A direct question: Why does the European Union still not have a Special Envoy/High Representative for Religious Freedom and Belief? Why, after the resignation of the Greek Cypriot politician and former EU Commissioner Christos Stylianides more than a year ago, has this position not been renewed? Personally, I would have expected at least a reference to this position, which remained vacant for far too long, during the State of the Union address you held on September 14. Of course, we agree that there are many priorities and the times we live through – between a pandemic and a war at Europe’s doorstep. They force us to think about strengthening the Atlantic Alliance, dealing with the energy crisis, the cost of bills, and technological and production autonomy to not depend on competitor states such as Russia and China. The challenges are many, and no one doubts that. But it is not possible to underestimate the strategic importance of a role that, in addition to being decisive in defence of a fundamental human right, could also increase the position of the EU and its soft power on the international scene.
Good work cannot and must not be lost
Since President Juncker appointed Ján Figel in 2016 as a special envoy for religious freedom and belief outside the European Union. Thus, it responded to an explicit request by the European Parliament – a lot of water has passed under the bridge. Ján Figel’s good work cannot and must not be lost.
His role in the release of Asia Bibi was perhaps his greatest success. Still, we cannot forget his efforts for interreligious dialogue and his denunciations of the situation of persecuted and massacred Christians in the Middle East and Africa. With reduced means and instruments, Ján Figel succeeded in giving the European Union a leading role on the issues of freedom of religion and belief.
Unfortunately, since the non-confirmation of Mr Figel, and seeing how shortly Mr Stylianides held that role, the EU has lost an important space. The UN and all the more evolved and rights-conscious nations have appointed a representative for religious freedom in recent years. Why does the EU still not have anyone? Why has it decided not to invest in such a sensitive and important issue in a changing global world that needs a guide, and can this guide really be European?
The European Union and its leadership try in many ways to respond to the needs of its citizens and the many problems our continent faces. That is an exercise that sometimes even inspires some affection, some hope, but certainly not security. I do not want to join in the criticism of the EU just for the sake of taking sides. The different national interests, the different local sensitivities, and the priorities of citizens – not only different but even opposing – that there may be between Italians and Dutch, between Portuguese and Estonians, make the work of a politician at the European level a particularly complex mission. The differences are there for all to see: from the difficulties in approving the Recovery Fund to the current debate on the cap on gas prices to divergent migration policies or the rule of law in Central and Eastern European countries. All dossiers that pass through the desks of Brussels always suffer before their eventual approval, or the following debates provoke even more fractures and divisions.
Headlines
But there is perhaps something that could unite the EU countries instead of dividing them. It is not something that would hit the headlines or solve the current energy crisis. But perhaps it could prevent some conflicts. It is precisely safeguarding religious freedom, an indispensable value for defining democracies and states under the rule of law and a role from which Europe cannot abdicate.
Hence, here is an appeal to the President of the Commission Von Der Leyen, to the European Commissioner Schinas in charge, to not only re-appoint a special envoy for religious freedom as soon as possible but also to strengthen his or her role in implementing the Community effort on this issue that is so central but so sadly undervalued.
Marco Gombacci
Marco Gombacci was born in 1985 in Trieste, Italy.
Marco Gombacci
He works as EU and foreign affairs analyst. He reported about the Mosul offensive (Iraq), the battle to reconquer Raqqa, from Deir Ezzor (Syria) and Nagorno Karabakh (during the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaigian).
He authored the book “Kurdistan. Utopia di un popolo tradito” (ed. Salerno, 2019).
Opinions and articles have been published by Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Daily Express, TgCom45, TG5, Rai1, RaiNews 24, TRECE TV, FRANCE24, La Libre, Le Temps, and many others.
Former Ambassador Sam Brownback and Katrina Lantos Swett hosted the event in Washington, D.C. “We’ve got a simple model: it’s religious freedom for everybody, everywhere, all the time.”
by Marco Respinti
Marco Respinti (left) with Ján Figeľ, former European Commission special envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion outside the EU, at the IRF Summit 2022.
The concept of freedom of religion, belief, or creed (now often known under the acronym FORB) suffers from a misunderstanding. It is unpleasant, because it misrepresents religious liberty; and it is dangerous, because it unleashes the wrong battles for the wrong reasons. The misconception consists in thinking that religious freedom means that all religions are equal. They are not. From a theological, historical, and sociological point of view, this is obvious. Each group of believers regards its faith as unique and is proud of it. There is a serious danger that proclaiming that all religions are equal would fuel relativism.
In fact, advocacy for religious freedom also means denouncing the violations of it perpetrated by a religious group against others. This implies detecting the perversion of theological concepts, the twisting of genuine religious beliefs, and the ideological use of religion to distort the message of one faith to perpetrate acts of violence against other religions or secular targets. Advocacy for religious liberty can never means that religious freedom should be only for one religious group at the expense of (all) others.
What is FORB
The International Religious Freedom Summit 2022, held at the Renaissance Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C., June 28 to 30, 2022, swept away all these misconstructions and theoretical errors with assertive elegance.
The Summit was co-hosted and co-chaired by two well-known defenders of religious freedom. They are Samuel Brownback, former 46th Republican Governor of Kansas and Ambassador-at-Large of the United States for International Religious Freedom 2018–2022, now active in the same field through The Brownback Group, and Katrina Lantos Swett, president of the Lantos Foundation for Human Rights and Justice, which was founded in 2008 to continue the legacy of his late husband, Democratic Representative Thomas Peter Lantos (1928–2008). Born in Budapest as Tamás Péter Lantos, this future staunch defender of human dignity and fundamental rights survived the Holocaust thanks to heroic Swedish businessman and diplomat Raoul Wallenberg (1912–1945), who helped thousands of Jews escape Nazi persecution. Wallenberg ended up in the hands of the Soviet Army with a false charge of espionage, and disappeared in the Gulag.
IRF Summit Co-Chairs Katrina Lantos Swett and Sam Brownback.
Ambassador Brownback stated plainly the logic of the Summit: “We’ve got a simple model: it’s religious freedom for everybody, everywhere, all the time.” Lantos Swett constantly strengthened the benefit that religious liberty produces for everyone in the world, not only a specific group.
FORB is in fact the decisive and fundamental political right of each human person. It is decisive, because it concerns the ultimate meaning of things (for believers, of course, but also for atheists, who freely conclude that God does not exist). It is fundamental, because it generates all other basic rights (freedom of speech, press, assembly, education, etc.), giving them substance and meaning. Being a non-negotiable principle, it orients all negotiable values.
The Summit’s plenary sessions and the monographic breakout sessions were animated by a prestigious lot of panelists and hosts, as well as enlivened by the unvaluable contributions of testimonies and testimonials. Speakers included Rashad Hussain, Advisor to the US President on Religious Freedom Conditions and Policy; Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives; former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; US Senator Marco Rubio; Fiona Bruce, UK FORB Envoy; Professor Mary Ann Glendon; former Finnish minister of Interior Päivi Räsänen; Greg Mitchell, of the International Religious Freedom Roundtables; basketball celebrity Enes Kanter Freedom; Baron David Alton of Liverpool; Tom Farr, president of the Religious Freedom Institute; Azra Jafari, first (now former) female Mayor in Afghanistan; Nadine Maenza, former Chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF); actor Justin Baldoni; Farahnaz Ispahani, former member of the National Assembly of Pakistan; Michael Farris, president and CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom; Tibetan Buddhist leader Arjia Rinpoche; Ján Figeľ, former European Commission special envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion outside the EU; Mariam Ibraheem, director of Global Mobilization for Tahrir Alnisa Foundation; Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress; Oksana Markarova, Ukrainian Ambassador to the US; Ethan Gutmann, co-founder of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China; human rights lawyer David Matas; Sharifah Shakirah, founder and director of Rohingya Women Development Network; Alejandro Eduardo Giammattei Falla, president of Guatemala; Nury Turkel, Chair of the USCIRF; and Nguyễn Dinh Thang, executive director of Boat People SOS.
The sworn enemies of FORB
The IRF Summit 2022 made quite clear that three are the sworn enemies of religious freedom today. First, terrorism in the crippled name of God, as for example in the case of ultra-fundamentalist “Islamism,” to be always carefully distinguished from Islam to avoid any claim of “Islamophobia”. From Middle East to Pakistan, from North Africa to India, Islamist terrorism hit harshly and seriously. Its victims are members of other religions, especially Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists, but also several devotees of other Muslim communities that ultra-fundamentalist religious-turned-political ideology labels as “infidels,” pretending to have the monopoly of the word “Islamic.” This is notably the case of the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan and Algeria, and the Hazara Shiites in Afghanistan and Pakistan, alongside other non-Muslim communities whose only sin is to live in regions where Islamist fury rules, including Baháʼís in Iran and Yazidis in Iraq and elsewhere.
Ahmadi booth at the Summit.
Second, totalitarian ideocracies such as communism, which is by no means dead in several countries, above all in China. Before widening its scope to other parts of the world on December 1, 2020, Bitter Winter was launched on May 2, 2018, specifically to inform and alert on the crimes of the Communist hell on earth that the People’s Republic of China is, and more than half of its effort is still on that target.
The religious persecution waged on by the Chinese Communist Party was discussed at length in several panels at the IRF Summit 2022, frequently documenting and debating the fate of the Uyghurs and other Muslim communities in Mainland China, as well as Tibetans and Christians, or presenting evidence of organ harvesting—a rich and astonishing industry in the country whose victims are prisoners of conscience from Falun Gong and other groups.
Marco Respinti with Ambassador Brownback.
Third, some states practice dirigiste policies, at least in this field, and thus pay only lip services to real religious freedom. It happens when governments and institutions promote intrusion in the lives of spiritual groups, limiting FORB in the name of some vague, or alleged, administrative, fiscal, or social policies.
A version of this, which may count for an additional fourth enemy of religious freedom, is typical of Western democracies. It is relativism. This is a cultural attitude, both philosophical and popular, of basically considering everything as having the same value, which immediately turns into giving value to nothing, thus eroding FORB. Its arms are political correctness, conformism, and the so-called “cancel culture”, as former Finnish Minister Päivi Räsänen, still on trial for having quoted the Bible, testified at the Summit.
Marco Respinti with Päivi Räsänen.
An important piece of news emerged several times in discussions and panels through the Summit. Christians, in term of numbers, are still the most persecuted religious group in the world, a persecution some governments, international institutions and NGOs do not seem to take seriously.
Several groups and communities maintained booths at the Renaissance Hotel, distributing literature and informative material. One such piece of literature prompted a reflection from yours truly. It advocated FORB for “traditional religions.” I was told the definition meant no discrimination for the other religions, but nonetheless wondered, What is a “traditional” religion? An old religion? How old, and who decides it? The number of its devotees? Numbers are all relative, when considered in relation to place, context, and time. Or are “traditional” faiths those claiming to have a “tradition”? Well, all have. As a matter of fact, human time in history being relative, depending on several different measurements, criteria, and understandings, it is quite easy to consider all religions “traditional,” or for them to actually be.
Recently established groups, and yet each displaying a recognizable “tradition,” like Scientology or Tai Ji Men participated in the Summit (and this writer was also a speaker in a panel organized by the latter).
Two statements aptly sum up the meaning and value of the IRF Summit 2022. The first was uttered by Holly Folk, a scholar of religions at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, precisely during a seminar hosted by Tai Ji Men as an appendix to the major event. Folk urged to stop using the term “cult” for any religious or spiritual group. “Cult” is in fact a vague expression with no scientific ground, weaponized against unwelcome groups by those who have the power to do it.
Nadine Maenza at the Summit, with the Tai Ji Men Bell of World Peace and Love.
The second point was made clear by Nadine Maenza, saying that “religious freedom is for everybody, or is for nobody.” This seems to be the next task for Greg Mitchell and his associates. In fact Mitchell announced a major structural coordination among groups advocating for religious freedom and persecuted communities with the help of the prestigious Templeton Foundation. To some extent, the IRF Summit in Washington was the trailer of this future film.
Marco Respinti is the Editor-in-Chief of International Family News. He is an Italian professional journalist, member of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ), essayist, translator, and lecturer. He has contributed and contributes to several journals and magazines both in print and online, both in Italy and abroad. Author of books, he has translated and/or edited works by, among others, Edmund Burke, Charles Dickens, T.S. Eliot, Russell Kirk, J.R.R. Tolkien, Régine Pernoud and Gustave Thibon. A Senior fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal, a non-partisan, non-profit U.S. educational organization based in Mecosta, Michigan, he is also a founding member as well as Board member of the Center for European Renewal, a non-profit, non-partisan pan-European educational organization based in The Hague, The Netherlands, and a member of the Advisory Council of the European Federation for Freedom of Belief. He serves as Director-in-Charge of the academic publication The Journal of CESNUR and Bitter Winter: A Magazine on Religious Liberty and Human Rights.
On Tuesday 10 May 2022, the ITI welcomed to campus Ján Figeľ under the guise of the Adenauer Forum for a conversation on Catholic Public Leadership with ITI’s President, Dr. Christiaan Alting von Geusau. Mr. Figeľ was instrumental in providing leadership to his native Slovakia as it transitioned from communism and the Soviet Bloc to democracy and the European Union. After Slovakia joined the European Union, Mr. Figeľ was European Commissioner for Education, Training, and Culture and then returned to Slovakia for several more years to serve in various leadership roles in the Slovak government. Following that, he returned to the European Commission to serve as its Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the E.U. where he was instrumental in helping to free several people who had been jailed due to their faith.
Mr. Figeľ and Dr. Geusau’s conversation ranged from his adolescence under totalitarianism, his experience on the ground floor of Slovakia’s political transition, and his time serving in various leadership roles in Slovakia and Europe. Following the conversation, Mr. Figeľ answered student audience questions and then spent several minutes meeting and talking with students informally following the event.
By Ján Figel, the former European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth between 2004 and 2009. After this, he served as the Minister of Transport and Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia (2010-2012). During the Juncker Commission he was the European Union’s Special Envoy for Religious Freedom.
Change is an indication of the presence of life. In the past, winners were those that would survive changes. Today and in the future, winners are those shaping the necessary changes.
In 2010, I became a minister responsible for the largest economic assets controlled by the Slovak Government, that are also an important part of my country’s economy: transport, postal services, telecommunications, construction industry, regional development, tourism. After the global financial crises of 2008-09, everything was in turmoil, hit by economic decline and related socio-political problems.
Apart from legislative work, I was responsible for 15 state-owned companies, accounting for approximately 15% of Slovakia’s GDP. These all depended on swift and performant decisions. CARGO Railway Company, for example, was almost bankrupt. I remember I was holding months of long and intense talks with bankers over the future of the company. The company’s losses were enormous, reaching 600 million euros. Imminent collapse and bankruptcy threatened if aid was not provided urgently.
After two hard months of deliberations, banks expressed their trust into a large program of corporate and sectoral restructuring. We guaranteed that the costs and processes for this would be handled efficiently, that there would be sound economic policies and new commercial activities going forward, thereby however cutting down on employment and social benefits. This amounted to a significant cost reduction and the start of innovative modes of transportation.
At the time, I was severely attacked for this by the opposition and by trade unions. However, a transport company operating in the single market can not function as a social, care taking institution. Then this company, which was under my indirect responsibility, managed to turn its unbearable red numbers into black figures the next year. Profits reached 120 million euro and 122 million euro in 2012!
Contemporary challenges
This experience came to my mind when I looked into the challenges of P&O Ferries. Its financial situation is clearly not sustainable, due to heavy burdens caused by two years of COVID, and following the arrival of competitive forms of transport that have been around for a long time now – low-cost airline carriers and Eurotunnel. P&O Ferries has been suffering a 100 million pounds of losses last year.
Therefore, I am convinced that the thorough decisions taken by the company board and management, as well as its owner DP World, are both necessary and promising. They combine managerial innovation and social sensitivity. These changes, announced in mid-March, are part of DP World’s wider plan to support P&O Ferries, to deliver the best for customers across freight and tourism industries. As a result, the company will be able to invest into the future, for example through its purchase of new ships with a total value of £220M. New, more flexible crewing models should furthermore help the company to become resilient, competitive and sustainable.
As part of the process, P&O Ferries had to take the very difficult decision to provide 800 seafarers with immediate severance notice. This came urgently, without consultation, affecting the lives of many families. Usually, this is the most sensitive part of any private, public or state company’s turnaround. We all know it. To avoid that the majority of the jobs, amounting to 2,200 jobs, would be at risk, and to fairly compensate and help the minority, is unquestionably a more responsible course than to suffer bankruptcy and the demise of the whole of this old British company.
These changes will hopefully make P&O Ferries viable again. It is important for customers in the North and Irish Seas and for those crossing the Channel as well. Restructuring of traditional companies is never simple or easy. However, a responsible, balanced and timely company overhaul process is ultimately something that benefits the many.
War on Ukraine represents a conflict between democratic, independent and sovereign country and autocratic aggressor brutally violating international law. We must be sensitive on protection of democratic traditions and processes in European countries. When diplomatic missions act to involve themselves in the domestic politics of their host, this step crosses the line of interference and places embassy officials in the realm of political actors. When this is done at the behest of anti-government NGOs in a European democracy, it displays deformed and divisive behaviors that undermine principals of mutual respect for the democratic process.
This exact behaviour has been revealed to have taken place in Hungary, where NGOs pursuing to change the government enlisted Western embassies to act in their interest. Whether to apply pressure on the Hungarian government from the embassies themselves, or to apply pressure from abroad, the diplomatic missions became a tool through which government regulations or legislation could be challenged.
The recorded and broadly published statements of two former directors at the Open Society Foundation (OSF) as well as a former director at Amnesty International (AI) reveal that officials from the Dutch, British, and US Embassies in Budapest have been willing to pressure the Hungarian government directly, while the Belgian, French, Spanish, and German Embassies would engage in politicized stunts or be used as cover for media attacks. OSF would even go up the ladder to the European Commission to attempt to achieve its goals in Hungary. Perhaps the best public example of the diplomatic corps acting as biased political agents is when the former Dutch Ambassador to Hungary compared the country’s methods to those of the Islamic State terrorist organisation.
Such politicized foreign involvement in the affairs of a sovereign democracy like Hungary undermines the role of voters to decide upon their parliamentary representation and the direction of policy. In Europe, and specifically between democracies, it is critical that space is allowed for differing electoral outcomes, and indeed divergent worldviews to win at the ballot box.
Of course, foreign embassies are tasked with communicating the position of their government to the government of Hungary, particularly on any issue affecting the bilateral relationship. Yet the pattern in Budapest has been markedly different, with the embassies using combinations of public and private pressure to affect the country’s domestic affairs and Hungarian government policy, pushed to do so by NGOs unrepresentative of the Hungarian electorate.
When OSF and AI enlist foreign embassies to apply pressure and use top-down approaches to affect the politics of Hungary, it is largely a reflection of the fact that the Hungarian population has not voted their interests and ideology into power. Financially motivated and interested parties, OSF and AI’s Hungarian operations get funding to reflect the wishes of wealthy donors outside the country, over the political aspirations of those living there. With OSF and AI preferences for Hungarian governance not seeing electoral success, their activities to affect policy behind foreign embassies can bring similar results, just less democratically.
The issue with these activities is that they engender mistrust and division between countries that, otherwise, are deeply embedded within the Western sphere and European community. As tragic weeks of war in Ukraine show, pan-European unity is the essential ingredient needed to confront crises on the continent and defend democracy in our broader region. The former Communist members of the European Union have not wavered in commitment to upholding European values and to countering the aggression from Moscow – Hungary included.
We risk losing this spirit of pan-European unity if some governments are undermined by their own allies, no matter if policy proscriptions differ and worldviews diverge. The embassies in Budapest must be cognizant that to do the bidding of OSF or AI for a short-term political gain ultimately hurts Hungarian democracy and can damage pan-European trust and unity which has been critical in recent weeks. Europe can have its debates and political differences, but mutual respect must still reign when these differences emerge out of the democratic process. This must be the principle. So that when military aggression and invasions threaten the European continent, our differences come into focus as minor when compared to the threats we face in our current hours.
Democratic process in Europe must be protected and respected. It cannot be allowed to be subject to attack from any source, nor can it spread to the entire continent if subverted in its core regions. Disturbingly, just such assaults have been recorded, with foreign elements interfering directly in Poland and Hungary, while also engaging in lobbying, public relations, and influence operations across Europe that target Warsaw and Budapest. These activities are designed to undermine democracy and subvert the Polish and Hungarian electorates – writes Jan Figel, former EU Commissioner and Special Envoy
From the information since recently broadly publicly available, Poland and Hungary are singled out due to the conservative and Catholic-traditionalist dispositions of their ruling parties, i.e., being on the political right. Outside influence acts to undercut Polish and Hungarian voters’ choice, while diminishing the variety of European democratic politics. A Europe that confines itself to a narrow range of acceptable political outcomes will lose its citizens. Worse, if Europe allows outsiders to agitate against, and launch influence operations undermining the legitimacy of the continent’s democratically elected leaders, this is a form of attack that will spread to affect the rest of Europe. Poland and Hungary are, today, the primary targets of this attack on democracy, but will not remain so – it may expand to elsewhere if nothing is done. As a neighbor and European citizen I must raise my voice of concern.
Methods of Attack
In Brussels, in elite media, and on the ground in Hungary and Poland, according several sources, foreign NGOs – notably the Open Society Foundation (OSF) and its offshoots as well as Amnesty International – push an agenda designed to vilify democratically-elected governments. Through funding think-tank research and lobbying activities, as well as paying journalists’ costs and providing them curated materials, OSF-linked entities orchestrate attacks on the governments of Victor Orbán and Mateusz Morawiecki. Reports of the wider NGO industrial complex engaging foreign embassies to apply pressure, relying on media slander, and lobbying the EU administration into conflict with Budapest and Warsaw is indicative of these attacks relying on outside power over the aspirations of the Hungarian and Polish peoples.
Democratically elected leaders are described in elite media as ‘undemocratic’ leaders, their governments authoritarian and corrupt, or accused of human-rights violations and singled out by European institutions, all unsurprising given that the influence activities are most effective among those who share the biases of OSF and similar actors. It is for this same reason that corrupt, undemocratic, and rights violations of leftist-leaning governments in Europe escape censure and a similar attacks – no one pays to cover them nor are like-minded elites predisposed to condemn their own.
The issue at its core is that non-European actors are using NGO cover for overt political activities, to fund biased media narratives, or lobby European institutions to act against Poland and Hungary, undermining the democratic process. Criticism of and opposition to any European leader or government is legitimate and welcome, however, the inorganic, top-down, foreign and even non-European funding of the campaign creates a situation where these attacks obscure the true popularity of Polish and Hungarian governments and their democratic credentials.
Protecting European Democracy
Permitting attacks on European democracy cannot depend on the political disposition of a government. Outside interference and destabilization efforts targeting a democratically elected government must be condemned in all cases and action taken to prevent the phenomenon from spreading. Poland and Hungary are both integral to the European project and having conservative leadership is not grounds for anti-democratic action against them. To protect European democracy, we must do so indiscriminately.
The votes of Hungarians and Poles, like all European citizens, must be allowed to affect policy and the direction of their countries. Foreign, even non-European and interested elements cannot fund against the democratic will or punish Europeans for choosing differing paths. Such a precedent will hurt wider Europe and boomerang against those turning a blind eye today. Today, in time of war in Ukraine, we must fairly stick together united in facing aggression and stay open in solidarity with an unprecedented wave of suffering people fleeing from the bloody conflict to the Central European countries.
Former EU FoRB Special Envoy Jan Figel’s views on religious freedom
About blasphemy laws; violence against religious minorities; kidnapping, forced conversion and marriages of non-Muslim girls
By Willy Fautré, Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF)
Photo: EU FoRB Special Envoy Jan Figel with Asia Bibi’s lawyer Saif ul Malookin Lahore, Pakistan, December 2017.
HRWF (19.02.2022) – On the eve of the 8th Meeting of the Istanbul Process against religious intolerance, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief hosted by Pakistan, EU Special Representative for Human Rights Eamon Gilmore delivered some welcoming remarks on behalf of the EU on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.
Human Rights Without Frontiers interviewed former EU Special Envoy Jan Figel to share his views about the situation of religious freedom in Pakistan as during his mandate he had vigorously and successfully stood up for the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian sentenced to death by hanging on alleged blasphemy charges. After years spent on the death row, she was acquitted in 2018 by the Supreme Court on the grounds of insufficient evidence. She now lives in Canada.
HRWF: Pakistan is a beneficiary of the GSP+ scheme, which grants a privileged access for its products to the EU market, but members of the European Parliament and civil society organizations in Europe are pressing Brussels to suspend this status due to egregious violations of human rights in Pakistan. What is their main area of concern?
Jan Figel: Pakistan has been benefitting from trade preferences under the GSP+ program since 2014. The overall economic incentives from this unilateral trade advantage for the country are considerable, reaching billions of Euros. But almost every year the European Parliament adopts a critical resolution or statement on various crimes, human rights violations or judicial abuses. The GSP+ status came with the obligation for Pakistan to ratify and implement 27 international conventions, including commitments to guarantee human rights and religious freedom. This is a frequent and vast problem in Pakistan. The latest GSP+ assessment of Pakistan in 2020 by the Commission expressed a variety of serious concerns on the human rights situation in the country, notably the lack of progress in limiting the scope and implementation of the death penalty.
One of the most striking issues has been the continued use of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan since 1986 after they were adopted by the former military regime. Regrettably, civilian governments have not had enough goodwill, or courage, afterwards to get rid of these stringent provisions that are frequently misused against a neighbor or an opponent to settle personal scores. Almost 1900 persons have been charged in total so far, with the highest numbers in recent years. In 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Ahmed Shaheed mentioned the case of Asia Bibi in his annual Report as one of the examples of a revival of anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy laws and the use of public order laws to limit any expression deemed offensive to religious communities.
As a Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU (2016-2019) I followed the case of Asia Bibi very closely and was involved with Pakistani authorities, repeatedly and intensively. The EU showed here its positive influence; it was an excellent example of effective diplomacy and soft power. Regrettably, this important effort has not been continued, there is no Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU anymore. Obviously, FoRB is not a priority today as it was under Juncker´s Commission.
HRWF: To what extent are religious minorities victims of human rights violations and discrimination in Pakistan?
Jan Figel: Religious minorities face many types of social and religious discrimination. Such discrimination is also observed at the official level in state and public employment as well as in private sector jobs. Minorities are disliked, ignored and sidelined. Even in schools, children face such challenges. My Pakistani friends quite often tell me about their painful experience.
Discrimination of religious minorities became a usual, daily phenomenon in Pakistan, both officially and socially in the larger society. State condemnation of violence and discrimination of religious minorities especially against Hindus and Christians is, regrettably, only a lip service. We all know that slogans and hollow statements can never replace sincere commitments, continued efforts and justice for all. They are just meant to appease the international audience.
The most severe situation concerns Ahmadis, who claim their Islamic identity and belonging, but this is not recognized by the State. Members of this community are openly and constitutionally discriminated against and they are frequently attacked by violent mobs. The government repeatedly showed its impotence to protect religious minorities who are regularly harassed: mainly Christians, Hindus, Shias, Ahmadis and Sikhs.
HRWF: Can you give some examples of recent incidents targeting religious minorities?
Jan Figel: There are too many examples to share, unfortunately. Here are some of them. In 2020 Saleem Masih, a 22-year-old man in the city of Kasur, in Punjab province, was tortured to death by local landlords after they accused him of ‘polluting’ the water he bathed in. His only fault was that he was a Christian He was tortured to death for taking a dip in a village tube well in Pakistan.
Tabitha Gill, a Christian nurse in Karachi, was beaten in January 2021 by her Muslim colleagues who accused her of blasphemy.
Recently, Salma Tanveer, a Muslim woman and a mother of five children, was sentenced to death in September 2021 after spending nine years in prison.
Aneeqa Ateeq, a 26-year-old Muslim woman, was also sentenced to death in January 2022.
Some radical Muslims killed a Shia sect cleric Maulana Khan for alleged blasphemy in autumn 2020 in Karachi.
Blasphemy incidents affect Muslims and non-believers as well. It is critically high time to look closely at these issues and correct this whole unjust system.
A Sri Lankan factory manager was beaten to death and set ablaze by a mob over blasphemy accusations in Sialkot city, in Punjab, in December last.
Recently, in February, a crowd snatched a man accused of blasphemy at a police station in Khanewal, also in the Punjab Province. He was beaten and hanged. As journalist Waqar Gillani puts it, there is an unending tale of horror in Pakistan…
One must wonder where the rule of law is. On which side do the police stand?
Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was shot dead by an official bodyguard in 2011 because he criticized the blasphemy laws and demanded Asia Bibi to be pardoned. Shortly after Taseer was gunned down, Shabaz Bhatti, the Federal Minister for Minorities and the only Christian in the Cabinet, was shot dead.
Peace in society is the fruit of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, I repeated during my missions to Pakistan in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and Ravalpindi. Justice needs more than labels, slogans or words – it needs action, decisions and perseverance.
HRWF: Is there some truth in the kidnapping and forced conversion stories of about 1000 Pakistani girls per year?
Jan Figel: Rights groups say that every year in Pakistan as many as 1,000 minority girls are forcibly converted to Islam, often after being abducted or tricked. According to Amarnath Motumal, the vice-chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an estimated 20 or more Hindu girls are abducted and forcefully converted every month, although exact figures are impossible to gather.
In a shocking decision, the Lahore High Court has recently ruled in favor of a Muslim perpetrator who forcibly abducted, converted to Islam and married an underage Christian girl called Maria Shahbaz. The 14-year-old girl was abducted in Faisalabad in April 2020.
So, it is a majority Muslim dominance issue. The formal law does not allow marriage before 18 years. Such child conversions and marriages are therefore illegal. Recently, Pakistan has tried to pass a law against forced conversions but later the Government gave in to pressure of religious extremists and in September the bill was deferred. HRWF: Which laws in Pakistan are contrary to international agreements and should be urgently amended?
Jan Figel: Blasphemy laws are the single most draconian laws that undermine freedom of thought, religion or expression. It literally suffocates the religious minorities, instills deadly fear of mob violence and forces religious minorities into submission to the whims and authority of the majority.
Government efforts towards Islamization of Pakistan’s civil and criminal law, which began in the early 1980s, have dangerously undermined fundamental right to freedom of religion and expression, and have led to serious abuses against the country’s religious minorities. The broad and vague provisions of a series of laws known collectively as the “blasphemy” laws, which strengthen criminal penalties for offenses against Islam, have been used to bring politically motivated charges of blasphemy or other religious offenses against members of religious minorities as well as some Muslims.
The blasphemy laws have also contributed to a climate of religious bigotry which has led to discrimination, harassment and violent attacks on minorities – abuses which are apparently tolerated, if not condoned, by some political leaders and government officials.
HRWF: Our organization has a database of dozens of documented cases of Christian, Hindu, Ahmadi and even Muslim Pakistanis who are on the death row or have been sentenced to heavy prison terms or have been in pretrial detention for years on blasphemy charges. Does the judicial system work in conformity with international standards in this regard?
Jan Figel: In theory and on paper the judicial system may appear to work in conformity with international standards but in practice and reality on the ground it does not. The state influences action or inaction on any judicial process on matters of religious content in courts, keeping the political expediency at the forefront. This forces guilty verdicts or delayed verdicts in sensitive religious cases.
The most prominent example is the case of Asia Bibi. This woman from humble background was mercilessly beaten and charged with blasphemy for drinking water from a container used by her Muslim co-workers. She was sentenced to death by a lower court and subsequently by higher courts on appeal. However, when her case became known in international media, Pakistan found a way to release her after nine years of incarceration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan squashed the case on technical grounds but still did not declare her innocent. Asia Bibi had to flee from Pakistan to Canada under a hush deal between the two countries.
Quite often, the police also fail to protect vulnerable groups and individuals. This was the case on February 14, in Lahore, when 25-year old Pervez Masih was killed by a violent mob although the police had been informed and called for protection.
In Pakistan, the rule of law is weak and justice is delayed or not carried out because of the religious indoctrination of masses and street power. Quite often semi-illiterate religious clerics force the judicial system to bow down to their influences. The state security and law enforcing authorities are weak and also subject to some religious considerations. Due to this weakness, several courageous judges have been killed or had to flee the country.
The criminal justice system in Pakistan needs overhauling and courage in this context. It is flawed. There is a tacit support to the complainant’s side at all levels: police, prisons and courts. Amid fears, pressures and like-mindedness the judges try to shift the decision to higher and superior courts. Sometimes, their partiality is obvious, even in their judgments.
In a recent court ruling, the judge in Rawalpindi sentenced to the death penalty a Muslim woman accused of blasphemy, saying she was not only a blasphemer but also an apostate, for which she deserved the capital punishment.
So, there are few examples when the judicial system works in conformity with international standards. If it happens that is only at Supreme Court level, which is the highest level.
HRWF: To what extent does or doesn’t Pakistan promote religious tolerance in its school education system?
Jan Figel: The education system should do much more for interreligious and interethnic tolerance and coexistence. On the contrary, one can see instillation of hate against Hindus, in particular by misrepresenting and concocting the struggle for India’s independence from British colonial rule. The word Hindu for some groups represents an enemy of Pakistan and Islam.
There are positive efforts but a traditional mindset prevails in society. Discrimination and intolerance exist in the administration, and also among educators and teachers. Noteworthy is that the recent compulsory Single National Curriculum (SNC) also has a religious perspective; even in the English and science classes, religion has been introduced. The State has been defined as a religious one, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, since the times of the military regime… There are fears that this SNC will increase intolerance and biases, and will have an adverse impact.
Good literacy for all and relevant education is needed for peace, coexistence and more promising development in Pakistan. But the content of education is a decisive factor! The state must take more of that and do its duty properly.
HRWF: The GSP+ has been the best attempt of the EU at being concrete and objective about the importance of international treaties in its relationships with third countries. Soon, DG Trade, the EEAS and several services within the Commission will evaluate to what extent Pakistan has been complying with the 27 international agreements that are conditions to receive and keep the “GSP+” status that is worth billions of Euro, greatly benefitting the economy of Pakistan. What is your view on this process?
Jan Figel: I agree that the GSP+ is a great EU instrument to bring important rules, values and sustainable development into beneficiary countries, including the largest one among them – Pakistan. Here it cannot be “business as usual”. The EEAS runs a big EU Delegation of diplomats and has some detailed knowledge of the reality on the ground. It is important for the Commission to have a fair assessment and recommendations in line with the agreed objectives of this Agreement, and for the European Parliament and the Council to adopt responsible positions. Only a Europe caring about justice can be a strong, constructive and respected global actor.
Twenty-seven international treaties that are the conditions to receive and keep the “GSP+” status should be not only signed and ratified by the Government and the Parliament of Pakistan. They must be implemented (!) in practice for the benefit of people. Those treaties cover human rights, the rule of law, environmental protection, labor law, the fight against corruption, etc.
To this end, Pakistan has created the TIC – Treaties Implementation Cell. Therefore, the EU should focus on the monitoring of the implementation. A lot of European taxpayers’ money is donated to Pakistan in support of these commitments. It is time for a fair and credible assessment. This would be the only effective tool of the EU to force Pakistan to review its symptomatic, visible injustice towards its religious minorities.
HRWF: Do you think that by ignoring the non-compliance with a number of international treaties the EU would really be helping Pakistan and that other unsuccessful candidates for the GSP+ status would not feel discriminated against by perceived EU’s double standards ?
Jan Figel: By unconditionally condoning Pakistan, the EU is sending an inconsistent, wrong message to the other candidate countries. The Union must have one credible face and refuse double standards. Pakistani authorities speak a lot about democracy and protection of minorities. They have a ministry for human rights but there are many fresh blood stains on the white strip of Pakistan’s flag. The inspirational founding father of Pakistan, Ali Jinnah, needs followers in deeds, not in words.
HRWF: Considering Pakistan’s neighborhood and Europe’s interests, do you think it is justified to let Pakistan off the hook on human rights issues, because of the situation in Afghanistan and its influence in Pakistan?
Jan Figel: Pakistan is an important EU partner and a nuclear power but which country is not important in this region? If for this reason we let Pakistan continue to implement the same policies, it will only encourage it to play its geopolitical and geostrategic card. Status quo is not enough for the betterment of lives and relations within the country. Pakistan must be held accountable for its actions and its commitments. This is the best service the EU can provide to people of good will in Pakistan.
HRWF: What should Eamon Gilmore, the EU’s Special Representative for Human Rights, tell the Pakistani authorities when visiting Pakistan later this month?
Jan Figel: The EU Special Representative should ask the Government of Imran Khan to address the issue of the draconian blasphemy laws. I would recommend him to talk about the fairness of the administrative, legal and judicial systems dealing with, investigating and taking decisions about blasphemy cases. There must be a fair and impartial way of treating such cases. The Government also should think of a consensual mechanism to deal with the growing number of blasphemy cases, especially under the cybercrime legislation.
Eamon Gilmore was supportive of FoRB promotion and we had some very constructive cooperation during my mandate as EU FoRB Special Envoy. He may encourage the authorities of Pakistan to adopt effective and transparent laws, programs and actions to improve the situation of economically and socially marginalized religious minorities. The members of these communities are frequently relegated to the lowest and unhygienic waste cleaning jobs while they should given equal employment opportunities to show their talents.
As a former EU Commissioner for Education, Culture and Youth I would strongly recommend to the EU Commission to offer active cooperation and creative professional review of Pakistan’s new “One Curriculum” schoolbooks for the promotion of religious tolerance.
Without a necessary and credible review, the Single National Curriculum may increase hatred, discrimination and prejudices and may also lead to the misuse of blasphemy cases. Good and accessible education unites people and builds bridges among nations as well. Education is important for future of Pakistan both internally and externally.
Ján Figeľ, special envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion outside the EU from 2016 to 2019, meets Pope Francis in 2018./ Vatican Media/Ján Figeľ personal archive.
Bratislava, Slovakia, Sep 10, 2021 / 04:15 am
On the eve of Pope Francis’ visit to Slovakia, the country appointed Anna Záborská, a former member of the European Parliament, as its plenipotentiary for religious freedom.
The decision was approved after Christos Stylianides, the European Union’s religious freedom envoy, stood down just five months after taking up the role to lead Greece’s new climate crisis ministry.
The first person to hold the post of special envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU (also known as the EU Special Envoy on FoRB) was the Slovakian politician Ján Figel’.
He told CNA that his appointment to the role in 2016 inspired other countries to take the promotion of religious freedom abroad more seriously.
He said: “My unprecedented, pioneering EU role on FoRB inspired since 2016 several countries to nominate their special envoys or ambassadors: Hungary, the UK, Denmark, Poland, Germany, Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and now finally Slovakia.”
“But the EU position on freedom of religion and belief is again vacant. For the current Commission [the European Commission, the EU’s executive branch], it does not seem to be a priority, regrettably.”
Figel’, 61, has extensive political experience. He was the EU commissioner for education and culture, and the deputy prime minister of Slovakia, a central European nation with a population of 5.5 million bordered by Poland, Ukraine, Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic.
As the EU Special Envoy on FoRB, Figel’ played a critical role in helping Asia Bibi, a Catholic woman unjustly sentenced to death for blasphemy, to leave Pakistan after her acquittal.
At his suggestion, St. John Paul II was nominated as an honorary citizen of the Slovakian cities of Prešov and Bratislava.
Talking about his experience as the EU’s special envoy, Figel’ focused on the role of the Church in Slovakia during communism as well as his own personal experience. The Church, he said, was one of the major opponents of the communist regime. “The state power severely persecuted it … All religious communities have been dismissed, many bishops imprisoned. The Greek Catholic Church was liquidated as a whole,” he recalled.
Figel’ said that his own uncle disappeared in 1953.
He noted that the chain of events that led to the collapse of communism in Czechoslovakia began in Bratislava, the present-day capital of Slovakia, on March 25, 1988.
On that day, a large crowd assembled for what later became known as the “candle demonstration,” led by Catholic groups. It was the first mass demonstration in defiance of the communist regime since 1969.
“Brutal police force was used against 10,000 protesters praying the rosary and singing state and papal anthems,” Figel’ said. “Yet in November 1989, one and a half years later, half a million citizens prayed the Pater Noster in Prague.”
“The movement towards freedom was unstoppable. It was an annus mirabilis [miraculous year] – a dramatic but peaceful, spiritual revolution, encouraged by the Polish Pope John Paul II.”
“The nation was united in the quest for religious freedom and civil liberties and was successful. This is a historical lesson.”
Ján Figeľ talks to Cardinal Parolin at a 2018 meeting of the International Catholic Legislators Network in Frascati, Italy. Ján Figeľ personal archive.
Speaking about the pope’s Sept. 12-15 trip to Slovakia, Figel’ said he hoped that “Pope Francis will awaken this memory and legacy of Slovakia and the whole of Central Europe.”
He observed that on the very day of the pope’s arrival in Slovakia, “a great Pole will be beatified: the late Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński.”
“The Eucharistic Congress in Budapest should remind us that faith in Jesus is a reason for persecution and even martyrdom in many countries,” Figel’ commented.
For this reason, the establishment in Slovakia of an office for the promotion of international religious freedom is “a great achievement,” Figel’ said, considering that “already three Visegrád neighbors [Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic] have active governmental structures and policies in this respect.”
Figel’ suggested that there were “multiple ways” to help foster awareness of religious freedom, including “prayer, humanitarian aid to the persecuted, constructive official development policies, cooperation with churches and pro-religious freedom NGOs like the Caritas, Aid to the Church in Need, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors.”
“As EU envoy,” he said, “I was working with them. They provide excellent work for the needy and the persecuted. It is a pity that there is no EU envoy for religious freedom and belief anymore.”
Reflecting on the situation in his homeland, Figel’ said: “Christianity is a religion of love and dignity. Slovakia has deep Christian roots and culture. The spiritual heritage of the two co-patrons of Europe, St. Cyril and St. Methodius, is quoted in the preamble of our state constitution.”
He added: “Slovakia is the bridge, the connection, between the two lungs of Europe and the Church: the Western and Eastern ones.”
“Therefore, with its history, culture, and relations, Slovakia can strongly contribute to bringing more unity to Christian churches and communities in general, Catholics and Orthodox in particular. But, unfortunately, the current pandemic has brought a lot of death, fear, and polarization.”
Figel’ argued that the coronavirus crisis had revealed the 21st-century world’s vulnerabilities, despite its technological prowess.
“We fought for independence. Now we see how interdependent people and nations are. Europe and the West have growing problems. It is time for moral renewal and the culture of human dignity for all,” he said.
“I hope that the 21st century will be a more humane era, not ‘business as usual.’ We all have a role in making this vision a reality.”
He concluded: “We must close the past century of genocides, from Armenia to Iraq. Evil was powerful in that century because it had many cheap and efficient allies, namely indifference, ignorance, and fear. The three are siblings.”
“I like that the pope promotes different, constructive siblings: civic engagement, education, and courage. And he leads by example. I believe his messages in Slovakia will be not only local and national, but international and universal as well.”
Why is religious freedom important? Because it is a measure, principle, and instrument of humanization and civilizational process. It makes every society and time more humane, more respectful, and just.
It is important because freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is an expression of human dignity belonging to each person and community, society, nation. The primary role of any power and authority is to provide peace to its people. Peace is the fruit of justice, and justice today is centered around human rights for all.
Human dignity is a foundational principle of all human rights. We have rights and duties because we are endowed with the dignity of the person.
FoRB is a very central and expansive right. Centrality is proven by placement and content. FoRB is represented by Art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the center of the list of 30 articles. It is an expansive right and a very influential issue. Because it tackles rights implemented individually or collectively, in private or in public, by teaching, practice, worship, and observance.
FoRB represents freedom of thought, conscience, and religion—the deepest expression of one’s personal freedom. If this is not respected by a political regime or public authorities, then other rights are disrespected as well—freedom of opinion, of expression, of media, association, assembly, etc. Therefore, we can say FoRB is a litmus test for all human rights! It is not above other rights but it is critical for a just and respectful (tolerant) society. It reveals the character of a political regime.
By its definition FoRB is crucial for believers and non-believers, citizens holding faith or none. FoRB is important for people from A to Z—from atheists to Zoroastrians.
Why is advancing religious freedom important? Because the worldwide situation is worrying and worsening. We see a trend of double negativity. The 2020 Pew Research Center survey found that 79% of the population live in countries with high or very high obstacles to their freedom of religion or belief. And numbers are growing! Only a minority of the global population enjoys religious freedom as a guaranteed civil right.
Nowadays there are various political regimes: authoritarian, totalitarian, and democratic. Other distinctions speak to states’ secular (majority) standing or their religious/antireligious (ideological) postures. Levels of problems can be gathered into four categories: intolerance, discrimination, persecution, and genocide (crimes against humanity, war crimes). All these forms exist in current practice. For example, persecution of Christians, as it is observed in the 2019 FCO Truro’s Report, represents the most shocking abusesof human rights in the modern era.
Forms of FoRB advancement are manifold. But advocacy and defense remain the most acute and practical aid. In recent decades there is growing institutional and policy support for FoRB promotion and protection in international relations (the 1998 U.S. International Religious Freedom Act 1998, the Magnitsky Act, the 2013 EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief, the establishment of the EU Special Envoy in 2016—followed by similar institutions in Denmark, United Kingdom, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Estonia). There were vocal and successful ministerial FoRB Advancement Summits in 2018 and 2019 in Washington, D.C., and in Poland in 2020. The International Religious Freedom and Belief Alliance was established in February 2020 with 32 current member governments. They exchange information, share best practices, and organize joint diplomatic actions. There are different working groups (on places of worship protection, humanitarian crises, gender issues, development). Hundreds of parliamentarians are connected and acting within the International Parliamentary Platform for FoRB since 2014.
On the level of civil society, there is a plethora of NGOs like International Religious Freedom Roundtables, SEAFoRB, SAFoRB, foundations, training and learning platforms, etc. There are also academic efforts—the European Academy of Religion in Bologna, BYU Law School’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies in Provo, Utah, Institute for Global Engagement, Religious Freedom Institute, G20 Interfaith Forum. A commendable result of this effort is the 2018 Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere.
We also observe the actions of religious actors in the spirit of social responsibility—the Amman Declaration, the Beirut Declaration of Faith for Rights, the Marrakesh Declaration, the Abu Dhabi Declaration on Human Fraternity and World Peace, etc.
We may say there is a need for the emerging Global FoRB Movement. This would be the best answer to the two above-mentioned negative trends. This broad movement represents the core of “FoRB climate change” which is needed in our times. The COVID-19 pandemic made this situation even more critical, polarized, and action-urgent.
Therefore, we need to engage in active citizenship, responsible structures in society, and educate for living together in diversity and in ethics of responsibility. These courageous commitments and positions are the best antidotes against the vast phenomena of indifference, ignorance, and fear.
The “FoRB climate change” that I am calling for and the enlarging FoRB global movement may substantially contribute to human dignity for all, strengthen the inspirational impact of equal, dignified citizenship, and promote constitutional or covenantal pluralism.
