Category — UN

As reported yesterday, UNESCO have inscribed a number of Bahá’í Holy Places in Israel on the World Heritage Site list.

UNESCO’s website has reported this:

The Bahá’i Holy Places in Haifa and Western Galilee (Israel) are inscribed for the testimony they provide to the Bahá’i’s strong tradition of pilgrimage and for their profound meaning for the faith. The property numbers 26 buildings, monuments and sites at 11 locations in Acre and Haifa, associated with the founders of the faith, among them the Shrine of the Bahá’u’lláh in Acre and the Mausoleum of the Báb in Haifa. It also includes houses, gardens, a cemetery and a large group of modern buildings in the neoclassical style that serve for administration, archives and a research centre.

A number of news outlets have reported this significant development, among them:

AFP

Xinhua

Mideast Daily News

Ynet News

Africasia.com

But one outlet, Tehran Times, is notably and shamefully silent on the matter, despite reporting the listing of several sites in Iran.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, UNESCO, World Heritage Site, Israel, Haifa, Western Galilee, holy places, shrine

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Did you know that one third of all women is likely to experience some form of violence or abuse in her lifetime? This was the stark figure revealed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today as he launched a multi-year global campaign to try to end violence against women. “It’s an issue that cannot wait,” he said, as he opened the latest session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York. Said Mr Ban:

At least one out of every three women is likely to be beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Through the practice of prenatal sex selection, countless others are denied the right even to exist

He continued:

This is a campaign for them. It is a campaign for the women and girls who have the right to live free of violence, today and in the future. It is a campaign to stop the untold cost that violence against women inflicts on all humankind.

He called on youth, women’s groups, men, the private sector and UN member states to put their weight behind the campaign. He acknowledged that there can be no blanket approach to ending violence against women. Every country will have to formulate its own measures.

But there is one universal truth, applicable to all countries, cultures and communities: violence against women is never acceptable, never excusable, never tolerable

The Baha’i International Community’s Office for the Advancement of Women will be fully engaged in CSW and in the campaign, with the cooperation of national and local Baha’i communities across the world. You can read the BIC’s statement to the 52nd Session of the Commission on the Status of Women here.

Photo © Sherwin!!! under a Creative Commons licence.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Bahai, Baha’i International Community, BIC, violence against women, UN, CSW, Ban Ki-moon

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Should the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee take country-specific human rights resolutions?

The 20-21 November New York Update from the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) reports that Cuba, the Sudan and Nicaragua took the floor before the Third Committee considered any of the country-specific resolutions on its agenda to say why the General Assembly should not deal with such resolutions.

Their primary objection is that they consider the [UN Human Rights] Council to be the most appropriate body within the UN system to consider human rights matters in specific countries, using the UPR [Universal Periodic Review] mechanism, which they regard as non-selective, non-confrontational, and an effective mechanism for engaging States in a human rights dialogue.

The USA and Australia responded to this claim by saying that country-specific resolutions were necessary to stop countries getting away with human rights violations with impunity and to help the victims of human rights abuses. As Liechtenstein pointed out, the Third Committee, unlike the Human Rights Council, has universal membership and the responsibility to deal with serious human rights violations.

The ISHR’s Update also reported that:

States in favour of country-specific resolutions also objected to any moves to stifle debate on serious human rights matters within the Third Committee, and pointed to the right of any State to bring forward a resolution in the General Assembly on any matter of concern.

As I reported on Wednesday, Iran did in fact try to stifle debate on serious human rights issues, in so far as they affected Iran, by tabling a no-action motion. That the motion failed by only one vote tells us that something is sadly amiss as far as the UN’s consideration of human rights is concerned.

I am very much in favour of appropriately used country-specific resolutions. (I say “appropriately used” because country-specific resolutions can be used vexatiously to target countries that do not deserve to be targeted while neglecting countries that do deserve to be targeted.) Iran is a country that cannot be allowed to get away with its appalling treatment of minorities, including the Baha’is, and with its many other terrible violations of its citizens’ human rights.

Claims by countries that the Third Committee should not consider country-specific human rights resolutions are entirely self-serving. Just look at the countries that took time at the Third Committee to argue against country-specific resolutions: Cuba, Sudan and Nicaragua are not exactly shining examples of human rights compliant states.

And to say that human rights matters should be handled only by the UN Human Rights Council is also self-serving, since the Council’s effectiveness has been limited - neutered, some would say - by the machinations of member states that are amongst the worst human rights abusers. In fact, the Human Rights Council has largely abandoned country-specific resolutions, except with respect to Israel.

Technorati Tags: human rights, UN, Third Committee, Iran, Israel, Baha’i, Bahai

Michael Cromartie, Chair of the US Commission on International Freedom (USCIRF), has just written to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rize urging her to advocate a strong mandate for the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate is currently under consideration by the UN Human Rights Council.

USCIRF is gravely concerned that the Human Rights Council is shifting its focus from promoting freedom of religion or belief to the prevention of what is being termed as “defamation of religion”. Mr Cromartie’s letter explains:

The supporters of this concept—typically governments that prohibit religious pluralism at home—claim that their aim is to promote religious tolerance. In practice, however, this approach seeks to suppress what these governments deem, often capriciously, to be “offensive” or “unacceptable” speech about a particular, favored religion, and even to justify violent reactions to this purportedly offensive speech.

Prohibitions on defamation of religion violate the principles outlined in international human rights instruments, which guarantee the right of everyone to freedom of expression as well as to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. They also improperly seek to protect groups at the expense of the rights of the individual. The Commission is deeply concerned by the growing campaign to internationalize these prohibitions, and we strongly urge the U.S. government to take the lead in opposing such measures, including by opposing attempts to include a focus on defamation of religion in the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

Asma Jahangir, the current religious freedom Special Rapporteur, has commented that

…the protection of the rights of religious minorities is central to the mandate on freedom of religion or belief. It should not be compromised even if other members of the community engage in intolerant acts, including defamation of other religions.

She has also pointed out that…

…international human rights law protects primarily individuals in the exercise of their freedom of religion and not religions per se.

Furthermore, the right to freedom of religion or belief…

…does not include the right to have a religion or belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.

Defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion. Freedom of religion primarily bestows a right to act in accordance with one’s religion but does not bestow a right for believers to have their religion itself protected from all adverse comment.

Criminalizing defamation of religion could have a seriously deleterious impact on freedom of expression, a human right that is as essential to human freedom and development as is freedom of religion or belief. In fact, without freedom of expression we cannot fully claim our right to freedom of religion or belief, since that right also includes the freedom to tell other people about our religion or belief and to try to persuade them of the truth of what we believe.

Technorati Tags: human rights, religious freedom, defamation of religion, UN

A Voice of America journalist questioned President Ahmadinejad of Iran about his country’s persecution of the Baha’is at a recent press conference at the UN headquarters in New York.

In his question the journalist refers to the respect that Ahmadinejad shows to the divine prophets in his speeches and then says: “one of the Divine Prophets who has the largest religious minority of followers after the Muslims are the Baha’is”. He refers to the documents presented to the UN that show that Iran has a policy of preventing the social progress of the Baha’is. He asks Ahmadinejad why he does not use his powers under the Iranian constitution to ensure that Baha’is receive the same justice as other Iranian citizens.

Ahmadinejad gives the most extraordinary reply. He says that the Jews have Moses, Christians Christ, and Muslims the Prophet of Islam. But, he asks the journalist, “can you tell me who the divine prophet of the religion you mention is? He was revealed exactly when? Did he have a name? Good luck, thank you.”

You can watch this interchange here. It starts at minute 46, very close to the end of the video.

Technorati Tags: Baha’i, Baha, Iran, Ahmadinejad, religion, UN, human rights

Because the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Asma Jahangir, was unable to attend the end of the Human Rights Council’s debate on her mandate on 17 September (the assessment of her mandate had been postponed), she submitted her final remarks to the Council in writing.

Ms Jahangir makes a number of recommendations about the continuation of her mandate for the Council’s consideration:

1. The mandate should continue to pay specific attention to the freedom of religion or belief of vulnerable groups: women, prisoners, refugees, children, minorities and migrant workers.

2. Prevention should be an important focus for the mandate. She intends to help develop guiding principles on teaching about religions and beliefs in schools.

3. It is important for the mandate holder to have a constructive dialogue with governments and NGOs. This, Ms Jahangir believes, is essential when exchanging communications and conducting country visits.

The Human Rights Council has yet to decide the future of the freedom of religion or belief mandate. Given the challenges to this particular human right, it is vital that the Council ensures that the Special Rapporteur continues to have a strong mandate that will allow her to challenge violations as well as boosting preventative measures.

Technorati Tags: UN, religious freedom, human rights, gender, minorities, refugees, women, Asma Jahangir

Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, reported to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) yesterday and took part in an interactive dialogue with government and NGO representatives.

Asma is physically small, but she has a steely determination to defend freedom of religion or belief. In its daily Council Monitor, the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) summarizes her presentation of her thematic report to the Council:

Ms Jahangir highlighted a number of issues already mentioned in her report. She went on to state that there were two primary areas of concern for her mandate that deserved equal attention. First, that the freedom to pursue one’s own religion or belief must be protected and respected and second that the rights of individuals need to be protected from being violated on the premise of religion or belief. She emphasised that both victims and perpetrators of religious intolerance belonged to all religions and beliefs. However, religious minorities continued to be prosecuted at the national and international levels.

While noting the challenge that the protection of the freedom of religion and belief posed for States, Ms Jahangir suggested that wise and balanced decision-making, non-discriminatory legislation, an independent and non-arbitrary judiciary, as well as adequate protection and effective remedies for victims, were all some key ways in which States could promote freedom of religion. She highlighted that protection needed to be complemented by the pro-active efforts of States to prevent acts of discrimination and violence. She emphasised that in addition to reviewing policy and legislation pertaining to freedom of religion and belief, States need to be cautious not to ‘over-regulate’ this freedom through excessive, and ultimately counter- productive legislation. Ms Jahangir continued by highlighting the role of education as a preventive measure. She mentioned that in conjunction with a regional organisation, guiding principles on teaching about religion in public schools were currently being developed.

She also highlighted the persistence of discriminatory stereotypes of religion, which she had addressed in a joint report with Mr Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance last September.9 Ms Jahangir recalled that one of their key recommendations had been to encourage the Council to consider adopting complementary standards on the inter-relation between freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination. Additionally, she mentioned that the Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee expressed the interest of the Committee in drafting a general comment on Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR).10 Finally, she mentioned the importance of inter- and intra-religious dialogue that would include all groups such as women, youth, believers and non-believers, and that regional or international cultural exchanges should be encouraged in order to promote tolerance.

After she had presented her report, Ms Jahangir took part in an interactive dialogue with representatives of the HRC’s member states and NGOs. As the Council Monitor reported:

In response to her report and presentation at the Council in the afternoon, several States expressed their appreciation of her ‘well-balanced’11, ‘systematised and scrupulous’ and ‘objective’ report, while virtually all States who took the floor warmly welcomed her report. Of particular note was that several States explicitly expressed their support for her mandate and the extension of her mandate, given its upcoming assessment on Friday afternoon (under the review of mandates). Portugal, on behalf of the European Union (EU), emphasised the importance of her mandate as a human rights mechanism, and stressed that the EU had always supported her mandate. Azerbaijan also stressed the significance of her. China expressed its appreciation and support for the continuation of her work on promoting dialogues between civilisations and religions. In addition to the support of Albania and Norway, Ms Jahangir’s mandate received strong support from New Zealand, who stated that she had made a ‘compelling case’ for the extension of her mandate.

We can but hope that these expressions of goodwill will translate into a renewal today (Friday 14 September) of Asma’s mandate (and that the renewed mandate will be a strong one).

Themes raised in the interactive dialogue session included:

• The relationship between the law and the freedom of religion
• The intersection of the right to freedom of religion and belief with the freedom of expression, and defamation of religion
• Inter-faith and intra-religious dialogue
• The link between religion and terrorism
• The prevention of religious discrimination through education

The representative of the Baha’i International Community raised the grave concerns that the Baha’i community has about the intensification of the persecution of their fellow Baha’is in Iran.

You can watch the UN video cast of Asma’s presentation here. You can watch the intervention of the Baha’i International Community representative here. And you can see the Special Rapporteur’s concluding remarks here.

The HRC’s archived videocasts can be accessed here.

Threats to freedom of religion or belief are widespread and may be growing. Religion is now in the public sphere in ways and to an extent that wouldn’t have seemed possible 10 or 15 years ago. We might wish that it were not so, but it’s there and freedom of conscience, thought and religion (as Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it), together with freedom of opinion and expression (Article 19), are crucial to human flourishing. I, for one, am very happy to see Asma Jahangir so strongly defend this freedom.

We will all have the opportunity to add our voices to Asma’s when we mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration in 2008.

Technorati Tags: UN, Human Rights Council, human rights, religious freedom, Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur, Baha’i, Bahai

Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, has issued the following statement on the conclusion of her recent visit to the United Kingdom.

SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF CONCLUDES VISIT TO THE UK

15 June 2007

Asma Jahangir, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief of the United Nations Human Rights Council, made the following statement on 15 June 2007 in London at the end of her visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

“In July 2004, I was appointed Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. My mandate is to examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and to recommend remedial measures for such situations. In the framework of my mandate, I receive individual complaints which are documented in my communications report. Furthermore, I undertake visits to several countries per year where I can get first-hand impressions and develop some issues in more depth.

At the invitation of the Government, I have visited the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from 4 to 15 June 2007. During my visit I had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister, senior politicians and Government officials responsible for religious matters. In addition, I talked with representatives of religious and belief organizations, non-governmental organizations of relevance to my mandate as well as academics and individuals. These talks were held in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Glasgow and Belfast. Furthermore, I visited a school, a prison and an immigration removal center.

The reasons for conducting the UK visit were manifold. Firstly, the situation in the United Kingdom has a special significance and interest for my mandate. The United Kingdom has historically been home and safe harbour for those persecuted on religious grounds. It features a multi-cultural and multi-religious society, which poses a number of challenges in celebrating its diversity and yet ensuring that individual freedoms are protected, too. New pressures have arisen to review its immigration policies and I intended to examine whether these have affected victims of religious persecution who are coming from abroad. Secondly, there have been concerns about the situation of Muslims across the country in the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks of 7 July 2005. Consequently, I wanted to assess the situation in view of counter-terrorism legislation and the pressures on the society as a whole. Finally, the recent developments in Northern Ireland are of particular interest to my mandate.

I am very much impressed by the depth of knowledge and the ability of the UK Government in responding to difficult situations and tackling the contentious issues involved. There is a great wealth of experience in the United Kingdom in dealing with religious tensions and terrorist acts carried out under the cover of religion. There is a significant potential to draw some “lessons learnt” from the response to the sectarian divide in Northern Ireland and to address new challenges in devising counter-terrorism measures. In this regard, I would like to emphasize that the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights is vital for any democratic society.

Despite the overall respect for human rights and their value in this country, there are a few areas of concern with regard to freedom of religion or belief. Subsequent to recent terrorist attacks and threats, laws have been introduced which undermine the human rights of all and which are largely perceived to target the Muslim population in the United Kingdom. A discriminatory application of stop-and-search powers and religious profiling may ultimately prove to be counterproductive. Moreover, whilst I am conscious of the fact that States are obliged to take effective measures in combating terrorist attacks, I have received allegations of the abuse of counter-terrorism laws and in particular of provisions which make the failure to disclose information about acts of terrorism a criminal offence.

I have to admit that my stay in Northern Ireland was particularly impressive for me. After decades of violence, which claimed more than 3,500 lives on religious/political grounds, there seems to be now hope for a shared future. There are promising initiatives which seek to cross the sectarian divide among the Christians, both on political and on grassroots levels. However, there remain several contentious areas such as religious inequalities in the labour market, housing, education, policing and criminal justice agencies. It is also important not to forget the concerns of religious minorities in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, it may be useful to take into account the perspectives of believers who are dispassionate about their faith and of secularists or humanists as well as of women. While there is no legal discrimination against women, yet many of them are in a vulnerable situation within their own communities. I believe that equality must be all-encompassing and the argument that traditions should override the rights of women is unacceptable.

On a general level in the United Kingdom, further issues of concern relate to the situation in schools concerning religious education and collective worship, religious symbols, blasphemy laws and interfaith dialogue. The balancing of competing rights may also be an issue of controversial debate, for example with regard to sexual orientation regulations and freedom of conscience. I am aware of the differences concerning the legal and institutional frameworks in England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; in my report I intend to discuss some of these aspects in greater detail.

World politics also has its repercussions at the domestic level, for example the impact of developments in the Middle East on the situation of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the number of asylum seekers has dropped dramatically in recent years, including those applying on grounds of religious persecution. Asylum claims are subject to rigid scrutiny and few applications are successful in the initial decision. In this regard, I have received reports that very demanding criteria need to be met in order to obtain asylum.

Finally, I was saddened to meet converts who face problems with the community of their former religion. While the right to change one’s religion is recognised by international human rights standards, some people seem to accept a conversion only when it involves a change into their own religion. Such an approach does not acknowledge diversity and infringes on freedom of religion or belief. In this regard, let me emphasize that theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief are protected.

I would like to thank everyone I met during my mission for the candidness with which they were willing to openly engage in the exchange of minds. Challenges are not unknown to the people of the United Kingdom and I have felt the endeavour to always take the discussion a step forward. My forthcoming country report to the Human Rights Council will deal with several issues concerning my mandate in more depth and it will also include conclusions and recommendations.”

An insightful statement, I think.

Technorati Tags: UN, religious freedom, Asma Jahangir, special rapporteur, UK

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

At the 14 June meeting in Portcullis House, Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, said she generally avoids telling people what her religion is.

In Asma’s view, people’s spiritual and moral development is more important than the religious labels they wear.

I think she’s right.

Technorati Tags: faith religion, Islam, UN, Pakistan

The UK is one of the better countries for freedom of religion or belief. So says Asma Jahangir, the doughty UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, who has just been looking into religious freedom in the UK for almost two weeks.

During her visit, Ms Jahangir held discussions with representatives of a wide range of organizations, including the Baha’i community. I had the privilege of joining my colleagues Rob Weinberg and Dan Wheatley in a meeting to discuss the Baha’i community with the Special Rapporteur. We spoke about the work our Office of External Affairs had done last year to mark the 25th anniversary of the 1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. She noted this, and quickly moved on to discuss the persecution of the Baha’is in Iran and Egypt. She was (and has long been) very supportive of the Baha’is in these and other countries who are suffering extreme forms of discrimination on grounds of their religion.

Asma Jahangir is a truly remarkable woman. An article in Time magazine describes her as “a mere sparrow of a woman”. “But,” Time continues, “she’s got a big voice, which she isn’t afraid to use.” There’s no doubt about this. She comes over as a very warm person, with a lovely smile. When she speaks at a meeting, she makes sure to greet everyone in the room personally. Of course, this tends to disarm confrontation. But it is deceptive. There’s a steel core to Asma Jahangir and she is relentless in pursuing her work as the UN’s special rapporteur for the much violated human right of freedom of conscience.

Yesterday Dan Wheatley and I attended a general meeting for parliamentarians, religious organizations and human rights NGOs with Asma Jahangir. Ian McCartney MP, Foreign Office human rights minister, chaired the meeting in the Thatcher Room in Portcullis House.

Other parliamentarians attending included Lord Avebury*, John Battle MP*, Baroness Caroline Cox*, Mike Gapes MP (Chair, Foreign Affairs Committee), David Lepper MP*, Lembit Opik MP*, Ken Purchase MP, Phyllis Starkey MP* and Baroness Janet Whitaker*. (* Members of the All Party Friends of the Bah