1. Introduction
“The religious dimension
is an undeniable and irrepressible feature of man’s being and acting,
the measure of the fulfilment of his destiny and of the building
up of the community to which he belongs. … it seems unnecessary
to point out that an abstract proclamation of religious freedom
is insufficient: this fundamental rule of social life must find
application and respect at every level and in all areas.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of Diplomatic
Corps, 10 January 2011
1. Following the tragic attacks against Christian communities
in Baghdad in October 2010 and in Alexandria in January 2011, the
Parliamentary Assembly held a debate under urgent procedure on 27
January 2011 and adopted
Recommendation
1957 (2011) on violence against Christians in the Middle East. I
had the honour of presenting that report on behalf of the Political
Affairs Committee.
2. A motion for a resolution on “Violence against Christians”
was tabled on 17 March 2011 (
Doc. 12542). This motion was referred to the Political Affairs
Committee for a report on “Violence against religious communities”
and I was appointed rapporteur on 21 June 2011.
3. The present report aims to examine the situation of Christians
and other religious communities, in particular in the member States
of the Council of Europe and in the countries of the Middle East
concerned by
Recommendation
1957 (2011), with reference to the implementation of the measures
proposed in its paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15, in which the Assembly
calls on member States to,
inter alia:
- reaffirm that the development
of human rights, democracy and civil liberties is the common basis
on which they build their relations with third countries, and ensure
that a democracy clause is included in the agreements between them
and third countries;
- take account of the situation of Christian and other religious
communities in their bilateral political dialogue with the countries
concerned;
- support initiatives aimed at promoting dialogue among
religious communities in the Middle East.
4. This is in line with the terms of reference of the Committee
on Political Affairs and Democracy: “The committee shall consider
the situation in States which are not members of the Council of
Europe in the light of the fundamental values upheld by the Council
of Europe, make proposals and, subject to approval by the Bureau,
take political action to promote these values.”
5. The initial proposal was that the report should deal with:
- violence against religious communities:
international conventions and declarations, doctrine and case law
of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”);
- religious freedom in Europe and violations of this fundamental
right: anti-Semitism, intolerance and discrimination against Christians,
Islamophobia and other forms of violence;
- follow-up by the Committee of Ministers to Recommendation 1957 (2011) on violence against Christians in the Middle East and
actions taken by the member States;
- comparative scheme and national measures needed to preserve
and promote religious freedom (national legislations and foreign
diplomatic actions).
6. An information note was presented to the members of the Political
Affairs Committee at the meeting on 6 September 2011 in Caserta,
and a first outline report at the meeting on 14 and 15 November
2011 in Paris, which took into account the committee’s discussion
and aimed to identify the issues at stake. It also drew attention
to the findings of different entities around the world on the situation
concerning such issues.
7. On my proposal, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
held an exchange of views with Dr Massimo Introvigne, sociologist,
former Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office
on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, also Focusing
on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians and Members
of Other Religions, on 14 March 2012, to debate possible lines of
action towards solving the problems of violence against religious
communities.
8. On 13 December 2012, the committee held an exchange of views
with Mr Khaled Fouad Allam, Professor of Sociology of the Muslim
world and of History and Institutions of the Islamic countries at
the University of Trieste, and with Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, Jesuit
priest and leader of the Deir Mar Mûsa monastery in Syria.
2. Religious
freedom and freedom of expression
9. In 2013, we celebrate the anniversary of the Edict
of Milan, or Edict of Toleration, of 313, which may be seen as the
origin of freedom of religion and belief. Its content is very clear:
“When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus,
fortunately met near Mediolanum (Milan), and were considering everything
that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought …
that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority
to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity
whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly
disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule.”
10. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS
No. 5, “the Convention”) states that “[e]veryone has the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone
or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his
religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance”.
It adds that “[f]reedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall
be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public
safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
11. The first part of the article is almost exactly the same as
Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this
right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom,
either alone or in community with others and in public or private,
to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship
and observance.”
12. The European Court of Human Rights has produced an extensive
case law on Article 9 of the Convention on freedom of religion,
as a pillar of democratic society, in its internal and external
dimension.
13. The Court has, in particular, touched upon the individual
and collective features of freedom of religion and the relations
between the State and religious communities.
14. It has also enquired into the extent of the State protection
of the freedom of religion (interference and duty of neutrality
and impartiality).
15. Freedom of expression is another fundamental freedom, enshrined
both in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While
it is complementary to freedom of religion, both rights often have
to be balanced. On the one hand, religious groups should be able
to express freely their views on moral matters, for instance on
family life, homosexuality or abortion, while on the other hand,
they should not try to limit other people’s freedom of expression
through the notion of “defamation of religion”.
16. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights on this
issue is also of interest. Already in 1976 the Court referred to
the right to shock, offend and disturb.
17. The protection of conscience or religious sentiment does not
preclude criticism of religions and beliefs. The State has the obligation
to ensure that those who profess these beliefs enjoy their right
to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is only the way
in which those criticisms are expressed that may be liable to criticism,
if they amount to hate speech. In this regard, States have an obligation
to fight against anti-religious stereotypes, especially when they
are spread in the media. Reports show that anti-religious stereotypes
are not limited to minority religions, but are increasingly targeted
against Christians. Freedom of religion also protects the freedom
of public expression of religious doctrines. Consequently, peaceful
public expression of faith or morality should receive protection,
as is the case for the religious sermons of ministers.
18. Contrary to the approach in the United States, where the first
amendment to the Constitution prohibits the making of any law abridging
the freedom of speech or infringing on the freedom of the press,
in Europe there are several more or less legal limitations, for
instance relating to hate speech. The Council of Europe’s Committee
of Ministers defined hate speech in its Recommendation No. R (97)
20. However, as this definition is not universally accepted, such
limitations are often interpreted in different ways by different
religious communities.
19. The Assembly dealt with this issue in its report and
Resolution 1510 (2006) on freedom of expression and respect for religious beliefs,
where it stated that “freedom of expression as protected under Article
10 of the European Convention on Human Rights should not be further
restricted to meet increasing sensitivities of certain religious
groups”. At the same time, the Assembly emphasised that “hate speech
against any religious group is not compatible with the fundamental
rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human
Rights and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights”.
20. The US Department of State’s Report on International Religious
Freedom (November 2010) identifies five categories of restrictions
of religious freedom: authoritarian governments; hostility towards
non-traditional and minority religious groups; failure to address
societal intolerance; institutionalised bias and illegitimacy (discrimination
against groups described as “cults” or “sects”).
21. The report notes that “over the past decade a number of States
with majority or significant Muslim populations have worked through
the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of ‘defamation of
religions’ by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at
the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly”. It goes on
to state that “while the United States deplores actions that exhibit
disrespect for deeply held religious beliefs, including those of
Muslims, we do not agree with the ‘defamation of religions’ concept
because it can be used to undermine the fundamental freedoms of
religion and expression. The United States understands the primary
concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of, and
discrimination against, members of religious groups. The United
States, however, believes that rather than banning speech, the best
way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust
legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired
crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to
all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend
vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion
freely and to exercise their freedom of expression”.
22. In its publication “Blasphemy, insult and hatred”, which is
part of the Science and Technique of Democracy collection, the European
Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) also deals with
the relationship between freedom of expression and freedom of religion
and proposes a new ethic of responsible intercultural relations.
3. Religious freedom
and anti-discrimination
23. Religious freedom is a broader concept than non-discrimination
based on religion; it includes freedom to manifest the religion
in public and in the community, and is not limited to a right to
“equality” between religious and non-religious individuals and groups.
24. On 25 November 2011, the Standing Committee adopted
Resolution 1846 (2011) on combating all forms of discrimination based on religion,
based on a report by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (Rapporteur:
Mr Tudor Panţiru, Romania, SOC).
25. While reiterating its support for the separation of State
and church, based on
Recommendation
1804 (2007) on State, religion, secularity and human rights and
Recommendation 1396 (1999) on religion and democracy, the Assembly called on member
States to “adopt legislation to penalise hate speech and the use of
violence against members of religious groups and religious leaders,
in accordance with the recommendations of the European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI); such legislation should in
particular make effective remedies available to victims” and to
“ensure that investigative authorities conduct effective investigations
into acts of violence based on religion or belief”.
26. With regard to non-discrimination, the European Union Council
Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general
framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation is of
particular importance. Consistent with the case law of the European
Court of Human Rights, it stipulates that “in the case of occupational
activities within churches and other public or private organisations
the ethos of which is based on religion or belief, a difference
of treatment based on a person's religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination
where, by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context
in which they are carried out, a person's religion or belief constitute
a genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirement, having regard
to the organisation's ethos”.
4. Parental rights
in education
27. Based on a motion which I presented with other colleagues,
a report on “Families’ right to freedom of choice in education in
Europe” was prepared by the Committee on Culture, Science, Education
and Media (Rapporteur: Ms Carmen Quintanilla, Spain, EPP/CD). The
Assembly held a debate in April 2012 and adopted
Resolution 1904 (2012). However, this report does not touch upon the issue
of violence.
28. This resolution calls on the right to education guaranteed
by Article 2 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human
Rights, according to which “[n]o person shall be denied the right
to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes
in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect
the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity
with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.
5. The autonomy of
religious communities
29. The distinction between religion and the State is
ensured by the mutual autonomy of the religious communities and
of the State. If the State does not respect the autonomy of religious
communities, it can no longer be considered as “neutral or impartial”
but rather as interfering in the religious domain. The European Court
of Human Rights stated that religious communities existed traditionally
and universally as organised structures, and that when the organisation
of one of these communities is in question, Article 9 must be interpreted
in light of Article 11 of the Convention, which protects the right
to association against any unjustified interference by the State.
The principle
of autonomy in religious freedom prohibits civil authorities from making
decisions which would internally affect religious communities, for
example on appointments
or transfers.
Likewise, it prevents
religious leaders from interfering in secular affairs.
6. The situation of
Christians in the Middle East
30. On 23 September 201, the Committee of Ministers replied
to
Recommendation 1957
(2011) and indicated that it was “working on a coherent policy
towards neighbouring regions with a view to fostering dialogue and
co-operation with the countries and regions close to Europe that
seek the assistance of the Council of Europe on the basis of the
shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law”.
31. While assuring the Assembly that “promoting the right to freedom
of thought, conviction and religion will remain high on its agenda”,
the Committee of Ministers does not intend to develop a “permanent
capacity” to monitor the situation of governmental and societal
restrictions on religious freedom and related rights in Council of
Europe member States and in States in the Middle East, and report
periodically to the Assembly, as recommended in paragraph 11.1 of
the recommendation.
32. I consider this reply unsatisfactory. On the one hand, the
Committee of Ministers shares the Assembly’s preoccupations but,
on the other hand, it is not willing to improve the work of the
Organisation along the lines recommended by the Assembly, as if
it were already doing everything possible. The Committee of Ministers indicated
that it was studying the feasibility of a number of areas of activity
for the Council of Europe, suggested in the report “Living together
– Combining diversity and freedom in 21st-century Europe”, and I
hope that some action will ensue.
33. Meanwhile, it is worth recalling that the Committee of Ministers,
at its 1158th meeting (12-13 December 2012), held a thematic debate
on “Freedom of religion and the situation of religious minorities”,
which was particularly important and timely, especially in view
of the increasing number of cases of discrimination and intolerance
that many religious communities encounter in member States and beyond
Europe. The Deputies “supported the Secretary General’s proposal
to produce a concise document containing a compilation of existing
Council of Europe standards” relating to this topic, and considered
that “the Organisation should make it its priority to build awareness
of existing standards and promote their application”. Such effort
“would encourage a positive and tolerant attitude in European society”
and “should be made as part of the Council of Europe’s policy towards
neighbouring regions”. This is fully in line with the readiness
of the Organisation to offer “its expertise in this field of the
protection of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion and
share its experience in fostering standards of protection of rights
of persons belonging to religious minorities”, as stated in the
above-mentioned reply to
Recommendation
1957 (2011).
34. On the same occasion, the Deputies considered that the Council
of Europe should increase “the potential of its monitoring mechanisms”,
while some delegations “emphasised the operational potential of independent
institutions such as ECRI and the Commissioner for Human Rights
and encouraged its development, particularly in the form of an ECRI
general policy recommendation”.
35. On Sunday 9 October 2011, several thousand Coptic Christians
peacefully demonstrated in Cairo against an attack on a church in
the province of Aswan the previous week. For reasons which were
never made clear, the demonstration degenerated and the ensuing
clashes involving both the army and civilian thugs resulted in at
least 25 persons, most of them Copts, being killed and more than
300 wounded. The President of the Assembly condemned the violence
and, on my proposal, the Political Affairs Committee adopted the following
statement at its meeting on 14 and 15 November 2011:
“On the first day of 2011 a suicide
bombing in a Coptic church in Alexandria killed 21 persons and wounded
79. The Parliamentary Assembly condemned unequivocally such violence.
We all hoped that, after the success of the Egyptian revolution,
such tragedies would not be repeated.
Unfortunately, on Sunday 9 October, a peaceful Coptic
demonstration in Cairo degenerated for still unknown reasons and
the ensuing clashes involving both the army and civilian thugs resulted
in at least 25 persons, most of them Copts, being killed and more
than 300 wounded. This violence, which was duly condemned by the
President of the Assembly, is of course unacceptable and the first
declarations of the Egyptian authorities and their subsequent lack
of action fail to convince that they are genuinely committed to
dealing effectively with recurrent inter-religious violence.
Egypt is due to start its first free and fair electoral
process in two weeks time but no democratic elections can take place
in a climate of religious hatred.
We call on the Egyptian authorities and in particular
on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to protect effectively
the Coptic community, to investigate the events of 9 October 2011
and to bring to justice those responsible for violence so as to
ensure a peaceful environment for the up-coming elections.”
36. According to some reports, since the 2011 revolution, hundreds
of Christian Egyptian girls have been abducted and forced to convert
to Islam and marry Muslim men. According to other reports, however,
this is due to a considerably deteriorated security situation, which
has led to an increase in all types of crime.
37. In its
Resolution
1892 (2012) on the crisis of transition to democracy in Egypt, adopted
in June 2012, the Assembly “deplores that the situation of Christian
communities in Egypt has not improved with the Arab Spring and the
fall of Mubarak and that violence continues to be perpetrated against
these communities, as well as against other religious minorities.
The Assembly thus calls on the Council of Europe member States to implement
the measures listed in its
Recommendation
1957 (2011) on violence against Christians in the Middle East and,
in particular, to take into account the situation of Christian and
other religious communities in their bilateral political dialogue
and to promote a policy, at national and Council of Europe level,
which integrates the question of the respect for the fundamental
rights of Christian and other religious minorities in their relations with
Egypt”.
38. In its
Resolution
1878 (2012) on the situation in Syria, the Assembly pointed out
that “[t]he Syrian population is a mosaic of ethnic, cultural and
religious groups and this diversity, together with the territorial integrity
of Syria, must be preserved in a future post-Assad Syria. The Assembly
calls on the various groups of domestic opposition to unite in order
to be considered as a legitimate alternative offering all Syrian
citizens, irrespective of their ethnic origin, culture or religion,
the prospect of a peaceful, democratic and pluralist Syria. Noting
the under-representation of Christians in the Syrian National Council,
any post-Assad future must guarantee the religious tolerance that
Christians have enjoyed until now”.
39. Last December, Father Dall’Oglio presented to the committee
the situation of the Christian community in Syria after 40 years
of dictatorship and 21 months of revolution. For 14 centuries Christians,
Jews and Muslims had lived in peace side by side. Islamic societies
had the religious duty to protect Christian and Jewish minorities.
In Syria, whereas the majority of Christians had remained faithful
to the Assad regime, others supported the revolution. Many were
leaving the country.
40. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the situation of Christian communities
remains as critical as it was depicted in my report on “Violence
against Christians in the Middle East” of January 2011.
41. It is worth pointing out that, when the Assembly granted partner
for democracy status to the Parliament of Morocco (June 2011) and
to the Palestinian National Council (October 2011), it stated that
“ensuring full respect for freedom of conscience, of religion and
belief, including the right to change one’s religion” was a specific
issue of key importance for strengthening democracy, the rule of
law and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the
countries concerned.
42. In both cases, the Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy
is monitoring the progress made on this and other issues and will
report back to the Assembly later this year. I am the rapporteur
for Morocco while my colleague Tiny Kox is the rapporteur for the
Palestinian National Council.
7. Islamophobia
43. The Assembly dealt with the issue of violence against
Muslims communities in Europe in several reports, in particular
those on “European Muslim communities confronted with extremism”,
in 2008, and on “Islam, Islamism and Islamophobia in Europe” in
2010. The texts adopted (Recommendations
1831 (2008) and
1927 (2010) and Resolutions
1605 (2008) and
1743
(2010)) insist on strong action against discrimination and
efforts in the fields of education and the media.
44. On 22 February 2012, in Astana, Ambassador Adil Akhmetov,
the OSCE Chairperson’s Personal Representative on combating Intolerance
and Discrimination against Muslims, expressed concerns over the feeling
of insecurity among Muslim communities across the OSCE region. He
encouraged participating States to make use of the OSCE’s tools
and programmes concerning hate crimes and tolerance education and recommended
the following measures to combat hate crimes motivated by intolerance
against Muslims: “promotion of educational activities and raising
awareness about racism, xenophobia and intolerance against Muslims;
putting in place mechanisms to ensure effective transfer of information
from intelligence services to the police to help prevent crimes
against Muslims and others; as well as supporting programmes to
monitor and report about hate crimes against Muslims and to provide
assistance for the victims”.
45. There is, however, a general feeling that religious communities,
including Muslims, are better protected in Europe than are Christians
in Africa, Asia or the Middle East.
8. Recent reports
on the state of religious freedom
46. It is obvious that a low degree of religious freedom
increases the manifestation of violent crime, hate speech, discrimination
and intolerance, threatening the security of individuals and giving
rise to wider-scale conflict and violence that undermine international
stability and security. I find it particularly important to continue our
work and dialogue on the very substance of the freedom of thought,
conscience and religion which, as Pope Benedict XVI pointed out
in his Message for World Day of Peace 2011, “is not the exclusive
patrimony of believers, but of the whole family of the earth’s people”.
47. Today, there is a broad range of commitments to combat racism,
xenophobia, anti-Semitism, discrimination, and intolerance, including
against Muslims, Christians, and Jews, as well as commitments related
to preventing and responding to hate crimes. Recent attacks on Christian
communities have highlighted the necessity to address the problem
of intolerance against Christians with a specific focus on hate
crimes.
8.1. European Commission
against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
48. ECRI has been entrusted with the task of combating
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance
“in greater Europe” from the perspective of the protection of human
rights (Article 1 of its Statute). To date, ECRI has put forward
evidence of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic feelings in the overwhelming
majority of its country reports, and has addressed its specific
recommendations to the governments concerned and drawn up two General
Policy Recommendations (GPR Nos. 5 and 9).
49. Nevertheless, ECRI has consistently interpreted its mandate
as covering violent crime, hate speech, discrimination and intolerance
against all religious groups. As a result, in its fourth-cycle reports
it has also identified instances of discrimination or intolerance
against members of Christian groups in member States, expressing
its concerns at the lack of mechanisms to prevent various negative
trends (physical assaults, negative publicity in the media, vandalism,
attacks on property, damage to religious buildings) as well as States’
continued lack of compliance with its specific recommendations (legal
registration, property rights, issuance of visas for priests or
other clerics).
50. Finally, in its comments on
Recommendation 1957 (2011) on violence against Christians in the Middle East, ECRI
expressed its interest in establishing a forum for dialogue with
non-member States, in particular from North Africa, the Middle East
and Eurasia, “for discussing common strategies to strengthen the
fight against racism and intolerance in the face of extremism and
Islamophobia”, which “could also deal effectively with violent crime,
hate speech, discrimination and intolerance against Christians in
the countries of the Middle East.
8.2. Organisation for
security and co-operation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR)
51. The OSCE is very active in this area. Its report
on the OSCE/ODIHR round table on “Intolerance and discrimination
against Christians: focusing on Exclusion, Marginalisation and Denial
of Rights”, which was held in March 2009, put forward a number of
recommendations.
52. The OSCE/ODIHR annual report for 2009 (issued in Warsaw in
November 2010) lists anti-Semitic crimes or incidents in Austria,
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Sweden and
the United Kingdom. A few of the reported crimes and incidents involved
violence. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media reported
many more manifestations of anti-Semitism also in other member States
of the Council of Europe.
53. The report refers to the murder of a Muslim woman in Germany,
an attack on a mosque in Spain and a number of anti-Muslim hate
crimes in Sweden. The report also refers to ECRI’s concerns about
intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in Austria, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Germany, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Furthermore,
media sources monitored by the ODIHR reported incidents against
Muslims also in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and Spain.
54. Only Georgia, Sweden and Turkey reported anti-Christian crimes
and incidents. The Holy See provided information on incidents targeting
Christians in nine States. It should be mentioned that not all of
the OSCE participating States report on violence against religious
groups and those which do so do not always use comparable criteria.
55. The OSCE/ODIHR annual report for 2011 on “Hate Crimes in the
OSCE Region: Incidents and Responses” (issued in Warsaw in November
2012) indicates a growing intolerance against Christians. Thirty-five participating
States reported that they collected data on hate crimes based on
religious bias, while 14 States reported that they recorded data
on crimes motivated by bias against Christians and members of other religions.
Some States further divide this data into categories such as “non-denominational”,
“Catholic”, “Protestant” or “other religions”. The Holy See provided
information on incidents motivated by bias against Christians in
11 States. Seven NGOs provided information to ODIHR on incidents
motivated by bias against Christians and members of other religions
in 12 participating States. Information from the OSCE Missions to Bosnia
and Herzegovina, Kosovo*
and Skopje
was also included.
56. The Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship and the ODIHR co-organised
a series of three high-level meetings in 2011: a conference in Prague,
in March, devoted to “Anti-Semitism in public discourse”, a conference
in Rome on 12 September on “Preventing and Responding to Hate Incidents
and Crimes against Christians” and a conference on “Confronting
Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims in Public Discourse”
in Vienna on 28 October.
57. The purpose of the meetings was to provide a platform for
experts and practitioners to discuss hate-motivated crimes and incidents
against religious communities in the OSCE and to share best practices
in prevention, monitoring and response. Each meeting was attended
by close to 150 representatives of the OSCE’s 56 participating States,
religious communities and non-governmental organisations.
58. Discussions focused on raising awareness of hate-motivated
crimes and incidents targeting Jews, Christians and Muslims and
their property and the sharing of good practices on how to combat
and prevent such incidents. A special focus was placed on attacks
on places of worship, one of the most common forms of hate crimes
experienced by religious communities.
59. Participants in the meetings made recommendations and OSCE
participating States agreed on a broad range of commitments to combat
racism, xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance, including against Muslims,
Jews and Christians. On 10 July 2011, the Parliamentary Assembly
of the OSCE adopted a resolution on combating intolerance and discrimination
against Christians in the OSCE area.
8.3. European Union
60. The European Union launched the RELIGARE research
project in February 2010 to explore adequate policy responses to
religious and cultural diversity as a social reality in Europe.
It examines the legal rules protecting or limiting (constraining)
the experiences of religious or other belief-based communities.
Where the practices of communities or individuals do not conform
to State law requirements, or where communities turn to their own
legal regimes or tribunals, the reasons behind these developments
need to be understood.
61. A conference on “Secularism and religious diversity in Europe:
Opportunities and Perspectives” was held in Belgium on 4 and 5 December
2012 to discuss and reflect on the project’s key findings. The conclusions of
the conference are available on the project website.
62. One of the main assets of the RELIGARE Project is the collection
of relevant court decisions related to the issues addressed by the
project. A summary of recent case law of the European Court of Human
Rights is also available on the project website.
63. The Hungarian Government organised, as part of its Presidency
of the Council of the European Union, a conference on “The Christian-Jewish-Islamic
dialogue”, in Gödöllő, from 1 to 4 June 2011. In addition to representatives
of European Union member States, delegations from Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Croatia, Israel, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine, the United States and
some Middle East States participated in the Conference. The conference
discussed the current state of the Christian-Jewish-Muslim interfaith
dialogue, the relationship between Church and State, religious freedom
in the European Union and the question of Muslim migration.
64. At the conference, Mr Introvigne, Personal Representative
of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office on combating intolerance and discrimination
against Christians and members of other religions, stated that “a Christian
was killed for his faith in the world every five minutes”. This
figure is not confirmed by other sources.
8.4. Non-governmental
organisations
65. The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination
against Christians in Europe monitors and catalogues instances in
which Christians and Christianity are marginalised or discriminated
against throughout Europe. The Observatory gathers instances of
discrimination against Christians from media sources and individuals.
66. The organisation’s website refers to 821 cases of intolerance
or discrimination against Christians in Europe, although some of
them have not been considered as such by the European Court of Human
Rights.
67. Its Shadow Report, covering the period from 2005 to 2010,
refers to “a growing threat to religious freedom for Christians”.
It states that “hate speech legislation has a tendency to indirectly
discriminate against Christians, criminalising core elements of
Christian teaching”. The report claims that political correctness
has been pushed to a point which violates the right of Christians
to freedom of expression.
68. The Observatory’s report on 2011, issued in March 2012, states:
“Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, describing the
denial of equal rights and the social marginalisation of Christians,
is the most explanatory term for this phenomenon in the Western
world. Even though this is technically a form of persecution, it
must not be called so in Europe, in order to avoid confusion with
the crimes committed against Christians in other places of the world.”
69. International Christian Concern (ICC) draws attention to discrimination
against Dalit Christians in India and Pakistan. It seems however
that this religious minority is discriminated against because of
the cast system and because of a strong sense of cultural identity,
which they are seen to abandon when converting to Christianity.
70. The Pew Forum study on Rising Restrictions on Religion (August
2011)
indicates that “one third of the world’s
population experiences an increase” of restrictions and that “Europe
had the largest proportion of countries in which social hostilities
related to religion were on the rise from mid-2006 to mid-2009”.
The study also found that “restrictions on religion are particularly
common in countries that prohibit blasphemy, apostasy or defamation
of religion. While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to
protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious
minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical”.
71. The London-based Minority Rights Group International, in its
2010 report, calls religious intolerance the “new racism” and says
its impact is felt on religious minorities across the globe. It
says such minorities also face increased persecution and reduced
freedom stemming from strict government anti-terrorism measures imposed
after the September 2001 terror attacks on the United States. It
says discrimination against Muslims is on the rise in the United
States and western Europe.
72. The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against
Christians, which monitors and documents such cases in Europe, made
presentations to the OSCE Review Conference’s working sessions 1,
on “Freedom of expression, free media and access to information”,
and 2, on “Fundamental Freedoms, including Freedom of Thought, Conscience,
Religion or Belief” (Warsaw, September 2011). These identified four
threats to freedom of expression and to limitations to freedom of
thought, conscience, religion, and belief in the legislation of
participating States.
73. The threats to freedom of expression were: censorship on web-based
communication platforms; negative stereotyping of Christians in
the media; freedom of expression of Christians obstructed by harassment and
violence and other disturbances, making it impossible to speak,
and an overly broad and biased application of hate-speech and anti-discrimination
legislation.
74. The limitations on freedom of religion were linked to freedom
of conscience in the realm of healthcare; to the right of parents
to know and have a final say on what their children were being taught
with regard to religion and sexuality; to the wearing of religious
symbols; to freedom of conscience and freedom of contract with regard
to private entrepreneurship and to the expression of faith and its
moral contents in the public sphere.
75. The Christian Legal Centre also made submissions to the Conference
on freedom of assembly and association (insisting on the right of
Churches to refuse employment to persons who do not uphold the Church’s doctrinal
position) and on freedom of expression (on the right to offend,
shock or disturb). Both submissions quoted the European Court of
Human Rights.
76. Several prominent national and international NGOs also submitted
a joint intervention calling on OSCE Participating States not to
force children into a compulsory sexual, religious or ethical teaching
which may be inconsistent with the convictions of the children’s
parents, providing, in this case, for non-discriminatory opt-out possibilities.
77. The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences held its 17th Plenary
Session from 29 April to 3 May 2011 on the theme “Universal Rights
in a World of Diversity: the Case of Religious Freedom”. In her
closing observations, Professor Mary Ann Glendon, President of the
Academy, pointed out that religious freedom worldwide was at increasing
risk; it was at risk even in countries which officially protected
it.
78. Every year, Open Doors publishes a World Watch List which
ranks countries by reference to the severity of persecution of Christians.
8.5. Other sources
79. Most reports indicate that violence against religious
communities has increased in the past few years. This includes physical,
but also psychological violence against persons because of their
religion. While in Europe the situation is much better than in Africa,
Asia and the Middle East, two member States of the Council of Europe
were considered problematic by the United States Commission on International
Religious Freedom (USCIRF), which is an independent, bipartisan
US federal government commission that monitors the universal right
to freedom of religion or belief abroad; they are the Russian Federation
and Turkey.
80. The USCRIF 2012 Report
states that “Religious freedom conditions
in Russia continue to deteriorate. The government increasingly used
its anti-extremism law against peaceful religious groups and individuals, particularly
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslim readers of the works of Turkish theologian
Said Nursi. National and local officials also apply other laws to
harass Muslims and groups they view as non-traditional or alien”.
81. On Turkey, the same report says that “[t]he State’s strict
control of religion in the public sphere significantly restricts
religious freedom, especially for non-Muslim religious minority
communities – including the Greek, Armenian, and Syriac Orthodox
Churches, the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches, and the Jewish
community – as well as for the majority Sunni Muslim community and
the country’s largest minority, the Alevis”.
82. On 11 March 2013, the Hungarian Parliament approved amendment
4 to the constitution, which, inter alia,
integrally reintroduced previously annulled (by decision of the
Constitutional Court) provisions on freedom of religion and the
status of churches. The latter were considered by the Venice Commission
to be at odds with Council of Europe standards, including the European
Convention on Human Rights and the case law of the Strasbourg Court.
The Venice Commission will look again into the matter. This issue
is also followed by the Assembly’s Monitoring Committee in the framework
of its opinion on the request for the opening of a monitoring procedure
in respect of Hungary.
83. Recently, an increasing number of Christians in the United
Kingdom have been faced with difficulties in their employment and
with the public service as a result of their faith. Several individuals
have lost their jobs or livelihoods and the number of cases appears
to be increasing. The interpretation of recent “equalities” legislation
has caused particular problems for Christians, especially where,
as a result of Christian teaching on sexual ethics, “sexual orientation”
rights are perceived to clash with “religious freedom” rights. Four
recent cases heard by the European Court of Human Rights illustrate
some of the challenges. In the case of Eweida and
Chaplin v. the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom was
found to be in violation of Article 9 of the Convention; the other
three cases are likely to be referred to the Grand Chamber. All
the cases concern the manifestation of the Christian faith in the
workplace – in two cases through the wearing of a symbol (the Cross) and
in two cases through the exercise of freedom of conscience.
9. Conclusions and
recommendations
84. Member States should seek to ensure a place for religious
beliefs in the public sphere by guaranteeing freedom of conscience
in health care, education and the civil service. The right to a
well-defined conscientious objection should be based on the reluctance
of European civilisation – born of decency, forbearance, and tolerance
– to compel our fellow citizens to humiliate themselves by betraying
their own consciences.
85. Member States should also protect the freedom of parents to
ensure the religious and moral education and teaching of their children
in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions,
in the respect of the values that are the very essence of the Council
of Europe.
86. Certain member States should consider reviewing their legal
regulations whenever these go against the freedom of association
for religious groups and churches.
87. The situation is, however, much worse in Africa, in particular
in Nigeria (Boko Haram), Sudan and Mali (before the French military
intervention); in Asia, in particular in North Korea and China,
but also in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; and in the
Middle East, in particular in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and
Syria.
88. In view of the situation, the Assembly should insist on the
indivisibility of human rights and on the need to uphold all of
them without exception. While indivisible, human rights do have
a hierarchy. Both the European Convention on Human Rights and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights list first the right to life,
without which all other rights would be meaningless, then the rights
to freedom and to protection by the law, and then the rights to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to freedom of opinion
and expression, which go hand in hand.
89. Member States of the Council of Europe should use their bilateral
relations with those countries where violence against religious
communities are reported to reaffirm that the development of human
rights, democracy and civil liberties is the common basis on which
they build their relations with third countries and ensure that
a democracy clause is included in the agreements between them and
third countries.