to find a solution to the problems created by the massive immigration to Europe of people with different cultures and religions, which had weakened social cohesion in many countries. How could foreigners assimilate into a society, whilst preserving their identity? How could one avoid undermining a national identity? It was essential to develop a culture of co-existence. Education was important in both schools and religious communities. School education was no longer sufficient. The experiences of a million Romanians in Italy and the same number in Spain were encouraging, with religious education in many parishes fostering an ecumenical spirit of openness to the majority Catholic culture.

Countries where religions co-existed had a rich experience and had learnt how to avoid conflict. The Orthodox Patriarchs of the Middle East, Constantinople, Russia and other countries had taken the initiative to promote interreligious dialogue and to give examples of co-existence. The contribution of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was particularly noteworthy. However, dialogue should be complemented by education in schools and liturgical communities. This dialogue should not be guided by external directors but based on a common set of ideals. On 14 April, a meeting would take place in Bucharest of the 18 religious denominations present in Romania. The point of the meeting was not just to avoid conflict, but to encourage co-operation and dialogue. Romanian Orthodox seminaries had long taught the value of an ecumenical approach: it was possible to teach the history of other religions without losing one’s own identity.

It was necessary to learn to cope with new social problems, such as the crisis of the family. Religious freedom should be at the heart of social responsibility. It was not enough to assert the dignity of the human being. The human being must be defended in the fields of human rights, democracy, law and freedom of expression. It was important to have strong convictions and to cultivate strong personalities, similar to the founding fathers of Europe. Values in today’s secular society centred on this life and on the material. Religious values focused on the relationship between man and God. Culture should promote the link between man and his creator. Religious culture was often the source of national culture and shaped it. Without the land, water, air and light created by God, people could not exist. Every ecological, economic and social crisis called us to rethink our relationship with God, the world and nature. Churches, states and international organisations increasingly had a common responsibility for human life and the protection of nature. Our true spiritual freedom was shown by the intensity of our charity towards others.

He proposed five ideas for the promotion of intercultural and interreligious dialogue.

First, the religious dimension of cultural dialogue was fundamental for Europe, because religion was at the heart of European identity. Each major crisis in Europe had been a crisis of spiritual, rather than cultural, identity. Communism had claimed to be the most progressive system of government, based on science. However, it was not until its fall that the people subject to communism had been freed.

Second, the values of the Council of Europe, including human rights, democracy and the rule of law, were derived from Judaeo-Christian values but had subsequently become separated from their religious roots, to be seen as universal. In order for these values to be cultivated in society, they should be reconnected with their spiritual context.

Third, education played an important role in fostering an openness towards other religions while, at the same time, retaining cultural identity. Families, schools, religious communities and the media could make important contributions, particularly if the state facilitated intercultural and interreligious dialogue.

Fourth, such interreligious and intercultural dialogue could not be imposed but should be viewed as wisdom offered to people, a state of mind based on mutual respect.

Fifth and finally, states and religious leaders should work together to ensure the common good. Strong links between people, based on spirituality, could promote a new culture of co-existence.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Your Beatitude, for your most interesting address. I now welcome His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue at the Vatican, to make a statement.

HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL JEAN-LOUIS TAURAN (President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican) said that Jesus taken on all the dimensions of the human being, including the cultural dimension. The Second Vatican Council had defined culture as all the means by which man animated and developed the many potentials of his mind and body, as the manner by which family and social life were made human, and communicated the spiritual experiences and aspirations which served the progress of mankind.

Religion was a means by which all the great questions of mankind could be addressed. Pope John Paul II had said that, in the past, definitions of mankind had referred to reason, freedom or language. However, recent scholarly progress suggested that an equally valid definition could be constructed by referring to culture, which defined humankind just as much as reason, freedom or language. On a visit to UNESCO in 1980 the Pope had ended his speech by saying “Man’s future depends on culture!”.

It was difficult to transmit values, but the tasks of Christian faith were now clearer than ever: not to tell people what to do, but to remind them that they were the guardians of the world’s material and moral resources and of their duty to safeguard these resources for all the people of the world and for future generations.

People should not be deprived of the things which gave life meaning and the Church had a duty to give comfort on issues such as abortion, euthanasia and over-sexualisation. Christians should be ready to bear witness to what made them different.

Legislators and teachers had to be aware of the need to respect humankind in their search for truth. Freedom and truth were paramount. The young had to have equal access to information both about their own religions and about other religions in order to promote interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The whole of mankind might benefit if the best of the traditions of all religions were freely shared.

The roots of the Council of Europe were Christian: the influence of Jewish, Arab and Enlightenment culture should not be underestimated, but Christianity had created many European institutions, such as the school, the university and the hospital. The humanism which sprang from a Christian faith highlighted the need to prioritise ethics over the ideology of the moment. In Europe, no religion could hope to hold sway through force. Religion was now not only inherited, but also chosen. Interreligious dialogue was strong in Europe because of its culture of co-existence and Strasbourg was both crucible and symbol of this. The Council of Europe should continue to defend freedom of religion and denounce all forms of persecution and discrimination, both in Europe and in the wider world. Mankind could work together within the framework of interreligious dialogue to ensure that the name of God would never again be invoked to justify violence. Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope, had once said that it was not for the Church to be a state or a part of the state, but rather a community based on conviction. The Church should look to the value of freedom to ensure a moral continuity and to underpin the values without which common humanity was not possible.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Your Eminence, for your most interesting address.

I now welcome Professor Mehmet Görmez, Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, to make a statement.

Professor GÖRMEZ (Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey) – Dear President, Excellencies, honourable spiritual leaders, distinguished members, ladies and gentlemen, I greet you with my deepest regards. It is a special honour for me to be here with you all and to be given the opportunity to be part of this ongoing sharing of intercultural dialogue, which we all need for a more peaceful future.

I would like to begin by thanking God Almighty, who blessed us as human beings, guided us towards a life to be shared in justice and compassion and gave us the ability to live together in peace. It is he who taught us peace and brotherhood, justice and honesty, patience, courage and forgiveness. Praise be upon all prophets, including Adam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and our prophet Mohammed, from whom we inherited the ultimate values of compassion, love, justice, law and order. We learned from them all that the path of these teachers of wisdom is common to the depth of all our cultures and religions.

Dear friends, as you all know, in acknowledging the contribution of religions and religious institutions to intercultural dialogue and to the enhancement of multiculturalism, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has produced the White Paper, “Living together as equals in dignity”. Now, we have a report on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue. Please allow me to share with you my happiness and my hope that, in response to the report, the exchange of opinions by five religious traditions will considerably contribute to the future of not only Europe but the whole world.

I also find it meaningful that the report has been produced at exactly the time when a number of European politicians are competing with each other to declare that multiculturalism has failed. It should be remembered that the problems that the European Union faces, as well as the challenges that jeopardise cultural diversity, cannot necessarily be attributed to religions themselves. The inability of politics to go beyond its own limits cannot be overlooked. If and when politicians are ready to engage in dialogue with religions and religious institutions, they will then be in a position to contribute to society as well as to politics.

The crisis that humanity is facing is not only an economic, social, political and cultural one but a comprehensive metaphysical and spiritual crisis. The lack of knowledge about religions and the misuse and abuse of religious ideals also play a role in blocking recognition of the crisis. Let us remember that religion is a phenomenon that speaks directly to the consciousness of the individual and prepares him or her to be sincere, fair, compassionate and altruistic towards others. It is through that preparation that religion shapes every soul for a culturally diverse life.

Although religions may differ in their approach to cultural diversity, their capacity to contribute to our social life is significant in many ways. Islam places cultural and religious diversity at the centre of its jurisprudential and moral world view. It does not attribute religious authority either to individuals or to institutions, but leaves it to the free choice of community and normative values of knowledge. That was the background of the diversity and openness built by Islam in history, and it can still guide us in our contemporary efforts to achieve intercultural living.

Divine teachings, from those of Adam to those of Mohammed – peace be upon them – are nothing other than a call to the ultimate meaningfulness of life, which is the opposite of nihilism, fatalism and pessimism. They are nothing other than a call for humility against arrogance towards God, for humanity, justice and fairness against exploitation and oppression, for living together in dignity against discrimination and inequities, for sharing and not wasting against consumptionism and extravagance, and for family-centred life against promiscuity. That is the core message of the Ten Commandments of Moses, the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus, and the Farewell Sermon by Mohammed – peace be upon them all. They all preached the same message over and over again.

“Living together as equals in dignity” has been the fundamental message of Islam, and it has been practised by Muslims for centuries. Thanks to that, Islamic civilisation has produced societies that have been so multi-ethnic, multicultural and multireligious for centuries that no other nations have shown any sign of such a capacity for diversity. However, it is questionable whether Muslims today remember that honourable history well enough to introduce the same vision of diversity into their contemporary life in the face of the confusions imposed by modernity.

If we are able to speak of a common European cultural heritage – as mentioned in many documents from the European Union and the Council of Europe – we should also be able to acknowledge the significant contribution of Islam to that heritage. One way of acknowledging its contribution is to free ourselves from the Eurocentric view of history which ignores the place of Islam in Europe, jumping from ancient Greece to the Middle Ages and then to the new Age of Enlightenment.

In hoping to benefit from the rich experience of religions for the purpose of intercultural dialogue, we should remember that a vision of a multicultural society will not be made reality by external interventions to reshape and redefine religious systems. On the contrary, individuals and groups who experience “otherisation” should be freely allowed to improve and express themselves within their own traditional dynamics. There will be no other way of determining our common future and active participation in society.

When we consider the ways in which Islam and religions in general are portrayed, we should ask the following questions. Who, with a sincere heart and a sober mind, can consent to the mocking and caricaturing of his or her religion? Is it possible to save ourselves simply by condemning those who legitimise every means of “fighting for religion”? Are those who allow religion to be used and abused to legitimise exploitation, discrimination and conflict less guilty of provoking belittling, hatred and cultural terror?

It is the intellectual and moral duty of religious leaders, scholars and decision makers not to sacrifice Europe’s civilised and cultural richness for the sake of hegemonic discourse. We must continue our mission to enhance our societies’ ability to achieve a better way of living together. With that hope, I pray to God to bless us with a bright future for living together as equals in dignity, and wish you all the best of success in your efforts to promote our highest common values.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Professor Görmez, for your most interesting address.

I now welcome Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia, to make a statement.

CHIEF RABBI BEREL LAZAR (Chief Rabbi of Russia) – Thank you, Mr President, for inviting us and giving us an opportunity to share our ideas about the situation in Europe, about the problems in Europe, and about how religious leaders may be able to contribute to a solution to those problems. I think that you, Mr President, understand better than many that a united Europe requires not just a political arena and an economic relationship, but a cultural and religious understanding. Only when we have that understanding can we have a truly united Europe in which people live in harmony and peace.

It has been said many times that multiculturalism has failed in Europe. I myself have lived in Europe all my life, and I say that if multiculturalism has failed, Europe has failed. The beauty of Europe, and the foundations of Europe, have always been mutual understanding and open dialogue, notwithstanding all the differences between the languages, cultures and traditions of all the countries and all the people. I commend Secretary General Jagland for sending the message to the whole of Europe yesterday that we must find ways of coming together and finding understanding. We are all in the same boat, and if someone digs a small hole in that boat, sadly it will sink.

Everyone is now pointing fingers. Who is to blame for these problems? Some say that religious extremism is the source and the root of violence; others say that the blame lies with the xenophobic forces that are not giving freedom of religion to others. There was a great deal of frustration yesterday following the banning of a Muslim woman from wearing a full-face veil here in France. That produced a lot of tension. The question is, what is the right solution? Some people say “You must give us freedom of religion. How can you force us to live against our beliefs?” Others say “We must live in liberty and equality and respect each other.”

That reminds me of a story. A young couple visited a rabbi. First the husband ranted, saying that his wife had done this and done that. He said, “I cannot go on like this: it is terrible.” The rabbi said, “Do you know what? You are right.” Then the wife took the floor and said, “Do you know what my husband has been doing?” She went on and on and on. The rabbi looked at her and said “Do you know what? You are right.” The rabbi’s wife, who was standing near him, asked, “Dear husband, how can he be right and she be right as well?” The rabbi said, “Do you know what? You are also right.”

I have bad and good news for all of us. This news comes from the Talmud. Two thousand years ago, the Talmud made an interesting statement the truth of which many of us may not realise: there are not two people in the world who look alike, whose voices are similar, and who think alike. No two people anywhere in the world can we say are exactly the same. At the same time, all animals and all creatures were created in multiple numbers. The only creature that was created as one was Adam, the first man, and eventually his wife, the first woman. The world at that time was very big, as it is today, and there were two people in the whole world. Why did God not create many people? The answer is very simple, the Rabbis tell us. It is to teach each one of us that no one can stand up and say, “My grandfather and my grandmother were better than yours.” That is an important lesson for all of us. As much as we see our differences and as much as we see the things on which we do not get along sometimes, we are all part of the same family. We all come from the same people. There must be things on which we can find an understanding and a common language.

We speak about the Council of Europe and about the importance of bringing peace to the world, but if we were all the same and agreed about everything, we would not need to bring peace to the world and we would not need the Council of Europe. Everybody would live in harmony, and it would be a very monotonous life. Our whole being, the raison d’être of all of us, is to bring peace notwithstanding those differences and opposite opinions. We are different, and sometimes we are divided, but we live in one continent, one Europe, and we have to find ways to understand each other.

As much as I meet people, I always hear two schools of thought. Some people say, “You know what? I believe that the way I live is the truth and if people want to come to my country, if immigrants come in, they must accept my truth and my rules. They cannot come and live in my country and do whatever they want.” The truth is that this ideology brought this continent the Holocaust. Tens of millions of people were killed because people did not respect each other and did not understand that you could have people living in the same house with different opinions. Then there is a second school of though that says, “You know what? Live and let live. I am going to live my life and he is going to live his life. Why do I care what he does? Maybe he is my neighbour but I do not need to know what he does and what he believes. Let him do whatever he wants and I will do whatever I want.” Both views are dangerous, and we all understand why. There must be a golden thread, a solution for all of us, where we understand each other, help each other and convince each other to live a better life.

If you look in the Torah or the Bible, there are two interesting points. Our teachers tell us that proselytising and convincing others to join your religion is not always the best thing. Everybody has his own prayers to God and there are many rivers all coming to the sea. Everybody contributes what he has to give. If God wanted everybody to believe in one way, he would have created us all the same. God wanted the differences, but at the same time, interestingly enough, Maimonides says that when God gave the Torah to the Jewish people, he told us that we have a responsibility to spread the message of the seven Noachide Laws – the laws that were given to Adam, to his children, to Abraham and to our fathers, to all people in the world. We cannot sit and say, “I am going to take care only of my congregation, only of my people.” If I really care for this world that God created, I have a responsibility to tell others about values and morals, and to make sure that everybody stands together and understands that that is the only way that we can co-exist and survive.

How can we come together? It is beautiful that today, all the religious leaders are here in harmony, but I would say that that is not enough. We respect each other, we love each other, and we have to work together and do something together. What can we do? I had the honour to have a special teacher, who was actually born 110 years ago this Friday – Friday will be his birthday. Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Schneerson. I once heard him give an excellent idea, and I cannot figure out why the world is not grabbing this idea and making it into something that will help us understand each other. He suggested starting from early childhood, with little children. Convincing somebody of 20 or 30 years old to change his mind is very hard. We should start from education, but how are we going to educate? Everyone says, “Educate in this way.” But he said, “You know what? Start every single day and every single class in every single school with a moment of silence.”

We stood together earlier in honour of the victims of the terrorist attack, and we were probably all thinking about great ideas. There were no differences. We were all together, thinking of our responsibilities towards our brothers, towards God, and to make the world a better place. If each and every child started his day with a moment of silence he could believe what he or his parents believed, but he would understand that he had a responsibility to his fellow beings and a responsibility not only to learn and to become greater but to make the world a better place. I believe that that is feasible – I have seen it in Russia.

The President mentioned, when we started 20 years ago and when, thank God, things came out of the closet and we were able to celebrate our religion in Russia, that at the beginning there was a lot of mistrust. Today there is a full understanding between religious leaders in Russia. Surprisingly, anti-Semitism in Russia is at its lowest ever. How did that happen? I have three points, and I will end with them. The first is co-operation between religious leaders. We need constantly to discuss ideas and think how we can help each other and how we can send a message together to young people about the mutual values that we all share.

Secondly, very often governments feel that they should not mix into religious affairs. I personally think that that is a mistake. I think they have to interfere to make sure that no religious denomination will bring ideas of violence or extremism to the people. That is their responsibility. I must say that in Russia, those ideas are slowly leading to a better understanding and mutual co-operation between religious leaders and the government.

Thirdly, and I think most importantly, religious communities in Russia are opening up to the people. Our temples, churches, synagogues and mosques are open to everyone – “Come in and find out what we believe.” As long as we preach one idea in the synagogue and another one on television, it is not going to work. We have to show that what we believe is open to everyone and that our speeches, our ideology and our ideas are for everyone to share. Only then can we hope for a better future, a more united Europe and a place where everybody will live in unity, harmony and love.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Chief Rabbi Lazar, for your very interesting address.

I now welcome Prelate Bernhard Felmberg, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union, to make a statement.

PRELATE BERNHARD FELMBERG (Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union) – Mr President, distinguished members, my brethren in faith, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to address you today, to which I respond gladly. Religion was and is a golden thread in the fibre of our societies. It makes its impact felt, mostly for good, occasionally for bad. It is our common duty, as political office holders and men and women of the faith, to work together to strengthen the former and prevent the latter.

As European societies, under the influences of European integration, globalisation and a resulting increase in migration, become more pluralist in their outlook, permanent encounters between different religions have become the rule, yet they still have an aura of the unusual, sometimes even of the exotic.

To put it bluntly, that is the case with some religions more than with others. The more a religion is connected to foreign cultures, the less easy dialogue becomes. Thus, there is not only a religious dimension to intercultural dialogue, but a cultural dimension to interreligious dialogue. That must not be forgotten. In both cases, the matters at stake are complex. There are four main aspects, which I want to address today.

First, as Ms Brasseur pointed out, religion is only one aspect of our personality, but it can be dominant and forceful. Secondly, Europe is shaped not only by religious plurality, but by a diversity of legal systems concerning religion. Thirdly, the life of Churches and religious communities depends on the guarantee of the fundamental right to freedom of religion, not only in its individual, but in its collective and co-operative missions. Fourthly, Churches and religious communities have valuable contributions to make to society at large through their social and societal engagement and through fostering mutual understanding.

Let me deal with religious identity. Religion is only one aspect of our identity. I am not only a Protestant, I am also German, European and a fan of my football club. Personalities are multilayered and multifaceted. In Berlin, where I come from, we used to talk about “the Turks”, referring to our largest ethnic minority. After 9/11, we started to talk about “the Muslims” instead. I urge us all to be more careful in picking out single aspects of identity and asking whether they have any relevance to the issue in question. Discrimination is largely based on our failure to distinguish if and when an attribute is relevant, so my plea is to talk about religion when religion is at stake, but not to reduce all matters of migration and integration to religious questions. Instead, we should look at the person.

I now want to deal with religious plurality. In the Council of Europe and the European Union, we tend to look for common ground – things that unite rather than divide us. That is understandable, but it must not happen at the expense of individuality and plurality. “United in diversity” is the leitmotif of European integration. It is our strength. That thesis applies especially to religion and the legal systems governing relations between religion and the state. In principle, that is not only accepted, but positively recognised by the EU and European law. Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union endorses “Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity” in Europe. Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union respects national competencies in those matters. Recently, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights revised a decision about the display of religious symbols – in this case a cross – in public schools in Italy. That stresses the broad margin of appreciation that signatory states have in such matters. Speaking as a German Protestant, I emphasise that we fully endorse that judgment. It may appear to protect a majority culture and a denomination that is not ours. However, I would rather live in a society that is open to religion than in a culture of mistrust, in which the religious is banned from the public sphere. In Italy, pupils are allowed to wear the Muslim headscarf and the Jewish kippah. Protestants can build churches and openly and publicly confess their faith. The fact that the majority religion is more visible than other smaller groups is, in itself, not discrimination.

The state must take account of social realities. Religion is a part of that reality and so is plurality. We need to balance the rights of majorities and minorities in the light of those realities. While majorities will be more visible, minorities should have the chance to be seen and heard as well.

I would now like to speak about religious freedom. Freedom of religion is the human right par excellence. Long before people fought for political freedoms, they fought for their right to believe or not to believe. They did that because religion is so close to the very core of human existence – the interpretation of the world, its origin and destiny; making sense of our very being, or living and dying, suffering and hoping; accepting duties and responsibilities that transcend simple self-interest; and concepts such as love and mercy. It is the state’s most noble duty to protect that right. Over centuries, the state perceived its role as choosing one religion and then protecting it. However, to choose one always means to exclude others. That may seem the easiest way, but the easiest is not always the best. The state’s duty is towards religion, not a religion. As I said in relation to the recent Grand Chamber judgment, the state does not need to be blind to religion and social realities. The state cannot ignore a force so strong and fundamental without ignoring a key element of human life. Therefore, the state must have a positive attitude to religion, but remain neutral towards religions. That is also in the state’s self-interest. Engaging with religion promotes what is good, peaceful and beneficial in them.

Let me consider the valuable contributions of religions. They have a contribution to make – a double input. They contribute through their social and societal engagement and through fostering mutual understanding. The level of dialogue and co-operation offered by the state, with some deplorable exceptions, in all European states shows that there are expectations. Can we meet them? Yes we can.

In my Church, we speak about the public mission of the Church. In the Hebrew Bible in Jeremiah 29:7, the people of God are called to “seek the peace and prosperity of the city” even in exile. How much more then should that apply in a free society of which we are an integral part? We are convinced that we cannot engage in social work, care for the poor and needy, the orphan and the widow, the stranger and the exiled without also working on conditions that make or break poverty and exclusion, injustice and discrimination. For a true dialogue the state needs to be an open partner.

Article 17, to which I have already referred, also established an open, regular and transparent dialogue between the EU and the Churches, between religious and non-confessional communities. According to Article 17, the dialogue, like any other dialogue with public authorities, is one of religions, rather than one that is between religions. To organise interreligious dialogue is not the task of religions alone. The common dialogue with public bodies offers a field for exchange and co-operation.

In fact, dialogue forums have become many and diverse. Taking high-level interreligious dialogue alone, we have meetings between religious leaders and EU presidents, the religious leaders’ meeting at the G8 level, and the Parliament of the World’s Religions, and we also engage in the UN Alliance of Civilizations. In order for these dialogues to deliver, we must concentrate our forces rather than broadening the variety of forms and platforms.

Religion has a deservedly central place in society. My own Church is one of Europe’s biggest, with a registered membership of 25 million Protestants and about 500 000 employees, mostly in the welfare sector. The Church spends €800 million from Church taxes alone on its welfare work. If we add gift aid and other donations from our members, the figure is more than €1 billion. We run more than 1 000 schools and provide more than 600 000 places in day-care institutions for children, young people, the elderly and the sick.

Most of our social work addresses those in need, irrespective of their religions. However, some of it, by its very nature, especially addresses people of other religious backgrounds, through integration projects, asylum counselling and advocacy for refugee rights. In some areas of my native city of Berlin, we even go so far as to employ Muslims to work for a Christian Church, in order to help us deal better with those whom we are there to help. As global players, our development agencies run thousands of projects abroad, taking a partner-based approach and strengthening civil society around the world.

If I have been speaking about my own Church, it is because my knowledge of it is best. However, the Catholic contribution is the same in numbers, and the Jewish community also contributes – if not in the same numbers, then in the same spirit. Our invitation is to the other religious groups, especially the Muslim communities, to set up structures that enable them to make their contribution to society and their role in it more visible. How we, the official representatives, encounter each other here – and, even more so, back home – has an impact on how our people deal with pluralism and diversity. Tolerance and respect need to shape our relations on all levels. Every year in Germany, for instance, the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Churches organise an intercultural week, supported by the trade unions, city councils, migrants’ organisations and other civil society actors. This is just one example of what is possible when we join forces and work together.

Easy as it sounds, the way of co-operation is a stony one. Different religions endorse different concepts of society and the place of the individual within it. I have already pointed out that there is not only a religious dimension to intercultural dialogue, but a cultural dimension to interreligious co-operation. Dialogue, even in the most basic sense, depends on the possibility of meaningful exchange. If clergy and representatives do not speak the language of the land, or if they speak it only with difficulty, this is a problem. Dialogue is the way, but the preconditions for dialogue have to be established on both sides.

Let me sum up. Religions are an integral part of individual and collective identity. The state needs to protect freedom of religion, so that any religion can be freely exercised. In most cases, this will include a positive contribution towards society at large, through both voluntary engagement and dialogue. I invite you, as representatives of the political sphere, to accept this contribution and help make it work.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Prelate Felmberg, for your interesting address.

I remind delegates that the vote is in progress to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland. The poll will be open until 1 p.m., and will then be open from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Those who have not yet voted may still do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

In the debate, I call first Mr Leigh on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

Mr LEIGH (United Kingdom) – I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say what an inspiring session we have had so far. It truly reminds us of the value of religion. I am sure that none of us could disagree with anything that we have heard. Indeed, I am sure that there is nothing in the report that any of us could disagree with, and that leads me to the theme of my remarks. I believe that the problem in Europe today is not diversity of religion, the strongly held views of people of various religions, or arguments between them; it is indifference from a great part of the European population.

There is another problem too, which one can perhaps detect in the non-controversial language of this report. Let me make one thing absolutely clear: any kind of hate speech against any religion must always be completely wrong. However, my strong argument might be somebody else’s insult. We in Europe must guard against the chilling effect of political correctness and the desire never to offend anybody.

In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act 1986 was initially designed to deal with football hooliganism. It is illegal to use threatening or abusive behaviour, which we all know is wrong; however, it is also illegal to use insulting behaviour. We had one case where somebody made disobliging remarks about Mohammed and Muslim dress during a theological dispute at the breakfast table in a bed and breakfast house, and they were prosecuted. The case was finally thrown out, but they lost their business. Another Christian preacher quoted the Bible on homosexuality – that is not something that I personally would do – and he was also prosecuted. We had another case where somebody who said that Scientology was a dangerous cult was prosecuted because they were said to have used insulting language.

I support what Patriarch Daniel said this morning: freedom is a gift of God. I am a Catholic, and I maintain that Christianity lies at the height and the heart of European culture. However, like Voltaire, we must defend the right of people with whom we do not agree to speak out – the right of comedians to poke fun at religion and the right of humanists to question whether religion is right at all. Is not the central idea of Europe this: first, freedom; secondly, freedom; and thirdly, freedom? If we can conduct ourselves in that way, this debate will have achieved something.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Memecan to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

Ms MEMECAN (Turkey) – I congratulate the rapporteur on taking such a positive approach and, in particular, on emphasising humility in her introductory speech. Human beings from all walks of life have been trying to learn to live together for ages. As she rightly pointed out, having developed many civilisations, we still urgently need to create a new culture of living together. Obviously, we have not managed to learn to live together. People continue to be the victims of abuse based on differences. We should use every opportunity to prevent people from falling into this trap. Abusers use religious beliefs and sacred values to create chaos and unrest. Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia are recent examples of such provocations.

This report alerts us to the danger of falling into those traps and urges us to consider living in peace through mutual respect. Positive and constructive statements by religious leaders are vital in eliminating the seeds of hatred among people and in urging them to understand and respect each other. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the religious dignitaries who participated in our session for their inspiring speeches.

Religious faith, other faith or non-faith-based establishments unite people. Belonging is a comforting feeling for many people. People find peace in their faith and in the religion they adhere to. The variety of religions also points to a variety of differences among different groups of people. Differences are the basis for defining the other. People have a tendency to fear the other, but our differences make our environment vibrant, dynamic and productive. We should not try to eliminate our differences or to impose our understanding on others. Universal human rights should be the guidelines. We have to learn to enjoy and respect our differences and the other. Therefore, the most important value we need to instil is a respect for difference, pluralism and diversity, especially in our children. Unity in diversity should always be kept alive and embraced by everyone. We should share experiences of good models of pluralist teaching and promote programmes of exchange, especially among young people, as the rapporteur very rightly recommends. With the new demographic scene in Europe and as the whole world in fact becomes closer we need mutual respect more than ever to live good lives.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Memecan. I call Mr Petrenco, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr PETRENCO (Moldova) said that the issue of interreligious dialogue was important and it was necessary to discover new ways for diverse cultures to co-exist. Europe was, by definition, multicultural, multifaith and multilingual and, therefore, to question the principle of multiculturalism was to strike at the heart of European culture. However, some powerful leaders within Europe were claiming that the multicultural model of society had failed. This was a step backwards. Multiculturalism was a given in contemporary Europe, although it was true that current social models had failed to provide the necessary conditions for social integration, mutual respect and understanding. European states were secular by nature and yet Churches had tried to intervene in various ways, for example, by supporting particular political parties or by demanding compulsory religious education in schools. This had resulted in conflict and was counterproductive. People should work together within a framework of mutual respect and, whilst there must be freedom of religion, religious leaders should also work together.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Petrenco. I call Mr Santini, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

Mr SANTINI (Italy) said that “unity and diversity” was a popular slogan in Europe. It meant that the people of Europe could live in peace and harmony, despite their differences and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights underpinned this. If the notion of respect were added to this formula, a miracle happened: respect in diversity. However, this was only possible if mutual respect were highlighted within a framework of multiculturalism. The latter was often referred to as heightening rather than resolving differences, but interreligious dialogue was a means of promoting peaceful co-existence between people. The different religions should learn to co-exist with and show tolerance towards each other.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Santini. I call Mr Connarty, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – Mr President, respected representatives of religions here today, members of the Parliamentary Assembly, first I am pleased to be able to praise Ms Anne Brasseur for her perceptive and balanced report. I also commend the chairmanship of Mr Flego, who created a forum for debate to produce that report. I compliment Mr Toshev on his sincere contribution to the debate.

We have heard today how those of faith define their calling in a modern society and about their strategies for approaching intercultural dialogue. I, as a non-religious humanist, recognise my morals and my ethics in those contributions: mutual respect, mutual support, defence of rights, the ability to disagree but, always, respect and co-operation. So if we are all agreed, why do we need this report? I urge people please to read it and to use it. It does not just analyse, it recommends action. For example, paragraph 12 of the full report admits that the dark clouds of bigotry and religious prejudice sweep across our lands from time to time.

Many parts of our world have been blanketed by those dark clouds for centuries, as indeed all European lands were in centuries past. Paragraph 13 gives examples of confession-based violence – which, sadly, I see even today in my own homeland of Scotland – and killings that mix politics and religion. I want to add to that list the killing on Sunday by Hamas of the actor and producer Juliano Mer-Khamis, whom I had the pleasure of knowing. He said that he was 100% Israeli through his mother and 100% Palestinian through his father. He was killed for running the Freedom Theatre in Jenin in Palestine.

The report recognises that our common values are the beacons of light that have led Europe out of the darkness of bigotry and prejudice. The recommendations call for states and religious and non-religious organisations to become more active in this intercultural dialogue. Recommendation 8 speaks of “developing a new culture of living together”, but when a pastor stoops to burning the holy book of another religion, and others kill in retaliation, we still have much to do. Let us redouble our efforts and, using this report, raise the volume of the voices of reason.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Connarty. I call Mr Mignon.

Mr MIGNON (France) said that he commended the initiative of the President in organising the debate. In a century in which materialism appeared paramount, the resurgence of the importance of religion was based on a search for identity, since democracy appeared not to embody all that people were searching for. The rapporteur had not developed the concept of secularism. Neutrality and secularism, in the sense of the separation of Church and state, were important. Diversity in religious expression should be encouraged through the promotion of mutual respect. The Council of Europe was well placed to promote interreligious dialogue because it was based on democratic values. Teaching of religion in schools should address religious diversity in order to enhance mutual respect and provide the means by which people with different beliefs could live in harmony and tolerate each other. Religious diversity was not a threat but a source of richness.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Mignon. I call Ms Girardin.

Ms GIRARDIN (France) said that religion was useful in democratic society, and that religious education was necessary to enhance mutual respect and understanding. The cult of the individual was widespread in contemporary society and communities had been weakened as a result. A liberal approach, under which public identity was characterised by citizen participation in the social space whilst maintaining a respect for others, could be a remedy for this problem. A liberal democracy could assure the rights of minorities without endangering social cohesion. This liberal approach was being promoted by the Council of Europe. However, it had to be noted that Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights did not give an absolute right to expression of religion as this had to be tempered by respect for believers and non-believers alike. Sectarianism should be resisted wherever it was found.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Girardin. I call Mr Lipiński.

Mr LIPIŃSKI (Poland) said that Europe was extraordinarily diverse, even though it had been based for the last 2 000 years on the Judaeo-Christian model. The maxim “Do unto others as you would have done to you” was widespread and well known, even to those who did not hail from this religious tradition. It was not surprising that interreligious dialogue had become more widespread: Pope John Paul II had been in favour of it and so was his successor.

The report emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and belief, which could be summarised as the right to exhibit religion either privately or publicly with others. While the Council of Europe should protect the rights of the weakest against intolerance, this should not become oppressive for the majority. On 21 January, the committee had affirmed that no democratic society could exist without freedom of thought and religion. He himself was convinced that others shared that view and that this could contribute to the ideal Europe.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Lipiński. I now call Mr Badré.

Mr BADRÉ (France) said that he believed that religion was one of the basic elements of cultural diversity that should be protected. Some argued that the separation of Church and state was democracy. Religious practice could not be in conflict with democratic society: these values gave society a human dimension. The rapporteur had rightly stressed the principle of universality. Intellectual curiosity had to be awakened at an early stage and so education should not ignore religion, but teaching of religion had to be neutral. Genuine intercultural dialogue was needed to contribute to a better understanding between believers of different faiths and to assist in decisions and overcome divisions.

(Mr Vera Jardim, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Çavuşoğlu.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Mr Badré. I call Ms Boldi.

Ms BOLDI (Italy) said that these were vexed issues, particularly in Europe where immigration had contributed to the importance of tackling them. Some had sought recourse to the courts, for example in Italy over the issue of displaying crucifixes in public places. Societies in Europe were largely secular but had not been spared this problem as a result. Secularism should promote shared ethical principles. But religion was a fundamental component of identity, and states should account for this in social policy. The interface between Islam and European legislation and politics was complex and could not be ignored. In Islam the relationship with the law was seen as an obligation to God, which made a difference on a practical level. This was more than an interreligious dialogue, it was a dialogue between individuals with faith in their own convictions. A common platform was needed, based on respect for life. Prominent figures in religious communities should play their part. Teacher training and other efforts could also help to lay the foundations.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Boldi. I call Ms Durrieu.

Ms DURRIEU (France) said that there were many questions and no little collective anguish. These topics had been debated in France for some time: for example the issues of whether Islam was a threat and of relations with other religions. There were questions to be asked about whether a common denominator could be found to enable people to live together. This was not only a question of religion, but of freedom of expression of religion. This was something that could be guaranteed. There was also the issue of culture and respect for human rights. Historically, human rights and religion had not always been compatible: they were if states were secular but not if religion ran contrary to this, for example sanctioning the stoning or circumcision of women. Human rights should be enshrined in religious law. Secular society had its own ideal of free individuals whose dignity and citizenship was protected. There was much work still to be done.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Marland-Militello.

Ms MARLAND-MILITELLO (France) said that she supported the recommendation to establish a platform for dialogue between the Council of Europe and religious and non-religious figures. Work could be done between different religious representatives and to bring believers and non-believers together. France’s first principle was freedom to believe or not to believe: French secularism meant non-interference and the mutual rubbing of shoulders. It was right for faiths to co-exist and to respect one another. Her own family were Armenian and had fled certain death in times of ethnic and religious violence, but the voice of humanity had shone through. In times of war, people should transcend fanaticism. The Council of Europe was best placed to encourage dialogue and promote humanity and the spirit of fraternity between religions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Slutsky.

Mr SLUTSKY (Russian Federation) said that Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar had said something to unify everybody when he had stressed the need to achieve peace despite differences. Over the last few decades, there had been changes to the social and cultural landscape, heightened more recently by the effects of migration and events in the Middle East and Libya. One issue often cited as a problem with multicultural society was a lack of dialogue with the diaspora, including the religious diaspora. The Assembly could not be bystanders and had to make proposals for overcoming these problems. The suggestion of a platform for dialogue between the Council of Europe and religious and non-religious figures was an excellent one. This was totally new and would look at all facets of society. It would be very democratic and would focus on the experience gained by the 47 member states in order to identity and disseminate best practice. Positive experiences should be drawn on, such as the multi-ethnic and cultural initiatives in Russia to promote social peace and consensus. Peacekeeping missions were also important.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Rochebloine.

Mr ROCHEBLOINE (France) said that he was dubious about the sub-category of dialogue among cultures, since religion encompassed culture but could not be reduced to culture. The humanist approach taken in the report was thus different.

It was the right and duty of governments and public authorities to combat behaviour by religious communities that was contrary to peace and public order. An example of this could be seen in France with the banning of the veil. Public authorities should not be deterred by social concepts, but this did not mean that religious communities should have a subordinate status. This presupposed a lack of respect for values and political dominance over religious values, and was simply wrong. It was important to have a healthy separation of responsibilities between Church and state and dialogue at all levels. A government organisation set up in France in 2002 to promote peace and understanding was a good example of help to foster inter-faith dialogue. Public authorities could not lead such dialogue, but could provide support.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Giaretta.

Mr GIARETTA (Italy) said that the debate was significant because of the contributions by religious leaders and the quality of the report. Religious freedom was a fundamental freedom, and the key to all freedoms. Religion provided the inalienable right to experience faith and endow life with greater meaning. It was necessary to face the challenges of globalisation, while bearing in mind the history of the continent. Europe had known dark ages, with limited capacity for dialogue and religion subordinate to governments. However, there had also been better times, with creativity and the mingling of cultures and religions, as could be seen in ancient Greece. When tradition was lost, ideas were lost too. Human rights, first set out in the 18th century, were founded on the principles of equality, freedom and brotherhood. These had been overthrown by an age of terror and intolerance.

Religions should engage in intercultural dialogue. The memory and wisdom of religions added to their strength. Religions should be responsible for relationships between communities and a shared destiny. It was important to humanise religions and endow them with human dignity.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Christoffersen.

Ms CHRISTOFFERSEN (Norway) – Yesterday, our Secretary General warned about the dangers of the development of parallel societies and of extreme religious groups fuelling each other’s extremism. His message was about the necessity of creating common ground for our multicultural societies and responsible political leadership at all levels.

The report addresses both matters. It underlines what unites us and calls for enhanced dialogue at local and regional level, which promotes responsible political leadership.

In the opening speeches this morning, I missed the voice of women as well as the perspective of humanist ethical philosophy. The Norwegian state Church has often been criticised in the Council of Europe, but at least we have female religious leaders at all levels. Last month, a woman was appointed top leader of our episcopacy. I strongly warn against an intercultural dialogue that leaves out half the population.

Freedom of speech is our human right. In burning the Koran, Pastor Terry Jones misused that right, but his bad behaviour is no excuse for killing unarmed United Nations personnel. Those events are sad examples of where hatred and lack of mutual respect lead. None of those actions would have happened in a climate of dialogue and respect. In Norway, we have seen some nasty examples of foreign religious leaders misusing their position to create fear among refugees. We have experienced a few charismatic leaders trying to legitimise violence as a political tool. Young people who are seeking an identity are especially vulnerable to their propaganda. Those young people need responsible religious leaders.

The report underlines the importance of meeting places. I will give an example from my home town, in which immigrants form 23% of the population. We have a forum for interreligious dialogue, which was initiated by one Muslim imam and one Protestant priest. Together with the municipality and the police, they arrange seminars on Norwegian law for 20 different religious leaders. They celebrate Christmas and Eid together. After the cartoon riots, they established a meeting place, which still exists, for young people where they talk about the common message of peace, love and friendship in the Koran and in the Bible. Until now, they have met in church, but soon the new mosque will be another meeting place. The meetings are very popular among young people. The leaders’ message is that when religion serves to nourish conflict, that is not the truth, but a big lie. They serve as a good example to others.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Umakhanov.

Mr UMAKHANOV (Russian Federation) said that many important religious leaders in the Russian Federation had participated in debate on the report. The rapporteur had approached the subject in a serious way and had taken into account the work already done by the Council of Europe. The recommendations in the report were very welcome, in particular those on dialogue between the Council of Europe and other bodies and financial support for the teaching of religion.

The Russian Federation had platforms for dialogue between the government and religious organisations. The last such meeting had taken place on the subject of the moral education of the young. The state also had a role in religious education, and since 2010 student teachers in the Russian Federation had been able to take a course on religious education. The report’s recommendation on co-operation between organisations should be extended to include bodies such as UNESCO and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Five years ago, the same rapporteur, in a different report, had mentioned cultural and religious co-existence in Derbent, a city of great ethnic and cultural diversity, where churches, mosques and synagogues stood side by side. As well as such old examples, new information technology should be used fully.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Mr Frécon.

Mr FRÉCON (France) said that the re-emergence of religion in the public sphere was now common. The failures of materialist utopias and fear of the future had contributed to a strong return to religious values. In Europe, one could see the emergence of religions traditionally seen on other continents, such as Islam and Buddhism. In countries with a formal relationship between the state and the Church, religion occupied a more important position. It was important to consider the role of religion in society, and human rights should be central to these considerations. The state and faith could co-exist if there was a respect for rights. The draft recommendation noted the need for states to accept interreligious dialogue with education. Interreligious dialogue was one facet of intercultural dialogue and could not alone dictate decisions. The role of religion was moral or philosophical, not political. In a democracy, separation between Church and state was the best solution.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – I remind delegates that the vote to elect judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland is open until 1 p.m. and then from 3 p.m. until 5 p.m. Those who have not voted may do so by going to the area behind the President’s chair.

In the debate, I call Mr Béteille.

Mr BÉTEILLE (France) said that he came to the debate with humility. Delegates were discussing values bigger than themselves that affected the deepest part of the individual. The report tackled difficult subjects but the conclusions were nonetheless likely to be agreed by consensus. However, a potential paradox existed between the values of the Council of Europe and the values of religions. One could not ask a religion to accept a value that clashed with religious dogma, and such difficulties could not be overcome. In this context, the speeches of the religious leaders had been very encouraging, since they had drawn on tolerance, which made change possible. Tolerance was a not value shared by everyone, as could be seen in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Egypt. Solutions could not be imposed but had to arise from dialogue. Dialogue should be promoted and extended beyond religious leaders. Such exchanges might arise from the debate today, with representatives from all religions, including those less tolerant, present.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. The next speaker is Ms Andersen.

Ms ANDERSEN (Norway) – Thank you for your contributions, gentlemen. It was very interesting to listen to all your speeches. I greatly appreciate your being here, because we need a dialogue. I know that, as a politician, I need a lot of knowledge about different religions and beliefs to be able to manage the different decisions that I have to be involved in when solving conflicts or finding solutions. That has to include everyone, which is why I have to ask you the same question as my colleague, Ms Christoffersen. If you will allow me, I would like to ask you why you think the Good Lord sent only men to take part in this dialogue? Half the people of the world are women, and human rights apply equally to everyone: men, women, people of different ethnicities, gays, lesbians – everyone. I know that it is difficult and challenging, but if we mean it, we have to face it.

I am very glad that you all underlined that. You all have a huge responsibility in your congregations to promote this work, because you are important in so many people’s lives. They listen to you; they take guidance from you. That is why it is so important for you to address equality for everybody. If you are to be involved in a dialogue, it is important that both sides should be included. In spite of the fact that human rights are universal, I have a clear impression that different religions’ convictions are slightly conservative, if I may put it that way, regarding equal rights for women and making them part of the dialogue not just on one side but on both sides. I think this is very important. It is also important for me to underline that sometimes human rights come into conflict: the conflict between religious belief and human rights for everyone. Sometimes we have to decide. I have to be clear that, for me, equal rights for everybody to be equal in society is the most important thing. I think it is also possible to enable religious congregations to make that a reality in their work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Andersen. Mr Gardetto is not here, so the next speaker is Ms Zohrabyan.

Ms ZOHRABYAN (Armenia) said that intercultural dialogue was now threatened by intolerance and it was necessary to guarantee freedom of religion. Religious intolerance was leading to violence and vandalism, and religious freedom should be promoted in order to unite people. Religious intolerance had resulted in the destruction of important cultural monuments: an example could be found in Azerbaijan, where a cemetery had been destroyed. An observation visit to the area had been planned, but had not taken place because of blackmail by the Azerbaijani Government. This observation mission should be reinstated so that delegates from the Council of Europe could witness the destruction of cultural heritage which had taken place. She had with her video footage of this destruction which she hoped would be persuasive and she urged the Assembly to condemn these wanton acts.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Zohrabyan. I call Lord Boswell.

Lord BOSWELL (United Kingdom) – I too very much welcome the substance of this excellent report. In view of the depth and richness of the speakers’ list, I shall try to confine my comments to a few simple points. The first is that governments in a free society cannot and should not tell their citizens what to believe or how to think about the faith or absence of faith of fellow citizens, but we share a heritage based on humane values largely derived from historic religious faiths and we are collectively entitled to expect individuals and groups in our societies to show respect towards their fellow citizens of different faiths or cultural backgrounds. In doing this, we honour and reflect diversity. We extend our welcome to these citizens and we offer them the opportunity to be confident in the society they have chosen. At the same time, people of differing faiths or cultural backgrounds should feel under some obligation to respect the norms of the wider society of which they are now part. In my view, we are all different, but we should not create a false polarity between multiculturalism and our own national cultures. They need to co-exist.

My second point relates to religious leadership. I have seen excellent relations in my multifaith work in the United Kingdom between the leaders of the different faiths, but this needs to be extended below the level of leadership to all those who have responsibility at all levels and to political and local leaders as well, but even this interaction will not by itself transform a culture of suspicion into one of tolerance and respect. For this, education and an early start are essential. I see this being achieved not so much by prescription of particular principles of tolerance or even by teaching religious knowledge in the school curriculum but much more by working together, particularly when children are located either formally or informally in differing school backgrounds. For example, they can share resources, such as school transport, and a range of cultural, sporting and social opportunities. Those we have come to know, particularly in childhood, are those whom we find more difficult to hate or reject in later life so that we can conduct a proper dialogue in the public space.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Lord Boswell. I give the floor to Mr Mota Amaral.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal) – I congratulate Ms Brasseur, on her most accurate report and Mr Toshev on his wise opinion. Both the Committee on Culture, Science and Education and the Political Affairs Committee have done an excellent job. I also congratulate the Assembly on putting this item on the agenda and I thank our honourable guests, the religious leaders, for their contribution to the debate.

The enlargement of the Council of Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War made more evident the cultural diversity of Europe. In Western European countries for different historic reasons, some of them very bad, societies were quite homogeneous. In recent years, European diversity was enhanced by the establishment of many immigrant communities coming from different parts of the world. Generally speaking, we must recognise that European societies are evolving into a pluri-ethnic and multicultural paradigm. I feel it is wrong to condemn multiculturalism or declare it to be a failure. Cultural diversity is a reality and must be faced as such. The acceptance and practice of common values are needed and should be implemented in good faith.

Secularisation tried to make religion a private affair, but even though, to respect the freedom of citizens, states should be separate from religion and respect all religions, religion itself has a social dimension that cannot be ignored. In my opinion, it is even detrimental to the common good of society to ignore the positive contribution of religion to the pursuit of happiness by every human being and to giving a fundamental basis for mutual respect, peace and justice in society itself.

The core values of the Council of Europe, derived from the high dignity of every human person, are originally Christian and are nowadays strongly proclaimed by all the main religious communities established on our continent, as was made clear at the beginning of the debate. In the present complex national, social and political environment, we need to stick together and find the ways and means to live together in peace and harmony. We need to recognise and accept that the contribution of religion to that purpose can be of help. A positive laicity in the behaviour of political power in each country across Europe and the world seems to be the right way.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Blondin.

Ms BLONDIN (France) said that this balanced report highlighted the fact that religious tensions were growing within some member states of the Council of Europe. It was important to stress shared values which could unite all men and women, but such discussion could only take place in a favourable atmosphere. Freedom of religion and conscience should be guaranteed in all member states, and the Assembly should work towards removing all obstacles to such freedoms. Religious education in schools was also important: all religions should be thoroughly explored but the aim should be to impart religious knowledge rather than engage in teaching of religion as such. Education could be used to highlight what united society and what people had in common.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Greff.

Ms GREFF (France) said that a democratic society should not accept dogma because this embodied differences rather than similarities. Dialogue was the necessary tool to ensure that a society made up of people with diverse religions might co-exist peacefully. Public authorities and religious communities should espouse tolerance, and dogma should perish in a democratic society. Intolerance could not survive in a secular, democratic state which promoted tolerance. The teaching of religious education in schools should be encouraged to show pupils the diversity of religion. Aggressive proselytism was contrary to Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protected public order and the rights and freedoms of others. Religious dialogue highlighted problems within certain religious groups which were not committed to democratic principles. There was a risk of confusing religion and identity.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you. I call Ms Hägg.

Ms HÄGG (Sweden) – We meet in Europe amid uncertainty and ignorance about Muslims. One example is France’s ban on wearing the burqa or niqab on the bus. Denmark is another example of a country in which moderate voices have disappeared from the debate. The Danish People’s Party and Muslim extremists set the agenda. We no longer have any opposition, as the Danish writer Carsten Jensen said when he received the Olof Palme prize. Denmark has become an experiment in democracy without political leadership, a pure populist democracy.

In many European countries, we see examples of political leaders’ inability to deal with Islam’s position in Europe. Instead, populists exploit people’s anxiety. It is high time for democratic forces to tackle the issue jointly. Political parties should clearly distance themselves from attacks on Muslims and distinguish between regular practising Muslims and Islamists with the political objective of a society based on Islamic texts. Just as it is obvious for us to defend everyone’s right to believe what they want, it is also important to combat the political forces of oppression and segregation. Christian, Muslim and Jewish extremists – and not only extremists – have a long history of oppressing women. I would also have been happy to see some female leaders of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim communities here today. We have to forcefully oppose intolerance, segregation and all the groups that create unfounded suspicion among people.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – Thank you, Ms Hägg. I now call our final speaker of the morning, Ms Schuster.

Ms SCHUSTER (Germany) said that the fact that there were so many speakers showed that this was a subject of lively debate in member states. Freedom of religion was a universal right and the foundation for a secular state based on the rule of law. Freedom of religion entailed equality: everyone was entitled to freedom of thought, religion and conscience, which included the right to have no religion at all. The report was right to focus on education and dialogue as an important issue. People should meet one another with respect and tolerance, but tolerance was not the same as indifference. The education system and teacher training both had important roles to play: knowledge of other faiths should be expanded. In Germany an example of this was the welcome introduction of faith-based teaching of Islam in schools. It was right that the German Government had made training available for this to be taught in state schools in German. The 4.3 million Muslims in Germany should have the possibility of trained Muslim clerics in schools.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – We will suspend the debate now and resume it at 4 p.m.

Once again, I warmly thank our illustrious guests for their participation and contribution to such a rich discussion, and for staying to listen to the whole of this morning’s debate.

4. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

THE PRESIDENT (Translation) – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting this afternoon at 3 p.m. with the agenda that was approved yesterday.

The sitting is closed.

(The sitting was closed at 1 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Opening of the sitting

2.       Election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland

3.       The religious dimension of intercultural dialogue

Presentation by Ms Brasseur of report of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education (Doc. 12553)

Presentation by Mr Toshev of opinion of the Political Affairs Committee (Doc. 12576)

Statement by His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania

Statement by His Eminence Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Vatican

Statement by Professor Mehmet Görmez, Chairperson of the Presidency of Religious Affairs of the Republic of Turkey

Statement by Chief Rabbi Berel Lazar, Chief Rabbi of Russia

Statement by Prelate Bernhard Felmberg, Plenipotentiary Representative of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany to the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Union

Speakers:

Mr Leigh (United Kingdom)

Ms Memecan (Turkey)

Mr Petrenco (Moldova)

Mr Santini (Italy)

Mr Connarty (United Kingdom)

Mr Mignon (France)

Ms Girardin (France)

Mr Lipiński (Poland)

Mr Badré (France)

Ms Boldi (Italy)

Ms Durrieu (France)

Ms Marland-Militello (France)

Mr Slutsky (Russian Federation)

Mr Rochebloine (France)

Mr Giaretta (Italy)

Ms Christoffersen (Norway)

Mr Umakhanov (Russian Federation)

Mr Frécon (France)

Mr Béteille (France)

Ms Andersen (Norway)

Ms Zohrabyan (Armenia)

Lord Boswell (United Kingdom)

Mr Mota Amaral (Portugal)

Ms Blondin (France)

Ms Greff (France)

Ms Hägg (Sweden)

Ms Schuster (Germany)

4.       Date, time and agenda of the next sitting

APPENDIX I

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk.

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Francis AGIUS/Joseph Fenech Adami

Pedro AGRAMUNT FONT DE MORA*

Arben AHMETAJ*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Karin ANDERSEN

Florin Serghei ANGHEL*

Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE*

Khadija ARIB*

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Sirpa ASKO-SELJAVAARA*

Francisco ASSIS*

Lokman AYVA

Alexander BABAKOV*

Daniel BACQUELAINE

Viorel Riceard BADEA

Denis BADRÉ

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN

Doris BARNETT

Meritxell BATET LAMAÑA/Blanca Fernández-Capel Baños

Marieluise BECK*

Alexander van der BELLEN*

Anna BELOUSOVOVÁ

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Ryszard BENDER*

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Andris BĒRZINŠ

Oksana BILOZIR

Brian BINLEY

Rosa Delia BLANCO TERÁN*

Roland BLUM

Olena BONDARENKO

Louis BONTES/ Hans Franken

Anne BRASSEUR

Márton BRAUN*

Federico BRICOLO/Rossana Boldi

Han TEN BROEKE

Patrizia BUGNANO*

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Sylvia CANEL*

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Mikael CEDERBRATT

Otto CHALOUPKA/Pavel Lebeda

Igor CHERNYSHENKO/Ivan Savvidi

Vannino CHITI/Vladimiro Crisafulli

Christopher CHOPE

Pia CHRISTMAS-MØLLER*

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON

Ann COFFEY/Michael Connarty

Georges COLOMBIER

Agustín CONDE BAJÉN

Titus CORLĂŢEAN

Lena DĄBKOWSKA-CICHOCKA

Per DALGAARD

Cristian DAVID*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Armand DE DECKER

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA

Karl DONABAUER/Franz Eduard Kühnel

Miljenko DORIĆ

Gianpaolo DOZZO*

Daphné DUMERY/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Earl of Alexander DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Tim Boswell

József ÉKES*

Lydie ERR*

Arsen FADZAEV/Sergey Markov

Frank FAHEY*

Piero FASSINO*

Nikolay FEDOROV

Valeriy FEDOROV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

Relu FENECHIU*

Mirjana FERIĆ-VAC

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Jana FISCHEROVÁ

Paul FLYNN

Stanislav FOŘT

Pernille FRAHM

Dario FRANCESCHINI*

Erich Georg FRITZ*

Martin FRONC

György FRUNDA

Guiorgui GABASHVILI*

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Jean-Charles GARDETTO

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Gisèle GAUTIER/Laurent Béteille

Sophia GIANNAKA/Nikolaos Dendias

Paolo GIARETTA

Michael GLOS*

Obrad GOJKOVIĆ

Svetlana GORYACHEVA

Martin GRAF*

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON/Maryvonne Blondin

Patrick DE GROOTE

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST/Christine Marin

Dzhema GROZDANOVA

Attila GRUBER*

Ana GUŢU

Sam GYIMAH

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV/Sevinj Fataliyeva

Mike HANCOCK

Davit HARUTYUNYAN

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Jim HOOD

Joachim HÖRSTER*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Andrej HUNKO

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Ali HUSEYNLI/Sahiba Gafarova

Rafael HUSEYNOV*

Shpëtim IDRIZI/Kastriot Islami

Željko IVANJI

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Mats JOHANSSON

Birkir Jón JÓNSSON

Armand JUNG

Antti KAIKKONEN/Jaakko Laakso

Stanisław KALEMBA/Bożenna Bukiewicz

Ferenc KALMÁR

Karol KARSKI/Zbigniew Girzyński

Michail KATRINIS

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Cecilia KEAVENEY*

Birgen KELEŞ

Haluk KOÇ*

Albrecht KONEČNÝ

Konstantin KOSACHEV

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA/Rom Kostřica

Pavol KUBOVIČ

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Annick Girardin

Ertuğrul KUMCUOĞLU

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Markku LAUKKANEN*

Sophie LAVAGNA/Bernard Marquet

Darja LAVTIŽAR-BEBLER/Ljubo Germič

Jean-Paul LECOQ*

Harald LEIBRECHT*

Yuliya LIOVOCHKINA*

Dariusz LIPIŃSKI

François LONCLE

Younal LOUTFI

Marian LUPU/Stella Jantuan

Philippe MAHOUX/Ludo Sannen

Theo MAISSEN

Gennaro MALGIERI*

Pietro MARCENARO

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Jean-Claude Frécon

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Silver MEIKAR/Aleksei Lotman

Evangelos MEIMARAKIS

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Egorov

Assunta MELONI

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Ana Catarina MENDONÇA MENDES*

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ

Akaki MINASHVILI

Krasimir MINCHEV

Andrey MOLCHANOV/Alexey Ivanovich Aleksandrov

Patrick MORIAU

Juan MOSCOSO DEL PRADO HERNÁNDEZ*

Lilja MÓSESDÓTTIR

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL

Alejandro MUÑOZ ALONSO

Felix MÜRI/Francine John-Calame

Philippe NACHBAR/Muriel Marland-Militello

Adrian NĂSTASE*

Gebhard NEGELE

Pasquale NESSA

Fritz NEUGEBAUER*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON/Jeffrey Donaldson

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN/Tineke Strik

Tomislav NIKOLIĆ*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL

Carina OHLSSON/Ingela Nylund Watz

Jim O'KEEFFE/ Joseph O'Reilly

Sandra OSBORNE

Brian O'SHEA/ Maureen O'Sullivan

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/ Georges Charalambopoulos

Valery PARFENOV*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Peter PELEGRINI

Lajla PERNASKA*

Claire PERRY/ Donald Anderson

Marijana PETIR/Karmela Caparin

Johannes PFLUG*

Viktor PLESKACHEVSKIY

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Christos POURGOURIDES*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK/Zmago Jelinčič Plemeniti

Gabino PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ-ACOSTA

Milorad PUPOVAC*

Valeriy PYSARENKO*

Carmen QUINTANILLA BARBA

Valentina RADULOVIĆ-ŠĆEPANOVIĆ

Mailis REPS

Maria Pilar RIBA FONT*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE

Luisa ROSEIRA*

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS/Joan Torres Puig

René ROUQUET/ Marietta Karamanli

Marlene RUPPRECHT*

Ilir RUSMALI*

Armen RUSTAMYAN

Branko RUŽIĆ/Elvira Kovács

Volodymyr RYBAK*

Rovshan RZAYEV

Joan SABATÉ BORRÁS

Džavid ŠABOVIĆ/Ervin Spahić

Giacomo SANTINI

Giuseppe SARO

Manuel SARRAZIN*

Kimmo SASI*

Marina SCHUSTER

Samad SEYIDOV

Jim SHERIDAN

Mykola SHERSHUN/Oleksiy Plotnikov

Ladislav SKOPAL/Dana Váhalová

Leonid SLUTSKY

Anna SOBECKA/Andrzej Cwierz

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Maria STAVROSITU*

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Birutė Vėsaitė

Yanaki STOILOV

Fiorenzo STOLFI

Christoph STRÄSSER

Karin STRENZ

Michał STULIGROSZ

Doris STUMP/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Melinda SZÉKYNÉ SZTRÉMI*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI

Guiorgui TARGAMADZÉ*

Mehmet TEKELİOĞLU

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Dragan TODOROVIĆ

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Petré TSISKARISHVILI*

Mihai TUDOSE/Tudor Panţiru

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Tomáš ÚLEHLA/Tomáš Jirsa

Ilyas UMAKHANOV

Mustafa ÜNAL

Giuseppe VALENTINO/Oreste Tofani

Miltiadis VARVITSIOTIS

José VERA JARDIM

Stefaan VERCAMER

Peter VERLIČ*

Luigi VITALI*

Luca VOLONTÈ

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Dmitry VYATKIN

Piotr WACH*

Johann WADEPHUL*

Robert WALTER/Edward Leigh

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND/Leander Schädler

Michał WOJTCZAK/Stanisław Huskowski

Karin S. WOLDSETH/Geir Pollestad

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ i COSTA*

Karl ZELLER/Giulana Carlino

Kostiantyn ZHEVAHO*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Arminas Lydeka

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Bosnia and Herzegovina*

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

Vacant Seat, Moldova/ Valeriu Ghiletchi

Vacant Seat, Moldova*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote:

Johannes HÜBNER

Kerstin LUNDGREN

Observers:

Humberto AGUILAR CORONADO

Aldo GIORDANO

Rosario GREEN MACÍAS

Hervé Pierre GUILLOT

José Luis JAIME CORREA

Mr Alfonso Abraham SÁNCHEZ ANAYA

Francisco Arturo VEGA DE LA MADRID

Martha Leticia SOSA GOVEA

APPENDIX II

Representatives or Substitutes who took part in the ballot for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights in respect of Norway and Switzerland

Ruhi AÇIKGÖZ

Francis AGIUS/Joseph Fenech Adami

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ

Mörđur ÁRNASON

Lokman AYVA

Denis BADRÉ

Gagik BAGHDASARYAN

Doris BARNETT

Marie-Louise BEMELMANS-VIDEC

Roland BLUM

André BUGNON/Maximilian Reimann

Mevlüt ÇAVUŞOĞLU/Yüksel Özden

Erol Aslan CEBECİ

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Boriss CILEVIČS

Ingrida CIRCENE

James CLAPPISON

Ann COFFEY/Michael Connarty

Georges COLOMBIER

Titus CORLĂŢEAN

Per DALGAARD

Joseph DEBONO GRECH

Giovanna DEBONO/Joseph Falzon

Karl DONABAUER/Franz Eduard Kühnel

Miljenko DORIĆ

Daphné DUMERY/ Dirk Van Der Maelen

Baroness Diana ECCLES/Tim Boswell

Nikolay FEDOROV

Valeriy FEDOROV/Vladimir Zhidkikh

Paul FLYNN

Pernille FRAHM

Alena GAJDŮŠKOVÁ

Gisèle GAUTIER/Laurent Béteille

Sylvi GRAHAM/Ingjerd Schou

Claude GREFF

Francis GRIGNON/Maryvonne Blondin

Patrick DE GROOTE

Arlette GROSSKOST/Christine Marin

Ana GUŢU

Carina HÄGG

Håkon HAUGLI

Norbert HAUPERT

Olha HERASYM'YUK

Andres HERKEL

Serhiy HOLOVATY

Sinikka HURSKAINEN

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/Frédéric Reiss

Armand JUNG

Michail KATRINIS

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK

Birgen KELEŞ

Albrecht KONEČNÝ

Konstantin KOSACHEV

Tiny KOX

Václav KUBATA/Rom Kostřica

Jean-Pierre KUCHEIDA/Annick Girardin

Ertuğrul KUMCUOĞLU

Dalia KUODYTĖ/Egidijus Vareikis

Younal LOUTFI

Philippe MAHOUX/Ludo Sannen

Theo MAISSEN

Dick MARTY

Jean-Pierre MASSERET/Jean-Claude Frécon

Silver MEIKAR/Aleksei Lotman

Ivan MELNIKOV/Sergey Egorov

Nursuna MEMECAN

José MENDES BOTA

Dragoljub MIĆUNOVIĆ

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Dangutė MIKUTIENĖ

Patrick MORIAU

Felix MÜRI/Francine John-Calame

Gebhard NEGELE

Cora VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN/Tineke Strik

Brian O'SHEA/ Maureen O'Sullivan

Elsa PAPADIMITRIOU

Vassiliki PAPANDREOU/ Georges Charalambopoulos

Alexander POCHINOK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN

Milorad PUPOVAC/Gvozden Srećko Flego

Mailis REPS

Amadeu ROSSELL TARRADELLAS/Joan Torres Puig

Marina SCHUSTER

Leonid SLUTSKY

Arūnė STIRBLYTĖ/Birutė Vėsaitė

Yanaki STOILOV

Doris STUMP/Liliane Maury Pasquier

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO

Lord John E. TOMLINSON

Latchezar TOSHEV

Mihai TUDOSE/Tudor Panţiru

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ

Özlem TÜRKÖNE

Mustafa ÜNAL

Stefaan VERCAMER

Vladimir VORONIN/Grigore Petrenco

Konstantinos VRETTOS

Klaas de VRIES

Robert WALTER/Edward Leigh

Katrin WERNER

Renate WOHLWEND/Leander Schädler

Gisela WURM

Emanuelis ZINGERIS/Arminas Lydeka

Naira ZOHRABYA