Ján Figeľ

Tag: FoRB

  • PAKISTAN: Former EU Special Envoy on FORB spoke on human dignity in Pakistan at the UN

    PAKISTAN: Former EU Special Envoy on FORB spoke on human dignity in Pakistan at the UN

    On 26 March, CAP/ Liberté de conscience and Human Rights Without Frontiers organized a side-event about the situation of Human Rights in Pakistan. The keynote speaker was Mr Jan Figel, EU Commissioner for Education (2004-2009) and former EU Special Envoy of Freedom of Religion or Belief (2016-2019). Here are the main insights of his presentation.

    HRWF (19.04.2025) – “Pakistan is a big country with a big potential. It’s a nuclear power but also a relatively poor state. The European Union has a special relation with this country due to the GSP+ trade agreement which is normally or basically oriented towards the least developed countries to facilitate their exports to Europe. In this regard, Pakistan is by far the largest partner of the European Union and the biggest beneficiary of this arrangement. The impact of the European Union policy should and can therefore be significant.”

    The EU, freedom of religion or belief and human dignity in Pakistan

    “Freedom of religion or belief is a very central human right. It’s in the centre of the whole list of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The centrality of Article 18 is very important and the content is very particular. It is in fact freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

    It speaks about human rationality, morality and spirituality. It is important for all, believers, non-believers, for people from A to Z, which means from Atheists up to Zoroastrians. It is for all, not only some, not only majorities, not only minorities. It is for all.

    And it is actually a litmus test of all human rights because it is internal, it is the deepest freedom of a human being. In addition, there is a very close or deep nexus between religious freedom and human dignity.

    As I said, Article 18 speaks about rationality, morality and spirituality of each human person. And human dignity is the basis of freedom, peace, justice and equality. It’s the precondition of a dignified life.

    And of course, human dignity is a fact from which human duties and human rights are derived.

    It is mentioned five times in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and also in many constitutions, including the constitution of India, Pakistan and my country, Slovakia. The problem is that for many people in Pakistan human dignity is not respected today.””

    The roots of the disregard of human dignity

    “The reasons are mostly linked to the state policies which started or were inherited from the time of Zia ul Haq’s government in Pakistan and the military junta which came with the Islamisation of the state to keep the ideology in power, not only with guns. For example, the penal code was moved to an extreme level. It is indeed very exceptional to have a penal code providing for death penalty or lifelong imprisonment on blasphemy charges. It’s unique and mandatory. It means a lot of damage for peaceful coexistence and cohabitation. I would say politically that the legacy of Zia ul Haq in Pakistan is today more important than the legacy of Ali Jinnah, the founding father, the dreamer, the visionary of a future Pakistan being a tolerant and pluralistic country.

    Unfortunately, I have seen personally, being there several times, that extremist movements are stronger than political parties. They can paralyse the state, state authorities and law enforcement in the country.

    The justice system is functioning but it is slow and relatively weak. Education, which is so important, is marked by ideology, intolerance, supremacy of one religion. It serves or works against inclusion of all. Madrasas are institutions of radicalisation.”

    The impact of the disregard of human dignity

    “Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and other minorities are under pressure and discrimination in Pakistan. There are extensive attacks on a daily basis and of course there are damages on places of worship, cultural heritage and so on. Pakistan is regrettably very often in the leading group in negative rankings about the situation of human rights or religious freedom reports.

    The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom put Pakistan in the CPC category, Countries of Particular Concern. Also Aid to the Church in Need or Open Doors and other NGOs.

    Positive change or difference is however possible. I was several times in Pakistan. When I was there, it was not to interfere into domestic issues but it was for a dialogue between mature partners, with respect but also with clear principles: mutually beneficial and win-win policies, working together and even achieving some improvements.

    The GSP+ was and remains a very important and great instrument as it grants enormous trade privileges to Pakistan. My message was mainly that in Pakistan a status quo is not enough and cannot be taken for granted and with satisfaction. Justice delayed is justice denied. It’s a general principle.

    It’s not only in Pakistan but it is everywhere. And therefore, to modernise, mobilise and work on justice for all is important. A personal experience as an example.

    A lady was sentenced twice to death and spent nine years on the death row. Her family who was under enormous threats was taken care by another family. In 2019, we managed to save the caretaking family with the kids first, then the mother, her husband and also another family, a Muslim family which was also under existential threat as they had helped me as interpreters in the Punjab.

    So, this religious intolerance or hatred is damaging for all, not only for minorities, but also for majorities. I wanted to mention this case to stress that the European Union did life-saving work. The EU can do it, it can help, it can really make a difference even in countries like Pakistan but it must be more systematic.”

    Pakistan’s controversial school education system

    “Ladies and gentlemen, the silence of the European Commission in times of persecution and violent extremism is often painful, which is the case with Pakistan. The promotion of societal segregation from early childhood is against human rights, peaceful coexistence and social inclusion of minorities. EU’s financial assistance to detrimental religious education in Pakistan should therefore be stopped immediately. We too often hear soft words and messages from the European Union and United Nations agencies but courageous and efficient action and deeds are missing or fail to follow.

    From 2004 to 2009, I was an EU Commissioner for Education. My input to the current or next generations of the world 20 years ago was the Erasmus Mundus Project, the best ever university exchange and mobility program. I also implemented the Bologna Process which aims to make it possible for academic qualifications to be recognized EU-wide and 16 years ago I launched the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, a life-long learning program.

    The message of this program was that ‘education unites.’ This sort of education is needed in Pakistan for Pakistani, for people living and struggling there. Not in exile or elsewhere in the world but at home in Pakistan.” They could hereby be better off, they could be richer and they should be richer.”

    A call to the EU and the UN

    “I call on the UN agencies, the European Parliament and the Commission to review their education support for Pakistan and I call on the EU to review its GSP+ agreement with Pakistan, this year, with an unquestionable commitment to human dignity for all and human rights for all, including for religious and ethnic minorities. It is now without delay that it must start.”

    Original link: https://hrwf.eu/pakistan-former-eu-special-envoy-on-forb-spoke-about-human-dignity-in-pakistan-at-the-un/

  • Figel’ v Slovakia: Potential landmark ECtHR decision on COVID-19 related restrictions to FoRB

    Figel’ v Slovakia: Potential landmark ECtHR decision on COVID-19 related restrictions to FoRB

    The COVID-19 pandemic introduced a period of unprecedented restrictions to fundamental rights, unthinkable no less than five years ago: freedom of movement, assembly, and expression, and the right to private life, among others, were all impacted.

    Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) was no exception. In the name of public health, governments all around the world closed church doors and forbade in-person worship. In some places, churches remained closed even when other establishments such as bicycle repair shops and cinemas were open for business (e.g. Scotland and Switzerland).

    While many may want to put the pandemic behind them, violations of human rights should be corrected, at the very least so we can prevent them from happening again. In the case of FoRB, the ECtHR now has the chance to do exactly that.

    Ján Figeľ, the former Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU (2016-2019), and a practicing Catholic, is challenging before the ECtHR the COVID-19 related restrictions to religious worship imposed by his home country, Slovakia, starting from February 2021. I have the honour of co-representing Figeľ before the ECtHR in a potentially precedent setting case for how the 46 member states of the Council of Europe should deal with FoRB in times of public health crisis.

    Scope of the case

    During the second wave, Slovakia prolonged its pandemic restrictions, banning religious services, except for baptisms and weddings with up to six people. The case centers on the 40-day prolonged blanket ban on religious worship (8 February-19 March 2021), which transpired amidst a longer period of previous restrictions.

    The government of Slovakia contends there was no violation of FoRB because:

    • individual worship was still possible. But such an argument is contradicted by international and European human rights law, which protect FoRB manifested either alone or in community with others.
    • “online worship” was available. This claim disregards the fact that this is “best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself” (Reverend Dr William J U Philip and Others, paras. 60-61), and that for some faiths, such as Judaism, religious celebrations cannot be filmed or livestreamed (Belgian Conseil d’État arrrêt n° 249.177).

    Proportionality test

    The case rests on the ECtHR’s analysis of proportionality and necessity, and the margin of appreciation Slovakia had at that particular time.

    At the start of the pandemic, due to the novelty and lack of knowledge about the virus, governments had a wider margin to curtail fundamental rights. This gradually shrank with increased scientific information. Freedom-restrictive measures that might have been deemed legitimate at the beginning of 2020were likely not proportionate and necessary in 2021 and 2022.

    In advancing a justification for restricting FoRB, the onus is on Slovakia to prove proportionality. In this case, the government’s blanket ban on religious worship during the later stages of the pandemic, once more scientific evidence became available, was at best a “useful” form of restrictions, though certainly not the most useful and “necessary”.

    The government also must show that the ban was the least restrictive means available, which will be difficult in light of other options, such as social distancing within churches or other measures recommended by the WHO.

    A precedent for FoRB at the ECtHR

    While the ECtHR has dealt with applications related to FoRB during the pandemic (such as Magdić v Croatia, which was declared inadmissible, or Spînu v Romania in which no violation was found in the prison context), it has not yet ruled on the proportionality of bans on public worship, and certainly not with regards to the second wave of the pandemic. There are at least three noteworthy cases pending (Mégard v France, Chirilă v Romania and Association d’Obédience Ecclésiastique Orthodoxe c. Grèce ) and the timeline indicates that Figel may be the first case where the ECtHR will assess the proportionality of worship bans during COVID-19. Should the Court do so, it would take the symbolic opportunity to rule on the case of the former Special Envoy for FoRB, who has repeatedly stated that “The EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its member states fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home.”

    Adina Portaru

    Adina Portaru serves as Senior Counsel for ADF International, where she focuses on freedom of religion or belief at the European Union and on litigation at the European Court of Human Rights. Prior to joining ADF International, she was a research assistant at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and at the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Austria, where she assessed human rights policies. She obtained her doctorate in Law and Religion at Karl Franzens University in Austria.

  • Figel’ v Slovakia: Potential landmark ECtHR decision on COVID-19 related restrictions to FoRB

    Figel’ v Slovakia: Potential landmark ECtHR decision on COVID-19 related restrictions to FoRB

    The COVID-19 pandemic introduced a period of unprecedented restrictions to fundamental rights, unthinkable no less than five years ago: freedom of movement, assembly, and expression, and the right to private life, among others, were all impacted.

    Freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) was no exception. In the name of public health, governments all around the world closed church doors and forbade in-person worship. In some places, churches remained closed even when other establishments such as bicycle repair shops and cinemas were open for business (e.g. Scotland and Switzerland).

    While many may want to put the pandemic behind them, violations of human rights should be corrected, at the very least so we can prevent them from happening again. In the case of FoRB, the ECtHR now has the chance to do exactly that.

    Ján Figeľ, the former Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU (2016-2019), and a practicing Catholic, is challenging before the ECtHR the COVID-19 related restrictions to religious worship imposed by his home country, Slovakia, starting from February 2021. I have the honour of co-representing Figeľ before the ECtHR in a potentially precedent setting case for how the 46 member states of the Council of Europe should deal with FoRB in times of public health crisis.

    Scope of the case

    During the second wave, Slovakia prolonged its pandemic restrictions, banning religious services, except for baptisms and weddings with up to six people. The case centers on the 40-day prolonged blanket ban on religious worship (8 February-19 March 2021), which transpired amidst a longer period of previous restrictions.

    The government of Slovakia contends there was no violation of FoRB because:

    • individual worship was still possible. But such an argument is contradicted by international and European human rights law, which protect FoRB manifested either alone or in community with others.
    • “online worship” was available. This claim disregards the fact that this is “best viewed as an alternative to worship, rather than worship itself” (Reverend Dr William J U Philip and Others, paras. 60-61), and that for some faiths, such as Judaism, religious celebrations cannot be filmed or livestreamed (Belgian Conseil d’État arrrêt n° 249.177).

    Proportionality test

    The case rests on the ECtHR’s analysis of proportionality and necessity, and the margin of appreciation Slovakia had at that particular time.

    At the start of the pandemic, due to the novelty and lack of knowledge about the virus, governments had a wider margin to curtail fundamental rights. This gradually shrank with increased scientific information. Freedom-restrictive measures that might have been deemed legitimate at the beginning of 2020were likely not proportionate and necessary in 2021 and 2022.

    In advancing a justification for restricting FoRB, the onus is on Slovakia to prove proportionality. In this case, the government’s blanket ban on religious worship during the later stages of the pandemic, once more scientific evidence became available, was at best a “useful” form of restrictions, though certainly not the most useful and “necessary”.

    The government also must show that the ban was the least restrictive means available, which will be difficult in light of other options, such as social distancing within churches or other measures recommended by the WHO.

    A precedent for FoRB at the ECtHR

    While the ECtHR has dealt with applications related to FoRB during the pandemic (such as Magdić v Croatia, which was declared inadmissible, or Spînu v Romania in which no violation was found in the prison context), it has not yet ruled on the proportionality of bans on public worship, and certainly not with regards to the second wave of the pandemic. There are at least three noteworthy cases pending (Mégard v France, Chirilă v Romania and Association d’Obédience Ecclésiastique Orthodoxe c. Grèce ) and the timeline indicates that Figel may be the first case where the ECtHR will assess the proportionality of worship bans during COVID-19. Should the Court do so, it would take the symbolic opportunity to rule on the case of the former Special Envoy for FoRB, who has repeatedly stated that “The EU cannot credibly advance religious freedom throughout the world if its member states fail to uphold fundamental freedoms at home.”

    Adina Portaru

    Adina Portaru serves as Senior Counsel for ADF International, where she focuses on freedom of religion or belief at the European Union and on litigation at the European Court of Human Rights. Prior to joining ADF International, she was a research assistant at Maastricht University in the Netherlands and at the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Austria, where she assessed human rights policies. She obtained her doctorate in Law and Religion at Karl Franzens University in Austria.

  • FoRB is an Issue of Life and Death – Assassination of Former PM Abe in Japan

    FoRB is an Issue of Life and Death – Assassination of Former PM Abe in Japan

    Presentation of Jan Figel at the UNHRC Geneva on January 31, 2023. The Global Human Rights Institution starts its Universal Periodic Review of commitments and their implementation in Japan.

  • EU politicians and religious leaders demand reinstatement of religious envoy

    The previous religious envoy was influential in securing the release of the Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi, from a death sentence in 2019.

    Calls are growing for the European Union to reinstate its Special Envoy on Religious Freedom, after the post was abolished by the new Brussels Commission under Ursula Von Der Leyen.

    “In some countries, religious oppression has now reached the level of genocide,” said Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg, president of COMECE, which represents the EU’s Catholic Bishops Conferences. “Vulnerable religious minorities and groups are at risk, and the EU must continue campaigning for religious freedom, with its own representative included.”

    The cardinal made the comments to German’s Deutsche Welle agency on Sunday, as 135 German parliamentarians from various parties urged their country to use its new tenure of the EU’s rotating presidency to press for restoration of the post, and as conservative members of the European Parliament tabled similar demands in a letter to Von Der Leyen.

    Austrian MPs also called on their government in a joint resolution last week to ensure the EU Commission’s decision was reversed. Meanwhile, the EU move was also criticised by Orthodox and Muslim leaders, as well as by the president of the Conference of European Rabbis, Pinchas Goldschmidt, who told Deutsche Welle it had “sent the wrong signal” when religious minorities were being “increasingly targeted by extremists and the free exercise of religion is being undermined”.

    The Slovak Jan Figel was appointed Special Envoy under a 2016 European Parliament resolution to work alongside the EU’s Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, and was believed influential in the subsequent opening of religious rights offices by governments in Britain, Denmark and Germany, as well as in securing release of the Pakistani Christian, Asia Bibi, from a death sentence for alleged blasphemy in 2019. However, supporters complained he had been denied office space and funds in Brussels, and that his one-year renewable mandate had been too brief to formulate any long-term plan.

    In an early June letter to the International Religious Freedom Roundtable, the EU Commission said it was committed under 2013 guidelines to advancing religious freedom, but added that violations would now be “monitored and raised regularly by EU delegations”, as well as by Eamon Gilmore, Special Representative for Human Rights.

    However, in their appeal, the German parliamentarians said they “greatly regretted” Figel’s dismissal and called on their country to use its EU presidency from 1 July to ensure his “previously successful work” continued. “As a pioneer of universal human rights, to which the EU is committed globally, the Commission must not look away”, the Bundestag members said. “At a time when persecution of religious minorities of all faiths is increasing, we need a strong European voice.”

    The chairman of the German bishops’ World Church Commission, Archbishop Ludwig Schick of Bamberg, said he would also write to the EU Commission, demanding the Special Envoy’s reappointment, as well as to MEPs urging them to campaign accordingly.

    In a letter last week to Catholic bishops in Nigeria, Cardinal Hollerich said COMECE would demand “intensified EU assistance and cooperation” with authorities and institutions in the African country, including its churches, to stop violence and persecution against local Christians.

    https://www.thetablet.co.uk/news/13129/eu-politicians-and-religious-leaders-demand-reinstatement-of-religious-envoy-

  • APPG statement on EU’s Special Envoy on FoRB

    The UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) urges the European Commission to renew the mandate of the Special Envoy on FoRB outside the EU.

    Dr Ján Figel was appointed the European Commission’s first Special Envoy for the promotion of FoRB outside the EU, following a resolution adopted by the European Parliament in February 2016.

    The mandate has served as a focal point for promoting FoRB outside the EU, with Dr Figel working alongside the European External Action Service, civil society, religious leaders and governments. Dr Figel has also served as Special Adviser to the Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development and he has worked extensively with the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Special Rapporteur on FoRB, and the UN Deputy Secretary General responsible for Genocide Prevention, as well as his counterparts in European governments and in the US.

    The unique position of the EU Special Envoy has enabled him to be viewed as a neutral broker by many countries. This fact has been instrumental in helping to foster dialogue and make effective interventions. For example, in assisting with the release of Asia Bibi, who spent years on death row in Pakistan due to an unfounded blasphemy allegation. Czech national Petr Jašek, who was jailed alongside two Sudanese pastors and a FoRB activist, also acknowledged Dr Figel’s important role in securing his freedom.

    The Special Envoy has demonstrated how FoRB can be promoted and protected effectively through the European Union’s external action. This helps to explains why, on 15 January 2019, the European Parliament renewed its support for the Special Envoy in its resolution on the “EU guidelines and the mandate of the EU Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion outside the European Union”.

    Dr. Figel’s mandate has now expired. The UK All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief urges the European Commission to renew his mandate in order to protect and promote FoRB outside the EU.

    APPG statement on EU’s Special Envoy on FoRB
  • 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/