The COVID-19 pandemic introduced a period of unprecedented restrictions to fundamental rights, unthinkable no less than five years ago: freedom of movement, assembly, and expression, and the right to private life, among others, were all impacted.
Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) was no exception. In the name of public health, governments all around the world closed church doors and forbade in-person worship. In some places, churches remained closed even when other establishments such as bicycle repair shops and cinemas were open for business (e.g. Scotland and Switzerland).
While many may want to put the pandemic behind them, violations of human rights should be corrected, at the very least so we can prevent them from happening again. In the case of FoRB, the ECtHR now has the chance to do exactly that.
Ján Figeľ, the former Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU (2016-2019), and a practicing Catholic, is challenging before the ECtHR the COVID-19 related restrictions to religious worship imposed by his home country, Slovakia, starting from February 2021. I have the honour of co-representing Figeľ before the ECtHR in a potentially precedent setting case for how the 46 member states of the Council of Europe should deal with FoRB in times of public health crisis.
Scope of the case
During the second wave, Slovakia prolonged its pandemic restrictions, banning religious services, except for baptisms and weddings with up to six people. The case centers on the 40-day prolonged blanket ban on religious worship (8 February-19 March 2021), which transpired amidst a longer period of previous restrictions.
The government of Slovakia contends there was no violation of FoRB because:
individual worship was still possible. But such an argument is contradicted by international and European human rights law, which protect FoRB manifested either alone or in community with others.
“online worship” was available. This claim disregards the fact that this is “best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself” (Reverend Dr William J U Philip and Others, paras. 60-61), and that for some faiths, such as Judaism, religious celebrations cannot be filmed or livestreamed (Belgian Conseil d’État arrrêt n° 249.177).
Proportionality test
The case rests on the ECtHR’s analysis of proportionality and necessity, and the margin of appreciation Slovakia had at that particular time.
At the start of the pandemic, due to the novelty and lack of knowledge about the virus, governments had a wider margin to curtail fundamental rights. This gradually shrank with increased scientific information. Freedom-restrictive measures that might have been deemed legitimate at the beginning of 2020were likely not proportionate and necessary in 2021 and 2022.
In advancing a justification for restricting FoRB, the onus is on Slovakia to prove proportionality. In this case, the government’s blanket ban on religious worship during the later stages of the pandemic, once more scientific evidence became available, was at best a “useful” form of restrictions, though certainly not the most useful and “necessary”.
The government also must show that the ban was the least restrictive means available, which will be difficult in light of other options, such as social distancing within churches or other measures recommended by the WHO.
A precedent for FoRB at the ECtHR
While the ECtHR has dealt with applications related to FoRB during the pandemic (such as Magdić v Croatia, which was declared inadmissible, or Spînu v Romania in which no violation was found in the prison context), it has not yet ruled on the proportionality of bans on public worship, and certainly not with regards to the second wave of the pandemic. There are at least three noteworthy cases pending (Mégard v France, Chirilă v Romania and Association d’Obédience Ecclésiastique Orthodoxe c. Grèce ) and the timeline indicates that Figel may be the first case where the ECtHR will assess the proportionality of worship bans during COVID-19. Should the Court do so, it would take the symbolic opportunity to rule on the case of the former Special Envoy for FoRB, who has repeatedly stated that “The EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its member states fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home.”
Adina Portaru serves as Senior Counsel for ADF International, where she focuses on freedom of religion or belief at the European Union and on litigation at the European Court of Human Rights. Prior to joining ADF International, she was a research assistant at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and at the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Austria, where she assessed human rights policies. She obtained her doctorate in Law and Religion at Karl Franzens University in Austria.
Top EU official and former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, challenges 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship at the European Court of Human Rights
Worship bans are “illiberal and non-democratic,” states Figeľ, who is bringing the potentially precedent-setting religious freedom case co-represented by ADF International
Strasbourg (28 July 2023) – Are blanket bans on public worship compatible with the international human right to the communal exercise of religious freedom? This is the question brought by former EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, who has filed a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship. Figeľ, co-represented by human rights organisation ADF International and local Slovak lawyer Martin Timcsak, now submitted his arguments to the court.
“Religious freedom as a basic human right deserves the highest level of protection. Prohibiting people from worship and communal religious exercise is profoundly illiberal and illegitimate. Worship bans were unfair and disproportionate. Our arguments submitted to the Court demonstrate clearly that blanket bans are violations of religious freedom under international human rights law,” stated Dr. Ján Figeľ.
Figeľ’s case might be the first where Europe’s top human rights court rules on the blanket bans on public worship during the Covid pandemic. The decision would set a precedent for 46 European States with 676 million citizens.
“In times of crisis, fundamental freedoms need to be protected, rather than weakened.”
In 2021 the Slovak Republic prolonged its COVID restrictions, banning religious services. Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru argue that the restrictions violated both national and international law.
“We are committed to supporting Dr. Ján Figeľ and his defence of religious freedom. The international legal framework is very clear in its protection of this right as it benefits everyone – people of faith as well as people of no faith. Fundamental freedoms apply to all, and in times of crisis they must be protected rather than weakened,” said Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel for ADF International.
The Slovak government also put forward the option of digital worship as a justification for the blanket ban. Recent court rulings throughout Europe, however, arrive at different conclusions. Scotland’s highest civil court ruled on the same issue, holding that digital options “are best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself”.
Restrictions were not “proportional, appropriate, and necessary”
The case rests on the fact that the Slovak blanket ban was neither proportional, nor appropriate or necessary.
“Nobody should be prohibited from peacefully exercising his or her convictions, and it was evident that religious worship could be conducted safely during the pandemic. Blanket bans ignore the central role that religion plays in the lives of believers. For people of faith, communal worship, spiritual nourishment, can be as important as bodily nourishment. That’s why international and European law and our very own Constitution holds religious freedom so dearly. I expect that the ECtHR will consider this holistically with a keen eye for the role of human rights in a democratic society,” said Dr. Ján Figeľ upon submitting the arguments.
Former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion now defends human rights at home
Ján Figeľ served as European Commissioner in various positions between 2004 and 2009. In 2016 he was appointed as Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, a position he held until 2019.
“As Special Envoy, it was evident to me that the EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its Member States fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home,” Figeľ added.
A newly released video features Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru in Bratislava/Slovakia.
ADF International has been involved worldwide in cases regarding worship bans and violations of religious freedom in the context of Covid restrictions. In Uganda, the organisation supported a coalition of Christians and Muslims challenging a discriminatory prohibition of religious gatherings. Further, ADF International advocated to open churches for worship in Ireland, Scotland, and Switzerland.
Top EU official and former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, challenges 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship at the European Court of Human Rights
Worship bans are “illiberal and non-democratic,” states Figeľ, who is bringing the potentially precedent-setting religious freedom case co-represented by ADF International
Strasbourg (28 July 2023) – Are blanket bans on public worship compatible with the international human right to the communal exercise of religious freedom? This is the question brought by former EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ján Figeľ, who has filed a challenge at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the 2021 COVID restrictions on public worship. Figeľ, co-represented by human rights organisation ADF International and local Slovak lawyer Martin Timcsak, now submitted his arguments to the court.
“Religious freedom as a basic human right deserves the highest level of protection. Prohibiting people from worship and communal religious exercise is profoundly illiberal and illegitimate. Worship bans were unfair and disproportionate. Our arguments submitted to the Court demonstrate clearly that blanket bans are violations of religious freedom under international human rights law,” stated Dr. Ján Figeľ.
Figeľ’s case might be the first where Europe’s top human rights court rules on the blanket bans on public worship during the Covid pandemic. The decision would set a precedent for 46 European States with 676 million citizens.
“In times of crisis, fundamental freedoms need to be protected, rather than weakened.”
In 2021 the Slovak Republic prolonged its COVID restrictions, banning religious services. Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru argue that the restrictions violated both national and international law.
“We are committed to supporting Dr. Ján Figeľ and his defence of religious freedom. The international legal framework is very clear in its protection of this right as it benefits everyone – people of faith as well as people of no faith. Fundamental freedoms apply to all, and in times of crisis they must be protected rather than weakened,” said Dr. Adina Portaru, Senior Counsel for ADF International.
The Slovak government also put forward the option of digital worship as a justification for the blanket ban. Recent court rulings throughout Europe, however, arrive at different conclusions. Scotland’s highest civil court ruled on the same issue, holding that digital options “are best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself”.
Restrictions were not “proportional, appropriate, and necessary”
The case rests on the fact that the Slovak blanket ban was neither proportional, nor appropriate or necessary.
“Nobody should be prohibited from peacefully exercising his or her convictions, and it was evident that religious worship could be conducted safely during the pandemic. Blanket bans ignore the central role that religion plays in the lives of believers. For people of faith, communal worship, spiritual nourishment, can be as important as bodily nourishment. That’s why international and European law and our very own Constitution holds religious freedom so dearly. I expect that the ECtHR will consider this holistically with a keen eye for the role of human rights in a democratic society,” said Dr. Ján Figeľ upon submitting the arguments.
Former Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion now defends human rights at home
Ján Figeľ served as European Commissioner in various positions between 2004 and 2009. In 2016 he was appointed as Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU, a position he held until 2019.
“As Special Envoy, it was evident to me that the EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its Member States fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home,” Figeľ added.
A newly released video features Dr. Ján Figeľ and ADF International lead lawyer Dr. Adina Portaru in Bratislava/Slovakia.
ADF International has been involved worldwide in cases regarding worship bans and violations of religious freedom in the context of Covid restrictions. In Uganda, the organisation supported a coalition of Christians and Muslims challenging a discriminatory prohibition of religious gatherings. Further, ADF International advocated to open churches for worship in Ireland, Scotland, and Switzerland.
HJ International Graduate School for Peace and Public Leadership (former UTS) held its forty-seventh Commencement in New York City. Ján Figeľ has received a Dr. h. c. Award and delivered a speech to the faculty and graduates.
In 2016, I became the first-ever Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. It was a time of mass atrocities committed by terrorists and militants of so-called ISIS against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria, and for four demanding years, I visited many countries to promote interfaith dialogue and responsibility. The most satisfying reward of that time was seeing the liberation of several prisoners of conscience in Sudan and Pakistan.
I have seen a lot of human suffering but also unbeatable courage and hope.
Since 2016, many European States followed my pioneering role by nominating their special envoys, ambassadors and plenipotentiaries. Thus, the FoRB protection has become a visible and vital part of European and international cooperation.
If the majority of people come to care about peace, we may indeed see a more humane, more peaceful 21st century. But what is the reality of religious freedom in the 21st century?
The Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., reports that 84% of the global population claims some form of religious affiliation. However, 79% of the global population lives in countries with high or very high obstacles to religious freedom. In short, hundreds of millions of people do not enjoy full religious freedom.
We can see this in government oppression, social hostilities, violent extremism and terrorism. Examples? Christians in Nigeria, Uyghurs in China, Rohingyas in Myanmar. Religious freedom is under growing pressure even in some democratic countries: In Japan, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification is facing painful times.
Religious freedom can be restricted due to necessary public interest, but only in line with three conditions: Legality, legitimacy, proportionality. (For instance, was it right or wrong for governments to put extensive restrictions on communal worship services during COVID-19 pandemics?) Vigilance is crucial for rule of law and for religious freedom to be duly respected in free and democratic countries.
I wish to share three important messages.
The right to religious freedom is the basis for other rights
International law defines FoRB as a freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is a very central human right – defining issues of personal conviction, lifestyle, the basis of cultural and spiritual life, identity, and the principle of belonging to the community of the like-minded.
FoRB is also a very complex right, as it concerns teaching, practice, worship and observance, in private or in public life, alone or in a community, for believers and non-believers. Therefore, one can say FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights.
FoRB represents the triune dimension of the human person: Homo rationalis, h. moralis, h. religiosus. Our rationality, morality, religiosity are inseparable.
Religious freedom requires maturity and responsibility
Freedom is a beautiful but fragile, vulnerable child. She needs to stay close to her wise and brave mother called, Truth. Freedom without truth will die, and will cease to exist. Crisis can be interpreted as a lack of maturity and an absence of balance. There are two sides of each valid coin: Freedom and responsibility, rights and duties.
Whenever I met religious leaders—the grand imams, grand ayatollahs, the Roman Catholic pope, the Coptic pope, the Tibetan dalai lama, and chief rabbis, patriarchs and bishops—I always spoke about religious social responsibility. The integration of Central European nations into the EU and NATO, into Euro Atlantic community of democracies was a result of responsible freedom.
Religious freedom is inextricable from human dignity
If there is a meeting point between the religious and secular worlds, it is human dignity. For true peace, we must dig deeper: We are all different in identity, but we are equal in dignity.
To me, the culture of human dignity operates on two very ancient ethical principles: The silver one stresses equality, respect and tolerance. It says: “Don’t do onto others what you don’t want others to do onto you.”
The golden ethical principle stresses solidarity and reciprocity of justice and common good. It says: “Do unto others what you want others to do unto you.”
Upholding human dignity is so essential that in 2018, international scholars, religious and political leaders adopted the Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere. This living document is open to signatories from all over the world (www.dignityforeveryone.org).
Evil remains widespread because it has strong allies: Indifference, ignorance and fear. If we don’t care, if we don’t know, if we are scared to say or do something on behalf of the voiceless or the defenseless, evil flourishes.
Let us nurture allies of common good: Education, active engagement, and courage. We can strengthen a growing global religious freedom movement, such as the International Religious Freedom Roundtables, International Religious Freedom Summit, G20 Interfaith Forum, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.
Jan Figel, who lived half his life under a communist regime, became the chief negotiator for Slovakia to enter the European Union and became its first EU Commissioner.
HJ International Graduate School for Peace and Public Leadership (former UTS) held its forty-seventh Commencement in New York City. Ján Figeľ has received a Dr. h. c. Award and delivered a speech to the faculty and graduates.
In 2016, I became the first-ever Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. It was a time of mass atrocities committed by terrorists and militants of so-called ISIS against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria, and for four demanding years, I visited many countries to promote interfaith dialogue and responsibility. The most satisfying reward of that time was seeing the liberation of several prisoners of conscience in Sudan and Pakistan.
I have seen a lot of human suffering but also unbeatable courage and hope.
Since 2016, many European States followed my pioneering role by nominating their special envoys, ambassadors and plenipotentiaries. Thus, the FoRB protection has become a visible and vital part of European and international cooperation.
If the majority of people come to care about peace, we may indeed see a more humane, more peaceful 21st century. But what is the reality of religious freedom in the 21st century?
The Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., reports that 84% of the global population claims some form of religious affiliation. However, 79% of the global population lives in countries with high or very high obstacles to religious freedom. In short, hundreds of millions of people do not enjoy full religious freedom.
We can see this in government oppression, social hostilities, violent extremism and terrorism. Examples? Christians in Nigeria, Uyghurs in China, Rohingyas in Myanmar. Religious freedom is under growing pressure even in some democratic countries: In Japan, the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification is facing painful times.
Religious freedom can be restricted due to necessary public interest, but only in line with three conditions: Legality, legitimacy, proportionality. (For instance, was it right or wrong for governments to put extensive restrictions on communal worship services during COVID-19 pandemics?) Vigilance is crucial for rule of law and for religious freedom to be duly respected in free and democratic countries.
I wish to share three important messages.
The right to religious freedom is the basis for other rights
International law defines FoRB as a freedom of thought, conscience and religion. It is a very central human right – defining issues of personal conviction, lifestyle, the basis of cultural and spiritual life, identity, and the principle of belonging to the community of the like-minded.
FoRB is also a very complex right, as it concerns teaching, practice, worship and observance, in private or in public life, alone or in a community, for believers and non-believers. Therefore, one can say FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights.
FoRB represents the triune dimension of the human person: Homo rationalis, h. moralis, h. religiosus. Our rationality, morality, religiosity are inseparable.
Religious freedom requires maturity and responsibility
Freedom is a beautiful but fragile, vulnerable child. She needs to stay close to her wise and brave mother called, Truth. Freedom without truth will die, and will cease to exist. Crisis can be interpreted as a lack of maturity and an absence of balance. There are two sides of each valid coin: Freedom and responsibility, rights and duties.
Whenever I met religious leaders—the grand imams, grand ayatollahs, the Roman Catholic pope, the Coptic pope, the Tibetan dalai lama, and chief rabbis, patriarchs and bishops—I always spoke about religious social responsibility. The integration of Central European nations into the EU and NATO, into Euro Atlantic community of democracies was a result of responsible freedom.
Religious freedom is inextricable from human dignity
If there is a meeting point between the religious and secular worlds, it is human dignity. For true peace, we must dig deeper: We are all different in identity, but we are equal in dignity.
To me, the culture of human dignity operates on two very ancient ethical principles: The silver one stresses equality, respect and tolerance. It says: “Don’t do onto others what you don’t want others to do onto you.”
The golden ethical principle stresses solidarity and reciprocity of justice and common good. It says: “Do unto others what you want others to do unto you.”
Upholding human dignity is so essential that in 2018, international scholars, religious and political leaders adopted the Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere. This living document is open to signatories from all over the world (www.dignityforeveryone.org).
Evil remains widespread because it has strong allies: Indifference, ignorance and fear. If we don’t care, if we don’t know, if we are scared to say or do something on behalf of the voiceless or the defenseless, evil flourishes.
Let us nurture allies of common good: Education, active engagement, and courage. We can strengthen a growing global religious freedom movement, such as the International Religious Freedom Roundtables, International Religious Freedom Summit, G20 Interfaith Forum, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.
Jan Figel, who lived half his life under a communist regime, became the chief negotiator for Slovakia to enter the European Union and became its first EU Commissioner.
Almost nine years ago, newly appointed EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini was being lauded for leading the world in standing up to the junta who usurped power away from the elected government in Thailand four months prior. Alongside the accolades came a foreboding warning: Once the military has its grip on power, it will not easily let it go. Specifically, it was suggested that the military will rewrite the constitution in such a way that its own grip on power will be built into the system in perpetuity.
As expected, the new constitution was promulgated in 2017, cementing the military’s powers. Much delayed elections were finally held in 2019, seeing the junta leader shed his uniform for a suit and tie to transition into Thailand’s new ‘civilian’ PM. Unfortunately, in the nine years which have transpired, the EU and much of the Western world have dropped sanctions and abandoned principle, returning to full cooperation with Thailand’s undemocratic government, choosing to take part in the charade rather than stand up for democracy.
In May of this year, a second election was held under the new constitution. This time, nine years after the coup d’Etat which swept the military into power, a landslide victory for pro-democracy parties Move Forward and Pheu Thai and a complete sidelining of the plain-clothed military political parties. Yet, as Nikkei Asia reports, three weeks after the elections, the pro-democracy coalition’s nominated PM is still in limbo while the powers that be deliberate whether to allow him to assume his rightful office.
In contrast, earlier this year the EU adopted further restrictive measures against leaders of the junta which usurped power in Thailand’s immediate neighbour to the West, Myanmar, in February 2021. One can only hope that the EU will not buckle in Myanmar as it has in Thailand and stay steadfast in its resolve to support the Burmese people in their aspiration for a fully democratic transition.
All eyes must now turn one more country to the West, with general elections scheduled in Bangladesh for January 2024. Following a highly criticized and disputed general election in 2018, Bangladesh’s main opposition party, Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami both demand the next elections be held under a caretaker government, at the threat of boycott. Veteran Bangladeshi PM of 15 years Sheikh Hasina has vowed never again to hand over power to an unelected body and has rejected this demand outright.
The last caretaker government was taken over by the military, extended its 90-day term and postponed elections by over two years from 2006-2008. Ironically, in full role-reversal, it was then-opposition Awami League (today’s ruling party)’s boycott of the 2006 elections which triggered the declaration of the State of Emergency and military intervention. Political leaders of all parties from across the political spectrum were jailed and indicted on various trumped-up charges by the caretaker government – a common practice by juntas designed to exclude popular political leaders from ever contesting future elections. In fact, both of BNP’s current co-leaders, Khaleda Zia and her son Tarique Rahman, are ineligible to run in the upcoming elections due to convictions which date back to the military-backed caretaker government of 2006-2008. Incumbent Sheikh Hasina too had been jailed during this period – which may play a major factor in her outright rejection of the opposition’s demands.
The caretaker government was a unique arrangement which does not exist anywhere else in the world, and in 2011 Bangladesh’s Supreme Court ruled that the system of interim administrations was unconstitutional. The Awami League government has reasoned that in the previous elections, a caretaker government was needed because the Election Commission (EC) never had a legal basis in Bangladesh. But in January 2022, the country passed a new law promulgating the formation of the EC.
In response to pressure from the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in June 2023, PM Sheikh Hasina has committed to hold free & fair elections and has welcomed international observers to monitor elections. Recent local elections in the strategic city of Gazipur in June 2023 were held peacefully and without incident, despite an independent candidate defeating the ruling party’s candidate by a narrow margin. BNP did not contest these elections – a possible harbinger of things to come. With both sides at an impasse and a likely boycott of elections by opposition, the stage is set for yet another military intervention in the region. The military seems to be chomping at the bit with anticipation. If they are to be deterred, the international community must make it clear to the generals that the consequences will be swift, harsh and personal.
Why Japan Should Guarantee Religious Liberty to the Unification Church/Family Federation: A Letter to the Government
Four prominent specialists of freedom of religion or belief—Willy Fautré, Ján Figel’, Massimo Introvigne, and Aaron Rhodes—call for an end to what increasingly appears as a witch hunt.
From left to right, Willy Fautré, Ján Figel’, Massimo Introvigne, and Aaron Rhodes.
Dear Prime Minister Fumio Kishida:
Dear Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi:
Dear Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology Keiko Nagaoka:
We are writing to share some pressing concerns about threats to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) that have emerged in Japan after the tragic assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.
We are academics and human rights activists, each with long experience in the field of FoRB. We are also friends of Japan and admirers of its millennia-old culture and vibrant democratic institutions. Many of us counted Japan as a precious ally in international fora when we had to protest human rights and FoRB violations by totalitarian regimes.
Preliminary General Comments
First of all, we wish to introduce three general comments that are essential to appreciate our approach to the issue:
The first is that, in our long experience of defending FoRB throughout the world, we have noticed that the rights of certain minority religions are denied by stigmatizing them as “cults.” Most academic scholars of religions have abandoned the word “cult” since the last decades of the 20th century. It has no scientific content and is only used to demonize and repress certain minorities. On December 12, 2022, reforming its previous case law, the European Court of Human Rights agreed with the mainline scholarly position, and in the decision “Tonchev and Others v. Bulgaria”stated that terms such as “cults” or those deriving from the Latin “secta” in languages other than English are “likely to have negative consequences on the exercise of religious freedom” of the members of the groups so stigmatized, and should not be used in official governmental documents. “Brainwashing” is also a category that has been discredited in the academic study of religion since the 20th century by both scholars and courts of law in the United States and several European countries. It is a pseudo-scientific concept used to reinforce the discrimination between “good” religions, which allegedly do not use brainwashing to convert their new members, and “bad” “cults,” which supposedly do. The false notion of “brainwashing” was also used to justify the criminal practice of deprogramming, where adult members of certain religious minorities were kidnapped, illegally detained, and submitted to various forms of violence until they gave up and agreed to abandon their faith.
In 1993, the United Nations Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No. 22 to Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (that Japan has signed and ratified), which deals with FoRB.
Section 2 of General Comment no. 22 states that in Article 18, “The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility.” This is a key point. Majority and popular religions are protected by their own popularity. Article 18 call states to also protect those minority religions that, for whatever reasons, a part of the population may view with hostility.
A second preliminary comment is that, when attacking minority religions, their opponents and the media often rely on “apostate” ex-members. “Apostate” is not a derogatory term but a technical category introduced by David Bromley and other leading sociologists to identify the minority of ex-members who turn into militant opponents of the groups they have left. “Apostate” is not a synonym of “ex-members.” Most ex-members are not apostates nor are they interested in crusades against their former religious movements. While human suffering should always be respected, and apostate accounts should not be ignored, scholars have repeatedly warned that apostates have an agenda, are not representatives of the majority of former members of a religion, and their narratives tell us more about their feelings and the ideology they have adopted than about the reality of their former movements.
A third preliminary comment is that, in our secular societies, there is a widespread hostility to religious groups whose members are active in politics. While separation of religion and the state is an important democratic principle, it is also important to affirm that religionists have no less rights than any other citizens to participate in the political life of their nations. We should also be aware that criticism of certain religious minorities is often proposed for political reasons, and hides a political agenda under the narratives of “cult” and “brainwashing.”
The assault on the Unification Church, now Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU)
This background is important to understand our concern about the situation of the Unification Church (UC), now called Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU) in Japan, and the campaign aimed at removing its status as a religious corporation. The UC/FFWPU is a stereotypical example of a religious organization targeted by anti-cultists as a “cult” using “brainwashing.”
In Japan, the assault against the UC/FFWPU has been led since 1987 by the National Network of Lawyers Against Spiritual Sales. There is a significant journalistic and scholarly literature demonstrating that most of the lawyers who established the Network were politically motivated. They wanted to punish the UC and another organization established by the same founder, the International Federation for Victory over Communism, for its anti-Communist activities and its effective support to anti-Communist and conservative politicians.
The question of “spiritual sales”
“Spiritual sales” was a label coined by the opponents of the UC to criticize the sale of certain artifacts, believed to bring spiritual advantages to the buyers, at prices significantly higher than their material value. In fact, the UC as an organization never engaged in such sales. Some of its members did. The UC took measures against abuses in this field and, after the so-called “Declaration of Compliance” of 2009, these sales by UC members substantially stopped. Before the assassination of Shinzo Abe, the number of complaints had decreased to a handful per year, and these sales might be considered a problem of the past. The UC/FFWPU was never found guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in this or other respects, and the conditions justifying an action to remove its religious corporation status are simply not there.
The almost defunct campaign against “spiritual sales” was resurrected after the Abe assassination. Simple donations, normal in all religious groups, were called “non-material spiritual sales,” a strange and self-contradictory concept.
Abusive deprogramming of Church members
Absent in the discussion was, however, a much more serious crime, deprogramming. This obnoxious and criminal practice was actively supported by anti-UC lawyers and continued in Japan from the 1970s to the Supreme Court decision of 2015 on the case of Toru Goto, a UC believer who was detained by his family and the deprogrammers for more than twelve years. The enormous amount of violence and suffering involved in deprogramming should always be considered when trying to understand the harsh relationships between the UC/FFWPU and its opponents in Japan.
Role of apostates in agitation against the Church; Failure of the British Government’s case against the Church
As in other similar cases, the campaign against the UC/FFWPU relies heavily on a few apostate ex-members. One goes under the pseudonym “Sayuri Ogawa” and has been heavily promoted by the anti-UC Network and even introduced to Japan’s Prime Minister. As it has happened with other apostates, in its crucial and essential points her story is demonstrably false, as revealed both by the international FoRB magazine Bitter Winter (a specialized publication that had more than 200 of its articles quoted as reliable sources in the yearly U.S. Department of State reports on freedom of religion of the last four years) and by award-winning Japanese journalist Masumi Fukuda.
This is not a matter of opinion. Ogawa’s parents have submitted dozens of documents proving that their daughter’s story is false. We respectfully suggest that they should have been heard by the Prime Minister and other Japanese authorities as well, as their story is backed by substantial evidence and there is no reason to consider it prejudicially as less true than the one told by Sayuri Ogawa.
In a significant precedent, the British Government was unwise enough to base almost its whole case for the removal of the “charitable status” (very similar to Religious Corporation Status in Japan) from The Unification Church in the United Kingdom, which it launched in 1984, at the behest of the “anti-cult movement,” on the testimonies of “apostates” from the Church. Many of them had been subjected to having their faith forcibly broken by professional “deprogrammers,” and the great majority of them had been influenced by the anti-cult movement in the United Kingdom or in the USA. When this phenomenon was exposed by lawyers representing the Church, the government’s case collapsed, and it was forced to withdraw it entirely and to pay the equivalent at today’s prices of over USD 6 million in costs. The case also put an end to cooperation between the British government and anti-cultists and led to the decision to cooperate instead with academic scholars of new religious movements through an organization called INFORM.
Relying on apostates such as Ogawa is an example of dubious procedural practices or even respect for natural justice that are of deep concern in this case. It seems to us that testimonies hostile to the UC/FFWPU are systematically privileged, that militant opponents of the religious movement are included in official commissions dealing with it, and different opinions and testimonies are not seriously considered.
Threat to the Church’s right to self-organize
We are also concerned about measures introduced in the field of donations to religions and the religious education of children that put at risk the right, not only of the FFWPU but of other groups as well, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to self-organize themselves as they deem fit and living according to their spiritual principles. The fact that they may be different from those of the majority does not mean that they should be less protected in a democratic state. FoRB is only affirmed when it is guaranteed to the less popular groups and those that have a significant number of opponents.
The liquidation of the FFWPU would expose Japan to international condemnation, and legitimate attacks on religious freedom in nondemocratic countries
The international FoRB community is watching what is happening in Japan, which represents the most serious FoRB crisis in a democratic country of our century. We hope that all organizations that support and defend FoRB in Japan and internationally would support our appeal. The liquidation of the FFWPU as a religious corporation would be a measure comparable to the actions taken against several religious minorities in China and Russia, and unprecedented in a democratic country. It would also expose Japan to considerable international criticism. What is more, should the Japanese government proceed with this action, it will give cover to assaults on religious groups by authoritarian and totalitarian states around the world, undermining efforts by international human rights institutions to protect religious liberty.
We urge the Japanese government to protect the FoRB of all religious and spiritual groups operating in Japan, including those that have powerful, well-financed, and politically motivated opponents, to withdraw all measures threatening FoRB, and to guarantee to the FFWPU as a religious corporation the peaceful exercise of its right to religious liberty.
We are most grateful for your attention to the foregoing appeal.
Sincerely,Mr. Willy FautréThe Honorable Ján Figel’Professor Massimo IntrovigneDr. Aaron Rhodes
June 14, 2023
Identification of signatories:
Willy Fautré is former chargé de mission at the Cabinet of the Belgian Ministry of Education and at the Belgian Parliament. He is the director of Human Rights Without Frontiers, an NGO based in Brussels that he founded in 1988. His organization defends human rights in general but also the rights of persons belonging to historical religions, non-traditional and new religious movements. It is apolitical and independent from any religion.
He has carried out fact-finding missions on human rights and religious freedom in more than 25 countries. He is a lecturer at various universities in the field of religious freedom and human rights. He has published many articles in university journals about relations between state and religions. He organizes conferences at the European Parliament, including on freedom of religion or belief in China. For years, he has developed religious freedom advocacy in European institutions, at the OSCE, and at the UN.
Ján Figel was EU Commissioner for Education from 2004-9 and Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia from 2010-12 after having successfully acted as Chief Negotiator for Slovakia’s accession to the EU and been State Secretary at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1989 he participated in the founding of the Christian Democratic Movement (KDH) in Slovakia and from 2009-16 was the party’s President. From 2012-2016 he served as a Vice president of the Slovak Parliament.
From 2016-19 he was the first-ever EU Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) outside the EU and in that capacity was instrumental in the release of FoRB prisoners in Cuba, Iran, Pakistan, and Sudan.
He is currently a member of the International Council of Experts of the International Freedom of Religion and Belief Alliance (Intergovernmental network) and a member of the International Religious Freedom Summit Global Leadership Council (a civil society-led initiative).
Massimo Introvigne is an Italian sociologist of religion and the author of more than seventy books in the field published by leading academic presses. In 2011, he served as the Representative for combating racism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance and discrimination of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which the United States and Canada are also participating states. From 2012 to 2015 he was the President of the Observatory of Religious Liberty created by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He is the editor-in-chief of the daily magazine on religious liberty and human rights “Bitter Winter.”
Aaron Rhodes is President of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe and Senior Fellow in the Common Sense Society, an international educational network. He was Executive Director of the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights from 1993-2007, and subsequently a founder of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. Rhodes is the author of “The Debasement of Human Rights” (Encounter Books 2018) and numerous articles published in the “Wall Street Journal,” the “New York Times,” “Newsweek”, and other publications. Among other honors, he was made an honorary citizen of the Republic of Austria for his human rights contributions.
