Category: English

  • COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Religion or Belief

    COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Religion or Belief

    The theme I wish to explore briefly is the relation between human dignity, religious freedom and current corona virus pandemic. Evidently, medical situation in the world is critical in many countries. It will take time and make serious impact on economies, on social situation and on human, interpersonal and international relations. Our world will change.

    Each crisis in history left repetitive lesson: We can get out of crisis to the new perspective or fall even more deeply into problems, conflicts and tragedy. Second lesson is that (only) two fundamental components and inputs are decisive to get out of any crisis: Common sense (sound reason) and living conscience (ethics of responsibility).

    Why do we need to emphasize the dignity? Because we need to defend principles of justice against religious fundamentalism, ideological and totalitarian oppression, or ethical relativism. We witness opposition to universality of fundamental HRs, divisions among countries and nations on human rights, refusal or questioning of these rights in time of migration crisis. Dignity of each human person is the foundational principle of all HRs. Dignity is a privileged way to address issues of freedom and equality in society correctly.

    For me, this is critical since the notion of human dignity is the pivot of freedom of religion and belief, as well as of all universal human rights. If there is a point of convergence and of consent between religious humanists and secular humanists, it is HD as a base of each person’s undeniable and inalienable rights.

    All three Abrahamic traditions consider that religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person. It is their common denominator, from the past and for the future.

    Human dignity can be articulated in three dimensions which are critical for a positive change in the human rights climate: Me – Thee – We. They need to be brought together.

    Human dignity concerns me, personally, my-self. My specificity is my uniqueness. In common with each and every person, past, present and future, with billions, I am unique. And from this uniqueness, I draw my dignity and project my specificity. This is something original that nobody can ever replicate or replace. It is a specific and unique contribution to my fellow human beings. If this originality, authenticity and uniqueness is not “revealed”, is not “fulfilled”, it will be lost. My own dignity causes me to interpret the world, make choices, and interact with others, according to my own conscience, my reason and my convictions. To do so I need to exercise all my freedoms: freedom of thought, of expression, of action.

    Human dignity is not limited to my own freedom. It includes the freedom of the other. It invites me to exercise tolerance and to define my limits, in order to respect the other. There is of course also an imperative of equity and equality and therefore of justice.

    Human dignity is a responsibility that must be shouldered. If dignity gives rise to rights, it also implies duties and responsibilities. These responsibilities are not fixed or static, but must be developed and exercised, and maintained through time.

    In addition, human dignity is not only an individual responsibility. Since I am part of community, the dignity has also a collective, a social or societal dimension. The ‘religious social responsibility’ in particular is that of seeking the ‘common good’: for their part religious actors need to contribute to the strengthening of social cohesion and justice in society.

    Freedom of religion or belief is very central and expansive human right. It is in the middle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it has private and public dimension, it concerns individuals and communities as well. I see it as the deepest expression of personal freedom because it comprise freedom of thought, conscience and religion or conviction. Therefore FoRB is linked to the dignity of every person. It is important for believers and non-believers as well. Looking onto the international scene we can say, that FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights. Because if FoRB is respected then other freedoms and rights may follow the same principal respect. But if FoRB is neglected or oppressed, freedom of opinion, freedom of association or assembly are refused or not observed as well.

    When we study economic and social level of living standards in various countries or compare HDI (Human Development Index), we can clearly say that there is direct correlation between respect of FoRB and socio-economic strength of society. Freedom of conscience and religion is very important precondition for successful and sustainable development of each country. Why? Because it is important source of pluralism, openness and tolerance in society. Moreover, peaceful and free society is harvesting fruits of justice, when this freedom is respected. Because – again – it is litmus test of all other human rights. And respect of human rights of all citizens is in the center of fair and just society.

    CORONA-19 virus puts all these fundamental principles at stake, because we see how strong this invisible enemy is – the both, locally and globally. Superpowers and technologically advanced states show their limits, powerlessness and painful vulnerability. Due to necessary constraints, restrictive measures and socio-economic impact there are tendencies in some countries to limit FoRB, to oppress religious or belief minorities. This must be refused, as members of minority communities suffer even higher level of intolerance or discrimination. In the shadow of corona crisis free thinkers and democratic personalities in Hong Kong suffer oppression. We see how proponents of hatred, militant ideology and terrorism from ISIS are advancing in Burkina, Nigeria and Mozambique. It is not about “land grabbing”, but about possession of territory, Mosul-type invasions and killings. In several regions “under cover of COVID” the attacks on religious minorities have intensified, militants using top class weapons. State militaries remain weak in defense of the defenseless.

    The corona virus is taking a tragic toll on all countries around the world, andgovernments everywhere should take the opportunity to release all religious prisoners. This is not only a responsible act in light of our current crisis, it is a humanitarian gesture and the right thing to do. Therefore I support appeal of the US Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback and the USCIRF on religious prisoners. People imprisoned on account of faith are among the vulnerable, religious minority communities affected by COVID-19, with limited access to basic necessities, including food and health care. In many cases, detention facility or prison conditions are dangerously overcrowded and unsanitary. We should remember and also to remind respective authorities, that prisoners of conscience have been wrongly imprisoned for exercising their faith. There are many religious prisoners in North Korea, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Russia, Tajikistan and in other countries.

    Human dignity must be respected in all phases of human life. The most vulnerable group at risk are the elderly. Therefore governments should adopt specific assistance and measures for the older generation. Our grandfathers and grandmothers deserve advanced care, timely support and responsible solidarity.

    International community must show its ability to learn from its weaknesses and to cooperate on common interests. Defeat of corona crisis is the key objective of our times, but we should not neglect FoRB as very timely objective and criterion of new, sustainable development. Let us serve human dignity and dignity will serve us. Crisis shows again our significant and growing interdependence. Therefore we cannot stay ignorant or indifferent, commenting the situation or lamenting over the worrying trends.

    Dignity for everyone and everywhere needs our courage, active engagement and education. The Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere is important and timely appeal, invitation and re-commitment (www.dignityforeveryone.org). When we signed this document in December 2018 there was no global or major international crisis. In 2020 this document is even more urging for correct understanding of human dignity, to respect dignity of all and for actions to defend and promote dignity for all. Declaration is still open for additional signatories.

    We need to learn how to live in diversity, not only to exist in diversity. In dignity we are all equal, whether one comes from a royal family or from homeless one. And in identity we are all different. This is not the problem, but defining principle of creativity and of the creation. Consequently, we need to rediscover the old notion of the “common good”, coined in the 13th century, in the middle ages, by Thomas Aquinas. It is basis of win-win policy. Bonum communae was decisive objective for Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi, when they launched unparalleled project of European integration. However, it seems again the most relevant ethical and political vision to face the most burning issues we need to address today in the world.

    As a conclusion I wish to stress: This pandemic crisis, challenging the whole world, should not be missed as it represents a very special and very expensive opportunity for better times, for more humane 21st century. This noble objective is important. We may achieve this goal only if humanity, solidarity and ethics of shared responsibility prevail. And this is personal, non-transferable invitation for everyone everywhere.

    Ján Figeľ was nominated in May 2016 by the European Commission as the first Special Envoy for promotion of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. He was European Commissioner for Education, Training & Culture and State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was the Chief Negotiator for Slovakia’s accession into the EU.

  • COVID-19 Crisis, Human Dignity and Freedom of Feligion or Belief

    The theme I wish to explore briefly is the relation between human dignity, religious freedom and current corona virus pandemic. Evidently, medical situation in the world is critical in many countries. It will take time and make serious impact on economies, on social situation and on human, interpersonal and international relations. Our world will change.

    Each crisis in history left repetitive lesson: We can get out of crisis to the new perspective or fall even more deeply into problems, conflicts and tragedy. Second lesson is that (only) two fundamental components and inputs are decisive to get out of any crisis: Common sense (sound reason) and living conscience (ethics of responsibility).

    Why do we need to emphasize the dignity? Because we need to defend principles of justice against religious fundamentalism, ideological and totalitarian oppression, or ethical relativism. We witness opposition to universality of fundamental HRs, divisions among countries and nations on human rights, refusal or questioning of these rights in time of migration crisis. Dignity of each human person is the foundational principle of all HRs. Dignity is a privileged way to address issues of freedom and equality in society correctly.

    For me, this is critical since the notion of human dignity is the pivot of freedom of religion and belief, as well as of all universal human rights. If there is a point of convergence and of consent between religious humanists and secular humanists, it is HD as a base of each person’s undeniable and inalienable rights.

    All three Abrahamic traditions consider that religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the human person. It is their common denominator, from the past and for the future.

    Human dignity can be articulated in three dimensions which are critical for a positive change in the human rights climate: Me – Thee – We. They need to be brought together.

    Human dignity concerns me, personally, my-self. My specificity is my uniqueness. In common with each and every person, past, present and future, with billions, I am unique. And from this uniqueness, I draw my dignity and project my specificity. This is something original that nobody can ever replicate or replace. It is a specific and unique contribution to my fellow human beings. If this originality, authenticity and uniqueness is not “revealed”, is not “fulfilled”, it will be lost. My own dignity causes me to interpret the world, make choices, and interact with others, according to my own conscience, my reason and my convictions. To do so I need to exercise all my freedoms: freedom of thought, of expression, of action.

    Human dignity is not limited to my own freedom. It includes the freedom of the other. It invites me to exercise tolerance and to define my limits, in order to respect the other. There is of course also an imperative of equity and equality and therefore of justice.

    Human dignity is a responsibility that must be shouldered. If dignity gives rise to rights, it also implies duties and responsibilities. These responsibilities are not fixed or static, but must be developed and exercised, and maintained through time.

    In addition, human dignity is not only an individual responsibility. Since I am part of community, the dignity has also a collective, a social or societal dimension. The ‘religious social responsibility’ in particular is that of seeking the ‘common good’: for their part religious actors need to contribute to the strengthening of social cohesion and justice in society.

    Freedom of religion or belief is very central and expansive human right. It is in the middle of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), it has private and public dimension, it concerns individuals and communities as well. I see it as the deepest expression of personal freedom because it comprise freedom of thought, conscience and religion or conviction. Therefore FoRB is linked to the dignity of every person. It is important for believers and non-believers as well. Looking onto the international scene we can say, that FoRB is a litmus test of all human rights. Because if FoRB is respected then other freedoms and rights may follow the same principal respect. But if FoRB is neglected or oppressed, freedom of opinion, freedom of association or assembly are refused or not observed as well.

    When we study economic and social level of living standards in various countries or compare HDI (Human Development Index), we can clearly say that there is direct correlation between respect of FoRB and socio-economic strength of society. Freedom of conscience and religion is very important precondition for successful and sustainable development of each country. Why? Because it is important source of pluralism, openness and tolerance in society. Moreover, peaceful and free society is harvesting fruits of justice, when this freedom is respected. Because – again – it is litmus test of all other human rights. And respect of human rights of all citizens is in the center of fair and just society.

    CORONA-19 virus puts all these fundamental principles at stake, because we see how strong this invisible enemy is – the both, locally and globally. Superpowers and technologically advanced states show their limits, powerlessness and painful vulnerability. Due to necessary constraints, restrictive measures and socio-economic impact there are tendencies in some countries to limit FoRB, to oppress religious or belief minorities. This must be refused, as members of minority communities suffer even higher level of intolerance or discrimination. In the shadow of corona crisis free thinkers and democratic personalities in Hong Kong suffer oppression. We see how proponents of hatred, militant ideology and terrorism from ISIS are advancing in Burkina, Nigeria and Mozambique. It is not about “land grabbing”, but about possession of territory, Mosul-type invasions and killings. In several regions “under cover of COVID” the attacks on religious minorities have intensified, militants using top class weapons. State militaries remain weak in defense of the defenseless.

    The corona virus is taking a tragic toll on all countries around the world, andgovernments everywhere should take the opportunity to release all religious prisoners. This is not only a responsible act in light of our current crisis, it is a humanitarian gesture and the right thing to do. Therefore I support appeal of the US Ambassador-at-Large Sam Brownback and the USCIRF on religious prisoners. People imprisoned on account of faith are among the vulnerable, religious minority communities affected by COVID-19, with limited access to basic necessities, including food and health care. In many cases, detention facility or prison conditions are dangerously overcrowded and unsanitary. We should remember and also to remind respective authorities, that prisoners of conscience have been wrongly imprisoned for exercising their faith. There are many religious prisoners in North Korea, China, Pakistan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Russia, Tajikistan and in other countries.

    Human dignity must be respected in all phases of human life. The most vulnerable group at risk are the elderly. Therefore governments should adopt specific assistance and measures for the older generation. Our grandfathers and grandmothers deserve advanced care, timely support and responsible solidarity.

    International community must show its ability to learn from its weaknesses and to cooperate on common interests. Defeat of corona crisis is the key objective of our times, but we should not neglect FoRB as very timely objective and criterion of new, sustainable development. Let us serve human dignity and dignity will serve us. Crisis shows again our significant and growing interdependence. Therefore we cannot stay ignorant or indifferent, commenting the situation or lamenting over the worrying trends.

    Dignity for everyone and everywhere needs our courage, active engagement and education. The Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere is important and timely appeal, invitation and re-commitment (www.dignityforeveryone.org). When we signed this document in December 2018 there was no global or major international crisis. In 2020 this document is even more urging for correct understanding of human dignity, to respect dignity of all and for actions to defend and promote dignity for all. Declaration is still open for additional signatories.

    We need to learn how to live in diversity, not only to exist in diversity. In dignity we are all equal, whether one comes from a royal family or from homeless one. And in identity we are all different. This is not the problem, but defining principle of creativity and of the creation. Consequently, we need to rediscover the old notion of the “common good”, coined in the 13th century, in the middle ages, by Thomas Aquinas. It is basis of win-win policy. Bonum communae was decisive objective for Schuman, Adenauer, de Gasperi, when they launched unparalleled project of European integration. However, it seems again the most relevant ethical and political vision to face the most burning issues we need to address today in the world.

    As a conclusion I wish to stress: This pandemic crisis, challenging the whole world, should not be missed as it represents a very special and very expensive opportunity for better times, for more humane 21st century. This noble objective is important. We may achieve this goal only if humanity, solidarity and ethics of shared responsibility prevail. And this is personal, non-transferable invitation for everyone everywhere.

    Ján Figeľ was nominated in May 2016 by the European Commission as the first Special Envoy for promotion of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) outside the European Union. He was European Commissioner for Education, Training & Culture and State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was the Chief Negotiator for Slovakia’s accession into the EU.

  • Covid-19, Religion and Belief: Webinar Series – Episode 2

    Covid-19, Religion and Belief: Webinar Series – Episode 2

    This Conversation was developed from contributions to an international Webinar held 16 April 2010: Freedom of Religion or Belief, COVID-19 and Human Dignity , Episode 2 of the Webinar Series COVID-19 and Freedom of Religion or Belief. Panelists in this Webinar addressed the following and other questions: How is this global emergency affecting our concept of human dignity? How can we ensure that restrictions to civil liberties that we accept for our collective safety respect human dignity and human rights?

    This Webinar Series was organized by the Cambridge Institute on Religion and International Studies, the Center for Religious Studies at Bruno Kessler Foundation, the Center for Justice and Society at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School-Rio de Janeiro, the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University Law School, the European Union Office of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the University of Siena.

  • The importance of Religious Freedom for Europe

    The importance of Religious Freedom for Europe

    EU Freedom of Religion and Belief (FoRB) policy: Considerations on Ján Figel‘s final report by Alberto Melloni, professor of History of Christianity at the University of Modena-Reggio and Chair Holder of the Unesco Chair on Religious Pluralism and Peace for his university and the University of Bologna

    Struck by the scourge of COVID-19, grappling with the most unexpected and drastic rethinking of the industrial and macroeconomic paradigms of globalisation and forced to accept the dramatic prophecy Romano Prodi made to Le Monde in 2002 (“the stability pact is stupid, like all decisions which are rigid”), Europe will not have time to consider a very important matter which the Juncker’s presidency handed over to that of von der Leyen, the defense of the right to freedom of religion or belief in its external relations.

    Jan Figel’ with Card. Parolin (Vatican Secretary of State)

    It was, in fact, on 6 May 2016 that the European Commission decided to create the function of “Special Envoy for the promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU” appointing Ján Figel’, a Slovakian politician former European Commissioner. In doing so, the Commission responded to a resolution of the European Parliament of February 2016 requesting to create a Special representative on Freedom Of Religion and Belief (FoRB). This decision, regarder with condescension by a secularist provincialism that is unaware of the more profound hence less apparent impulses of international politics, was more crucial than ever.

    The USA has always made the issue of religious freedom a distinguishing mark of its foreign policy. Any desertion of this question by Europe would have confirmed the idea that there was only one (American) policy of religious freedom because there was only one international (American) actor capable of acting on it. It was, therefore, essential to support Freedom Of Religion and Belief scaling up the European voice and action reducing the hegemony of the American evangelical world, which has fought to make room in strategic areas of the world for a religious sensitivity that could be politically manoeuvred by and towards the right.

    A European presence was also necessary to break the parallelism of reciprocity, particularly in Islamic areas: those countries where political Islam has assumed power are also those in which the persecution of native Christian religious minorities has found protection and indulgence. In many European countries this has raised the voices both of those who cry out against such violent policies and of those who, invoking a kind of “reciprocity”, justify acts of Islamophobia (promoting and complying with anti-Semitic ones) by those actions.

    Finally, direct action, linked to the European ability to present itself, was very useful to accompany the EU’s international cooperation and external relations: in many contexts it encounters the presence of communities of faith that can either be formidable driving forces or insurmountable obstacles to a policy that sees as its objective the spread of the founding values of peace promoted by a Europe of rights.

    Special Envoy Figel, notwithstanding the very limited capacity of his office and the minimal resources mobilized by the Commission for his work, committed himself with a dedication and success that could in no way have been taken for granted. His personal political history as a man of deep conservative roots could have made those who thought that the Envoy should merely be an idle, yet severe, critic of violations skeptical. The “executive” face of the Special Envoy’s office might have aroused mistrust in the European Parliament’s policy, led by Antonio Tajani, who had adopted a different approach to the problems of religious pluralism by favoring the meeting of religious leaders in the European hemicycle: leaders who, in solemn words, as is customary in these ceremonies, disavowed violence based on religion but whose lack effectiveness might appear to be determined either by objective reasons or by a deliberate or unconscious ambiguity.

    Figel’, on the contrary, was able to perform a highly successful mission: the profile he took never appeared to be that of someone who exploited human rights in order to destroy dialogue, but rather of a man who was more rigid than others when dealing with sensitive issues (for example, marriage between people of the same sex), yet who always uphold the indivisibility of human rights and advocated for the need to promote them with persuasion, negotiation, diplomacy, personal credibility and discretion. His discrete and brave work contributed substantially, for example, to the liberation of Asia Bibi, of which he did not claim even 1% of the credit for the crucial role he played in this affair that inflamed politics in and on Pakistan.

    Figel’ gives back to the European Commission is an enormous responsibility.

    The Commission might indeed prefer a more internal solution by transforming the “FORB issue” into a sub-chapter of policies that are anything but secondary (those of human rights, cooperation, external relations), but which, at the very moment when they reduce the constituency of faith communities and the polyvalence of their historical-theological heritages to a mere sub-chapter, openly declaring themselves affected by a religious illiteracy that will fertilise violence and weaken spiritual counterbalances.

    The European Commission might, on the other hand, conclude that Figel’s experiment was successful because born out of a specific political circumstance and of a relationship of personal trust between the envoy and the sender, and therefore impossible to reproduce – in this format, at least. In doing so, Europe would lose its voice and its ability to act in this field with the authority of those who recognize a problem as central and, by the mere fact of saying so, qualify both the problem and themselves.

    If, on the other hand, the Figel’ experiment evolve into a clear, permanent mandate, this will be a sign that the Union has understood something decisive. The “temperature” of religious belief rose throughout the entire season of secularisation, that is to say, from the beginning of the 19th century to the first 8 decades of the 20th century. In the post-secular period, which has lasted for half a century, even though it has been perceived to have lasted less, what used to be a normal division in the communities of faith has changed because religious experience has always proved to be capable of producing either an awareness of rights or an integralist restriction of them, instances of social division or instances of justice, thoughts of peace and thoughts of war. It has been the implantation of divided hermeneutics, and their dissemination through the construction of theological cultures and historical-religious knowledge, that has designed relationships of power: secularist negligence, which has confused separation with ignorance, neutrality with illiteracy, distinction with ignorance, has favored those paths that an erroneous language calls “radical”, and which are instead mere terrorism, political violence and racist intolerance “rooted” in the ground of religious belief.

    In this context, the instrumentation of “dialogue” has often been limited to a ritual exchange of affection between religious leaders, the diplomacy of religious belief has been reduced to a pathetic ostentation of the importance of the voice of communities of faith in political and social processes, and cooperation in the more unstable countries had been limited to a mythological exaltation of territorial actions in which an audience and a set of themes have been invented. Starting from a stabilized attention to the “FoRB issue” on a global scale would be a way to signal a shift in paradigm that does not end in this very field (more research, more politics, more cooperation capable of creating authoritative voices and more resilient knowledge are needed), but which finds its specific visibility here.

    http://europeanpost.co/the-importance-of-religious-freedom-for-europe/

  • OPEN LETTER: 44 Parliamentarians and Dignitaries from 18 Countries Call on Carrie Lam to Stop Police

    44 Parliamentarians and dignitaries from 18 countries, including Asia’s leading Catholic cardinal, the daughter of Indonesia’s former president and former UK House Of Commons Speaker John Bercow, have written an Open Letter to Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam expressing “grave concerns at the recent escalation of police brutality over the Christmas period.”

    The letter calls on the Chief Executive to instruct the Hong Kong Police Force to exercise restraint, respect the right to peaceful protest and use “only proportionate measures when dealing with any violent conduct”.

    Signatories include dignitaries such as Myanmar’s Cardinal Charles Maung Bo, President of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences, Alissa Wahid, the daughter of former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, the former Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow, Britain’s former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Polish Foreign Minister and Member of the European Parliament Anna Fotyga, South Korea’s former human rights ambassador Jung-Hoon Lee, the former President of the All India Catholic Union Dr John Dayal, the former Anglican Bishop of Rochester, Pakistani-born Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, Canada’s former Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific David Kilgour and former Premier of Ontario Bob Rae, Indonesia’s representative to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights Yuyun Wahyuningrum, the Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights Charles Santiago, the Secretary General of the world’s largest human rights group the International Federation of Human Rights (FIDH) Adilur Rahman Khan, the European Union’s Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief (2016-2019) Jan Figel, who had previously served as Slovakia’s Deputy Prime Minister, the Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) Baroness Helena Kennedy QC and the former chief prosecutor of Slobodan Milosevic, barrister Sir Geoffrey Nice QC.

    Signed by Parliamentarians and dignitaries from countries as diverse as Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Denmark, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, South Korea, Lithuania, Malaysia, Myanmar, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and the United States, including the Co-chairs of the UK’s All Party Parliamentary Group for Hong Kong Baroness Bennett and Alistair Carmichael MP, Vice-Chair and Hong Kong Watch Patron Lord Alton of Liverpool, members of the German Bundestag Margarete Bause and Martin Patzelt, and former US Congressman Tom Andrews, the letter appeals to the Chief Executive to use her authority and responsibility to “seek genuine ways forward out of this crisis by addressing the grievances of Hong Kong people, bringing the Hong Kong Police Force under control, ensuring accountability and an end to impunity”.

    The letter also urges Ms Lam to begin a process of democratic political reform, noting the turnout and results in the district council elections last month.

    “Hong Kong is a great world city, a major international financial and trading centre, and an important gateway to China and the rest of Asia. It would be a tragedy if it loses this role and gains a reputation for repression,” the signatories to the letter say.

    There is an opportunity to address the protesters’ demands, enter into dialogue and begin reform. “Failure to seize this opportunity,” the signatories to the letter write, “will result in further human suffering, fear, violence and instability and the tragic decline of your great city. It may also result in even more vocal calls for targeted Magnitsky sanctions against officials in Hong Kong directly or indirectly responsible for human rights violations. It is our hope that you choose a path of constructive and meaningful reform which makes reconciliation and healing possible.”

    The full text of the letter can be found below.

    AN OPEN LETTER TO HONG KONG CHIEF EXECUTIVE CARRIE LAM

    Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor, GBM, GBS

    Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

    Government House

    Hong Kong

    Dear Chief Executive,

    We are writing to express our grave concerns at the recent escalation in police brutality over the Christmas period.

    We have been horrified to see reports of police firing teargas, pepper-spray and rubber bullets at close-range at shoppers, peaceful protesters and innocent by-standers on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Boxing Day and again on Saturday 28 December. We are profoundly disturbed by scenes of children and young people being severely beaten, and of rubber bullets being fired into people’s faces, acts which any ballistics expert would confirm presents a serious risk of injury or death, and which therefore is a serious violation of international standards.

    We note the Hong Kong government’s rebuttal of a statement by Hong Kong Watch, its rejection of the Washington Post’s in-depth report which details how police actions have been in serious breach of the Hong Kong Police Force’s own standards, and its response to the publication of a letter by key religious figures from the United Kingdom initiated by Stand With Hong Kong, but we remain gravely concerned that the Hong Kong government’s explanation is extremely unsatisfactory. Criticism by such organisations of police brutality or even of Hong Kong government’s conduct and policy does not make such organisations “anti-government”.

    We are also gravely concerned by the reports of a British surgeon resident in Hong Kong, Dr Darren Mann, in an article in the world’s leading medical journal The Lancet, in which he details the arrest and abuse of doctors, nurses and first-aiders at protest sites, and further reports which include claims of police in full riot gear with weapons patrolling hospital wards, insisting on accompanying doctors on consultations, demanding access to medical records, seeking access to hospital operation theatres and using ambulances to transport riot police – all violations of international humanitarian norms.

    The abuse of the press by the Hong Kong Police Force, and reports of torture, beatings and sexual abuse in detention are also profoundly concerning.

    We understand that the actions of a small group of protesters have been violent, and we do not in any way condone violence or vandalism. However, we wish to note two important points. First, the vast majority of protesters have been peaceful, and yet they have also been attacked aggressively by the Hong Kong Police Force. Second, while nothing justifies violence, it is clear that those protesters who have resorted to violence have acted in desperation and frustration, borne of your government’s refusal to listen to their real fears, understood by many around the world, for more than six months. Their fears are not just for themselves right now, but for their future and for the lives of unborn children who will count Hong Kong as home after 2047.

    We are therefore writing to appeal to you to re-think the position and strategy of the Hong Kong SAR Government. A cycle of violence is in nobody’s interests.

    It is essential that the Hong Kong Police Force is instructed to exercise restraint, to respect peaceful protest, and to use only proportionate measures when dealing with any violent conduct.

    Secondly, we urge you to listen to the protesters’ demands and in particular to make it possible for an independent inquiry into police brutality to be established. Should you continue to reject this idea, we call on the international community to establish an international, independent inquiry mechanism.

    Thirdly, we call for the release of all protesters who have been unjustly detained and who have engaged in peaceful protest. Just because some protesters have turned to violence, it does not invalidate peaceful protests and it does not turn peaceful participants into criminals.

    Fourthly, we urge you to consider political reform, following the clear message from the recent turnout and results in the district council elections, and to begin a meaningful dialogue with the recently elected district councilors who have a direct mandate from the people.

    Fifthly, if we or others from the international community can be helpful in encouraging or facilitating a process of mediation and reconciliation, we stand ready to assist.

    Hong Kong is a great world city, a major international financial and trading centre, and an important gateway to China and the rest of Asia. It would be a tragedy if it loses this role and gains a reputation for repression.

    We appeal to you to use your authority and exercise your responsibility to seek genuine ways forward out of this crisis by addressing the grievances of Hong Kong people, bringing the Hong Kong Police Force under control, ensuring accountability and an end to impunity for serious violations of human rights, and beginning a process of democratic political reform. It is clear to us that these steps offer some hope of a way forward out of the current crisis.

    Failure to seize this opportunity will result in further human suffering, fear, violence and instability and the tragic decline of your great city. It may also result in even more vocal calls for targeted Magnitsky sanctions against officials in Hong Kong directly or indirectly responsible for human rights violations. It is our hope that you choose a path of constructive and meaningful reform which makes reconciliation and healing possible.

    Yours sincerely,

    • Dr. Mantas Adomenas, Member of Parliament, Lithuania
    • Lord Alton of Liverpool, Vice-Chair, All Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, House of Lords, and Patron of Hong Kong Watch, United Kingdom
    • Hon. Thomas H. Andrews, former Member of Congress, United States
    • Margarete Bause, Member of the German Bundestag and Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid, Germany
    • Rev. Dr Andrew Bennett, former Canadian Ambassador for Religious Freedom, Canada
    • Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, Co-Chair, All Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, House of Commons, United Kingdom
    • The Rt Hon John Bercow, former Speaker of the House of Commons, United Kingdom
    • Sonja Biserko, founder and President, Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, and former member of the UN Commission of Inquiry on North Korea, Serbia
    • His Eminence Cardinal Charles Maung Bo, President of the Federation of Asian Bishops Conferences and Archbishop of Yangon, Myanmar
    • Alistair Carmichael MP, Co-Chair, All Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong, House of Commons, and Patron of Hong Kong Watch, United Kingdom
    • Sarah Champion MP, Member of Parliament, United Kingdom
    • Kenny Chiu MP, Member of Parliament, Canada
    • Dr John Dayal, former President of the All India Catholic Union and member of the National Integration Council, India
    • Rafendi Djamin, former Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia
    • Vicki Dunne MP, Member of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, Australia
    • Dr Thomas Farr, President of the Religious Freedom Institute, United States
    • Jan Figel, former Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia and EU Special Envoy for Promotion Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the European Union (2016-19), Slovakia
    • Viggo Fischer, former Member of Parliament, Denmark
    • Anna Fotyga MEP, former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland, and Member of the European Parliament, Poland
    • Garnett Genuis MP, Member of Parliament and International Patron of Hong Kong Watch, Canada
    • Lord Hogan-Howe, former Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (head of the Metropolitan Police), United Kingdom
    • Guissou Jahangiri, Vice-President, FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) and Executive Director, Armanshahr Foundation/Open Asia, Afghanistan
    • Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, Director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom
    • Adilur Rahman Khan, Secretary-General, FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights) and Secretary, Odikhar, Bangladesh
    • Andrew Khoo, former Co-Chair of the Malaysian Bar Council Human Rights Committee, United Kingdom
    • Hon. David Kilgour, former Member of Parliament and Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific, International Patron of Hong Kong Watch, Canada
    • U Kyaw Min San, Member of the Bago Regional Parliament and former legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists Office, Myanmar
    • Jung-Hoon Lee, former Ambassador for North Korean Human Rights, former Ambassador for Human Rights, Founder of the Yonsei Center for Human Liberty, Yonsei University, and International Patron of Hong Kong Watch, Republic of Korea
    • Miriam Lexmann, Member-Elect of the European Parliament, Slovakia
    • Aušra Maldeikienė MEP, Member of the European Parliament, Lithuania
    • Ronan Mullen, Senator, Republic of Ireland
    • Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, former Anglican Bishop of Rochester and Director of the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue (OXTRAD), United Kingdom
    • Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, Barrister, former chief prosecutor of Slobodan Milosevic, Chairman of the China Tribunal and Patron of Hong Kong Watch, United Kingdom
    • Martin Patzelt, Member of the German Bundestag and Member of the Committee on Human Rights and Humanitarian Aid, Germany
    • Hon. Bob Rae, CC, PC, QC, Professor, University of Toronto and former Premier of Ontario and Federal Member of Parliament, Canada
    • Grover Joseph Rees, former US Special Representative for Social Issues and former US Ambassador to Timor-Leste, United States
    • The Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Rifkind QC, former Foreign Secretary and Patron of Hong Kong Watch, United Kingdom
    • Janelle Saffin, Member of Parliament in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly and former Member of the Federal Parliament, Australia
    • Charles Santiago MP, Chair of ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights and Member of Parliament, Malaysia
    • Debbie Stothard, Coordinator/Founder, ALTSEAN (Alternative ASEAN Network on Burma), Myanmar
    • Dr Charles Tannock MBE MBBS MRCPsych, former Member of the European Parliament and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, United Kingdom
    • Alissa Wahid, National Director of the Gusdurian Network and daughter of former President of Indonesia Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), Indonesia
    • Yuyun Wahyuningrum, Representative of Indonesia to the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights, Indonesia
    • Catherine West MP, Member of Parliament and Patron of Hong Kong Watch, United Kingdom
  • Europe needs a “climate change on religious freedom,” says EU Special Envoy

    Europe needs a “climate change on religious freedom,” says EU Special Envoy

    According to the latest report of the Observatory on Intolerance and discrimination Against Christians in Europe, there have been in the last year about 500 cases of anti-Christian discrimination on European soil.

    Christianity is the most persecuted religion in the world.

    In Europe, the persecution might be subtle or take place in the form of attacks on sites of worship. The situation in the world is different. This is the reason why the exiting European Commission looked attentively at the religious persecutions and established the office of the EU Special Envoy for Religious Freedom outside the European Union.

    EU announced the establishment of the office on the very day Pope Francis was given the Charlemagne Prize in the Vatican.

    Jan Figel was chosen as the EU special envoy for religious freedom. In that capacity, Figel was able to carry out some remarkable successes, as the liberation of Asia Bibi, the Pakistani Christian woman convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. The woman won her final appeal, but she was in danger in her country. It was thanks to Jan Figel that she and her family were able to leave Pakistan and find a haven in Canada.

    The new European Commission, along with the new EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, will have to decide whether to renew the mandate to Figel or not.

    On Oct. 15-16, an event about the “Inventory of religious freedom” took place in Brussels. The event’s goal was to summarize the step forward in terms of religious freedom and assess how religious freedom is important for the future.

    Jan Figel took the floor at the end of the meeting, wrapping up the discussion. In his intervention, he stressed that “Freedom of religion and belief is a condition of good governance, important for believers and non-believers,” and it is “a civilizational objective and criterion, representing freedom of thought, conscience, religion.”

    Figel then stressed that “we need a climate change on religious freedom.”

    Figel underscored that “religious freedom for decades was a neglected, abandoned, misinterpreted human right.”

    Mentioning Pew Forum figures, Figel said that “today, 79% of the global population lives in countries with high or very high obstacles against freedom of religion or belief.”

    Figel distinguishes four levels of problems and crises, based on Pew Forum’s 2019 book “A Closer Look at How religious restrictions have risen around the world,” which analyses figures on religious freedom in the decade from 2007 to 2017: intolerance, discrimination, persecution, and genocide.

    Figel notes that “government restrictions on religion – laws, policies, and actions by state officials – increased markedly around the world. Indeed, 52 governments – including some in very populous countries like China, Indonesia, and Russia – impose either ‘high’ or ‘very high’ levels of restrictions on religion (up from 40 in 2007)”.

    The figures also show that “social hostilities involving religion – including violence and harassment by private individuals, organizations or groups – also have risen since 2007. The number of countries where people are experiencing the highest levels of social hostilities involving religion has risen from 39 to 56 throughout the study”.

    Figel also mentioned the UK Ministry for Foreign Affairs’ special report on religious freedom. The report said that religious persecution against Christian is “almost at the level of genocide.”

    Figel also stressed that there is also good news on the religious freedom side.

    Among the good news are items such as the EU Guidelines of 28 Member States, adopted in 2013; the establishment in the European parliament of first Intergroup for freedom of religion and belief and religious tolerance, with 38 members so far; the International Contact Group of Freedom of Religion and Belief diplomats, set up in 2015 and joined by a growing number of countries; and, finally, the establishment of the EU Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion Outside EU.

    Figel finally advanced five recommendations: work on the freedom of religion and belief within a human rights framework; boost the freedom of religion and belief literacy; support the engagement with religious actors and inter-religious dialogue; implement a more strategic and contextualized approach at the country level; step up coordination among member States and European Union on religious freedom.

    During his five-year mandate, Figel also launched the Declaration for Human Dignity for everyone and everywhere, signed by politicians and members of the academy.

    As mentioned, Figel was also involved in the Asia Bibi case. The case was an evident abuse of religious freedom, and Figel could, in his capacity, shed light on the issues of religious freedom. Figel was able to go to Pakistan for the first time in December 2017 and paid a second visit in 2018.

    “During the talks – Figel recalled – I spoke about the importance of dignity and justice for every Pakistani citizen, especially minorities. I tirelessly spoke with my high-level interlocutors about the importance of having clear signs that the Pakistani authorities are moving toward the rule of law and justice for all. Delayed justice is denied justice.”

    Figel’s involvement in Asia Bibi’s case was decisive for the Asia Bibi released. According to Figel, this showed that “European Union is a soft power that can facilitate positive changes in the world on justice, sustainable development, human rights protection and more effective promotion of religious freedom.”

    It is not yet known whether the office of the Special Envoy for Religious Freedom outside the EU will be renewed. The outcomes, however, showed that religious freedom is a crucial factor and that EU commitment in advancing religious freedom in the world might be of benefit for the same EU.

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column/europe-needs-a-climate-change-on-religious-freedom-says-eu-special-envoy-4098

  • We need FoRB climate change!

    We need FoRB climate change!

    Scaling up European Union support to Freedom of Religion or Belief
    IMPORTANCE OF FoRB Freedom of religion and belief is a condition of good governance, important for believers and non-believers. It is a civilizational objective and criterion, representing freedom of thought, conscience, religion. FoRB protection is a precondition of sustainable development. Why? Development is another name for peace. Peace is the fruit of justice. Justice is based on human rights for all. FoRB is a very central right. Art. 18 of the UDHR is in the middle of all universal HRs. It combines our freedom implemented individually and in community, in private and in public. It is a litmus test of all HRs – if it is not respected other rights suffer the same fate.
    FoRB represents human dignity – the foundational principle of HRs. Dignity express my uniqueness, originality, my rights but also my duties towards the other and towards the community, I am living in.
    GLOBAL SITUATION
    FoRB – for decades was neglected, abandoned, misinterpreted human right. Today 79% of the global population lives in countries with high or very high obstacles against FoRB (Pew Research Center, 2017). The second bad news is that trends are worrying, oppression is on the rise. Drivers of persecution are totalitarian and autocratic regimes, proponents of religious nationalism and violent extremism, terrorists and non-state actors. We can speak about four levels of problems and crisis: Intolerance, discrimination, persecution, genocide. This is not theory, as even genocides represent current world reality.
    In July 2019 Pew Research Center published a Closer Look at How religious restrictions have risen around the world. It analyses the decade from 2007 to 2017.
    First, government restrictions on religion – laws, policies and actions by state officials – increased markedly around the world. Indeed, 52 governments impose either “high” or “very high” levels of restrictions on religion (up from 40 in 2007).
    Secondly, social hostilities involving religion – including violence and harassment by private individuals, organizations or groups – also have risen from 39 to 56 over the course of the study.
    Thirdly, levels of government limits on religious activities and government harassment of religious groups have been rising over the past decade – and in some cases, steeply. For instance, the average score for government limits on religious activities in Europe (including efforts to restrict proselytizing and male circumcision) has doubled since 2007, and the average score for government harassment in the Middle East-North Africa region has increased by 72%.
    Fourthly, these trends suggest that religious restrictions have been rising around the world for the past decade. The level of restrictions started high in the Middle East-North Africa region, and is now highest there in all eight categories measured by the study. But some of the biggest increases over the last decade have been in other regions, including Europe – where growing numbers of governments have been placing limits on Muslim women’s dress – and sub-Saharan Africa, where some groups have tried to impose their religious norms on others through kidnappings and forced conversions.
    In 2019 the UK FCO commissioned special Report. It says that up to 250 mil. of Christians are persecuted today, calling it “the most shocking abuse of HRs today”. Muslim Rohingyas in Myanmar suffer systematic persecution, like millions of Uyghurs in China. Antisemitism is on the rise, including in the West. My nomination was a reaction to the genocide of Yezidis, Christians, Shias committed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Bahai´s suffering in Iran, Ahmadis in Pakistan.
    Pressure is growing against groups from A to Z (from Atheists to Zoroastrians). Atheism may lead to capital punishment in 13 countries, conversions in 22 states. And over 70 countries in the world have blasphemy laws, some very stringent, like Pakistan or Mauretania.
    If one minority is persecuted, many others are persecuted as well. For too long, FoRB was like a forgotten orphan, a priority neither in foreign policy, nor in development cooperation.
    But there is also good news. FoRB awakening is growing. In 2013 the EU Guidelines of 28 Member States have been adopted. In 2014 the first Intergroup for FoRB and Religious Tolerance with 38 members emerged in the EP. At the same time, there is a global IPP FoRB – International Parliamentarians Platform. Since 2015 there is an International Contact Group of FoRB diplomats from a growing number of countries. And since 2016 the EU has the first ever Special Envoy for FoRB promotion.
    After that, several Members States established their respective Ambassadors, Special Representatives and Envoys – Hungary, UK, Germany, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, and Netherlands. They joined Norway, Finland, Sweden, and France. Some other EU countries may join the group soon as well. Very active transatlantic partners we have in the US and Canada. There were already two Ministerial summits in Washington DC with concrete commitments, testimonials, networks, side events. 104 governments and up to 1000 religious and civil society participants in July this year was a strong call for global FoRB cooperation.
    In time of growing tensions, violence and conflicts we have witnessed unprecedented rise of religious initiatives for peaceful coexistence: Earlier ones like Amman Message as a reaction to 9/11 and Beslan killing in 2004, Common Word between Us and You from 2007, and recent initiatives like Marrakesh Declaration of 2016 on treatment of religious minorities in Muslim majority countries, Beirut Declaration 2017 called Faiths for Rights, initiated by the UN Office of High Commissioner for HRs,
    Abu Dhabi Declaration on Human Fraternity and Peaceful Coexistence signed by Pope Francis and Grand Imam of Al Ahzar Al Tayyib in February 2019. I am glad to support growing PaRD initiative – International Partnership on Religion and Development bringing together more than 80 members and partner organizations. In addition, the OSCE is more active in FoRB area. Under Poland led proposal, the UN General Assembly agreed to devote the first ever International Day of Commemorating Victims of Acts of Religious Violence – August 22.
    WHAT TO DO
    I visited 16 countries on working missions; spoke to many leaders, communities, organisations, academia. The role of SE gave me closer access to human suffering.
    I am convinced we need FoRB CLIMATE CHANGE! The situation is already alarming, trends are worrying. And it concerns millions of people in many regions of the world!
    International community must
    (1) Recognize the importance of FoRB;
    (2) EU and MS must make FoRB permanent and important condition of external relations;
    (3) We need to organize efficient cooperation on FoRB promotion with like-minded actors – against violent extremism, religious fundamentalism and intolerance.
    With the adoption of the EU Guidelines on the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief in 2013, the EU has committed to advance this fundamental freedom in its external action, including through its financial instruments. Since then, there has been a significant increase in FoRB-funding in comparison to the previous period 2007-12 (2013-18: 18 million EUR, 28 projects, versus 4 million EUR, 23 projects).
    Other entry points opted by EU Delegations in the past for promoting FoRB are e.g. non-discrimination and equal citizenship, minority rights, intercultural/-religious dialogue, prevention of violent extremism.
    The foundational principle of HRs is dignity. Culture of Human Dignity is based on respect of the universal principle: We are all different in identity; we are all equal in dignity.
    Dignity is crucially important for Christians (Dignitatis Humanae is Vatican Council II major document on religious freedom), for Muslims it is the Quranic concept of Karamah, for adherents of Bible it is Imago Dei and Medaber al kabot in Hebrew tradition.
    EU Charter of Fundamental Rights starts with Dignity as the first out of four main values. In India, the most populous country, with secular Constitution Preamble we can find call for dignity.
    I had good experience when sharing these principles at Punjab Institute of Islamic Studies at the University of Lahore or at Ahfad University for Women in Sudan.
    Human dignity may serve as a meeting point for both, religious and secular humanists. Punta del Este Declaration on Human Dignity for Everyone Everywhere from December 2018 is the recent proof. I am happy that many scholars, experts and activists signed up to commemorate the 70 years of the UDHR, but also to recommit to its foundational principle. The document is still open for signatures.
    The ethical principle of equal dignity is a departure point for socio-political principle of equal citizenship (inclusive, dignified one). It brings us to a pluralist society – like a mosaic,
    to a civil state based on equal citizenship. E. g. this is the best option for the future of Iraq. The fair civil (secular) state is blessing for FoRB and different faiths coexistence.
    Inter-religious and inter-cultural dialogue must become a norm, not an exception. Dialogue not just for dialogue and exchange, but also as a quest for truth, justice, common good.
    This is spirit of also Art. 17 Treaty Dialogue, where I was regularly invited by FVP Timmermans.
    We need to move from respect of identity towards
    1) awareness of interdependence, and
    2) ethics of shared responsibility.
    Pope Francis and Grand Imam of Al Ahzar, the latest one in Abu Dhabi, set an inspiring example. People generally very little read encyclicals or fatwas. However, they see images and they get the message immediately.
    United Europe, it is a lesson on common good, winning over hatred and violence. It grew from the definition of common ground, understanding, definition of common values and interests, bringing common good and common future.
    I know well from my missions that the EU is welcomed when not teaching or preaching, but sharing; when not imposing, but proposing.
    Evil is very successful today because it has very widely spread and influential allies. These are indifference, ignorance, fear – they are siblings of evil. Therefore, we must learn how to live in diversity, not only to coexist in diversity. We need to nurture allies of good – engagement, education, courage.
    Religious literacy is important (digital one is not enough).
    More and faster smartphones? Yes, but this is not sufficient ambition. We need smart people – in diplomacy, public policy, schools, media, community leaders (with modern smart technologies) I am supportive of activities of the newly established European Academy of Religion in Bologna (2016) as network of universities, faculties, journals and scholars on nexus between religion and different sciences.
    I was happy to get FoRB visible at European Development Days, and especially when Lorenzo Natali Media Special FoRB Prize was the first time given to both professional and amateur journalists (Tunisia, Burkina Faso). We discuss a FoRB Award for the best students at EMA Global Campus of Human Rights in Venice.
    Most of the information one can find in my report.
    https://www.janfigel.eu/single-post/2020/01/12/Final-report-on-the-mandate-of-the-Special-Envoy
    Nevertheless, I would like to conclude on a more personal note.
    CONCLUSION: ON A MORE PERSONAL NOTE
    When genocide in the Middle East in 2014 started, I tried to persuade EU leaders and Slovak government that we have to do something credible to help victims of persecution. I sent more than 70 urging letters, we organized public manifestations. When the EP adopted a strong resolution demanding to establish a permanent position of EU Special Representative for FoRB, this issue came back to me like a boomerang. I want to thank Commission, especially to the President Jean-Claude Juncker for giving me the opportunity to start something really important, sensitive and unprecedented. He asked me for visibility. I told him then, at the beginning, yes, but we must keep visibility connected with credibility. I think this agenda is now both visible and credible. I had constructive support of Commissioner Mimica and his Cabinet, DG DEVCO led by S. Manservisi with very reliable collaboration of V. Manzitti, J. Journal and B. Philippe.
    I held frequent meetings with EEAS, EP leadership and committees, CSO, FBOs, media. Via Art. 17 Treaty Dialogue I cooperated with the FVP Timmermans and DG JUST, but also with Johannes Hahn and his DG NEAR.
    In spite of very limited working conditions or because of that I combined a lot of HARDWORKING, TEAMWORKING and NETWORKING. This was my recipe for success. This was behind very encouraging stories of releases – of two groups in Sudan (Czech Christian humanitarian worker Petr Jašek sentenced for lifelong jail, and his two Sudanese collaborators; and HRs defender Prof. Ibrahim Mudawi – threatened by lifelong imprisonment – with five other activists) and famous Asia Bibi from Pakistan, being double sentenced to death for blasphemy. It is important to add: autocratic regime in Sudan in the meantime collapsed with U. Bashir being investigated for his bloody crimes. In Pakistan, we have started a series of activities promoting equal citizenship and pluralism.
    I want to thank all partners Member States, MEPs, EEAS, Commission services, CSO, FBOs and academia for very good cooperation on the common cause of FoRB protection. We are not perfect, but we tried to be reliable and constructive partners. The stocktaking event is not only on reflexion of the last years, but also setting a vision for the future.
    There are five recommendations in my report:
    1. Work on FoRB within an HRs framework and through the SDGs agenda – including education, gender equality, and peace.
    2. Boost FoRB literacy.
    3. Support engagement with religious actors and inter-religious dialogue.
    4. Implement a more strategic and contextualized approach at country level.
    5. Step up coordination among MS and the EU on FoRB.
    My report is not exhaustive text, but it is my input into the two-day debate. I hope this conference will bring additional points to the future FoRB agenda. And it will be handed over to the incoming President and Commission for further reflexion and decision.
    My nomination in 2016 was invoked by the genocide in the Middle East. Year 2016 marked Century of genocides – over 100 years. There were many, too many. What is coming next: Century of hope or Century of continuity (business as usual)? The world urgently needs a change; we must stick to the commitment NEVER AGAIN. We need FoRB climate change! FoRB is part of Robert Schuman’s legacy.
    FoRB protection and promotion are in the best EU interest and global responsibility. This is a preventive antidote against persecution and the refugee crisis. The EU was born on fight against totalitarian oppression, against political, ethnic and religious persecution. This must stay alive in our memory and become a permanent part of our responsibility.
    Therefore our effort on FoRB protection and promotion should continue. At the same time, it needs more adequate institutional support, stronger political conditions, and more efficient cooperation with MS, institutions and all relevant partners.
    https://www.ourworld.co/we-need-forb-climate-change/

  • The Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers Presents Recommendations during a Meeting host

    Freedom of Religion and/or Belief (FoRB) should be a fundamental human right for all, yet has faced increased threats around the world. In response to the growing threat, Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU, Mr. Jan Figel, hosted a meeting in Brussels on how to increase EU support for FoRB. Eight ambassadors and high-level member state representatives, including Pekka Metso, Ambassador-at-Large, Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue Processes of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs Finland, discussed how the EU and its member states could promote and advance FoRB. During the second day of the meeting, civil society organizations and experts built upon previous discussions and shared their reflections, experiences and ideas on how to further advance the Sustainable Development Goals and interreligious engagement.

    Network Executive Director, Dr. Mohamed Elsanousi, participated on a panel discussion regarding the conditions needed to make an effective tool to promote Freedom of Religion or Belief and inclusive societies. Dr. Elsanousi noted interreligious dialogue, collaboration, and understanding has progressed substantially in recent years. To further be strengthened, it requires more trust building with reluctant actors and inclusivity. Collaboration is key with wide-variety of actors involved in these processes, and as to what States should and should not support and engage in should be approached with caution. The independence and neutrality of religious leaders is key. Youth engagement should be promoted.

    In addition, Network Coordinator, Ms. Marikki Rieppola, presented best practices and lessons learned in the Network project: South and South East Asia: Advancing Inter-Religious Dialogue and FoRB (SEA-AIR). The SEA-AIR project aims to contribute to an improved consensus and a conducive environment for the protection of freedom of religion and belief and for peaceful coexistence of groups and individuals with different religious affiliation in Southeast Asia. Specifically, the project aims to enhance local capacities to prevent and combat discrimination on grounds of religion or belief through interfaith understanding and mainstreaming at country and regional level in Myanmar, Bangladesh and other South and Southeast Asian countries. Final beneficiaries will include women, youth, minority groups and other individuals marginalized or discriminated on the basis of religion, local communities impacted by escalating challenges to FoRB, by related human rights violations and escalating violence in target countries.

    European Union member states have reaffirmed and embedded the promotion of FoRB within their wider commitment to advance and protect human rights. Following a resolution in February 2016, the European Commission created the Special Envoy for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief outside the EU. Mr. Jan Figel was appointed to this role in May 2016 and has been actively engaged with government, civil society and religious leaders and actors around the world. The Special Envoy recommends the EU should seek to, “better combine EU political instruments with programs reinforcing the capacity of State and non-state actors to prevent and address FoRB violations.

    22 October 2019

    https://www.peacemakersnetwork.org/network-presents-recommendations-during-a-meeting-hosted-by-special-envoy-for-the-promotion-of-freedom-of-religion-or-belief-outside-the-eu

  • How to scale up EU support to Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU

    How to scale up EU support to Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU

    Presentation of the work and the recommendations of the Special Envoy, Ján Figeľ 15 – 16 October 2019, Stanhope Hotel – Rue du Commerce 9, Brussels, Belgium

    https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7dce12_61cf43de9a6a405fa4010c79892b7d01.pdf