Dear organisers, Your Excellencies,

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a great honour and privilege to be among such a distinguished group of parliamentarians from different continents. As my colleague from the Alliance of Civilisation rightly pointed out on behalf of the Secretary-General, the role of parliamentarians is central to the protection of freedom of religion or belief as you are the heart of democracy. As direct representatives of the people, you have an undeniable role in safeguarding this fundamental human right through legislation, policies and practice.

I am particularly impressed and encouraged by the Oslo Charter signed in November 2014. It marked an important commitment by many of you towards the protection and promotion of freedom of religion or belief. It is an unprecedented initiative of solidarity among Parliamentarians and the Charter deserves to receive more signatories and be put into action.

Ladies and gentlemen,

When we speak about the right to freedom of religion, it means respecting the diverse components of society, to integrate them into the national fabric, and to uphold the rule of a law, without discrimination. Protection of freedom of religion or belief also means to ensure that citizens are protected against violence committed in the name of religion, and that such acts are condemned and punished. Finally, States need to promote religious diversity and tolerance through positive, or affirmative, action.

And now to some of the challenges:

Freedom of expression and freedom of religion

In recent years, there have been many challenges with regard to the dissemination of expressions which may have offended certain believers. This is not a new phenomenon and historically has concerned countries in all regions of the world as well as various religions and beliefs. While it is often claimed that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are in a tense relationship or can even be contradictory, I believe they are mutually dependent and reinforcing.

 

Freedom of religion cannot exist if freedom of expression is not respected. Likewise, freedom of expression is essential to creating an environment in which a constructive discussion about religious matters can be held.

In response to such challenges, a number of States have reinforced existing law and introduced new punitive measures. Unfortunately, there are various examples of insufficient legislation, or new, vague and unclear provisions open to misuse, loose interpretation and selective application of norms that lead to restricting one right in favour of the other.

This underlines the crucial role of parliaments in ensuring that national legislation is drafted in accordance with the State’s international human rights obligations. This holds true also in terms of possible limitations to fundamental human rights.

Counter-terrorism and freedom of religion or belief:

Another one of today’s greatest challenges is respecting freedom of religion or belief in the context of counter terrorism approaches.

Striking the right balance between a State’s need to take effective measures to combat terrorism and violent extremism and doing so in full compliance with their obligations under international law, particularly human rights, is not an easy or straight-forward task.

Let me give you the example of Central Asia, where I recently visited together with the Secretary-General.

Numerous Islamic groups have triggered a “revival of Islam” in Central Asia in the last decades.  Governments in that region have increasingly perceived this as a potential threat of a spread of the Taliban and Al Qaeda networks from neighbouring countries. As a result they have undertaken a number of restrictive measures against Islamic groups, including outlawing some of them that have been operating legitimately and peacefully. 

What are the consequences of repressing the right to freedom of religion or belief? Will it not lead to radicalization in itself? Is this not potentially a vicious circle that Governments embark on when they prohibit, harass or punish those legitimately exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief?

Central Asia is not the only region affected by this phenomenon. In a number of countries, members of groups perceived to hold extreme religious views have been harassed, arrested or deported. The targeting of specific groups, including members of particular religious communities, through so-called religious profiling, has also been a common concern.

In this regard, let me quote the SG’s speech delivered during his Central Asian tour at Ashgabat University in June this year: “As we have seen in many regions of the world, the terrorist threat can lead some in power to think that the answer is to curb religious freedoms and place further limits on fundamental rights such as the freedoms of expression, assembly and association. But experience has shown this only backfires. Curbing freedoms may create an illusion of stability in the short-run.  Things may seem calm on the surface.  There may not be protests on the streets.  But the denial of free expression leads to a brewing underneath and ultimately a breeding ground for extremist ideologies. It fosters deep frustration which can lead to even greater challenges. The failure to respect human rights, build accountable institutions, promote political participation, and ensure opportunity for all creates gaps. The wider the gaps, the greater the openings for violent extremists.

Violence committed in the name of religion

A closely related concern is the issue of violence “committed in the name of religion”. This is a complex issue that requires a holistic understanding of all underlying factors and actors. While it would be wrong to focus on religion in isolation when analysing the problem, it would be equally simplistic to reduce religious motives to mere “excuses” for violent crimes perpetrated in their name. Violence committed in the name of religion should further not be seen as an inevitable result of long-standing sectarian hostilities, which absolves today’s actors from responsibilities.

This rings particularly true in the case of non-State actors. There is now a growing acceptance that international human rights and international humanitarian law obligations also apply to non-state actors. This is especially so - but not only – when they exercise effective control over populations and territories.

Let me echo the call of the Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Religion of Belief, Heiner Bielefeldt in stating that “any specific incident of violence committed in the name of religion warrants a careful, contextualised analysis of all relevant factors, including the broader political environment in which such acts take place. It thereby will become clear that religion is nowhere an isolated root cause of violent conflict or attacks.”

 

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me now turn to one of the most burning issues on today’s international agenda: the refugee and migrant crisis. This crisis too, has its implications for freedom of religion or belief.

A huge number of refugees and migrants are fleeing wars or violence, poverty and widespread human rights violations and seeking a better life in other countries. Many of them are also religiously persecuted even though freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed in their Constitutions.

Around the world, many religious communities cannot operate as independent communities safely or without restrictions.  Abuses are perpetrated by States and/or non-State actors, sometimes in a climate of impunity, and they may originate from different political, religious, ideological or personal motives. Practical examples of violations include arbitrary bureaucratic restrictions and burdensome administrative regulations imposed on minorities or unrecognised religious communities. In Viet Nam for example, all religious activities and establishments are subject to registration. While many others live under the threat of apostasy or anti-blasphemy laws, anti-conversion laws or intimidating effects of criminal law sanctions, for example for possessing and distributing religious literature.

According to the UNHCR, the vast majority of those arriving to Europe through the Mediterranean Sea are refugees coming from Syria, Afghanistan and Eritrea, while others come from other countries in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia.

While they are already vulnerable, their vulnerabilities are exacerbated by further exposure to multiple forms of discrimination, for example on the grounds of race, colour, religion, or national, ethnic or social origin. Some countries have already gone so far to express their preference to take in only Christians or create obstacles for its own citizens to marry specific groups of people based on their religion or ethnic origin. Some refugees or minority populations face exclusion from certain rights of a citizen or public services, such as education, health care and social security. In Myanmar, for example, the Rohingya Muslim community has almost entirely been excluded from the right to vote in this November’s Parliamentarian elections, due to discrimination on the basis of the group’s religion and ethnicity.

We have also seen reports of asylum-seekers misidentifying or not revealing their religious affiliation because they believe that by doing so, their chances of obtaining asylum are higher. However, the right of freedom of religion or belief exactly provides for the right to manifest one’s religion or belief in public or in private. No one should have to conceal one’s identity in exchange for acceptance by others.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Let me conclude.

In 2012, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights launched the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.  It recognises the fine line that exists between freedom of expression and hate speech and endeavours to bring clarity to the debate to enhance our understanding of the difference between free speech and hate speech, including hate speech affecting freedom of religion. I believe the Rabat Action Plan can be an important tool for you as parliamentarians, especially in the drafting of legislation that ensures freedom of religion or belief is respected.

In my view, parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, have a moral duty to lead by example. Parliamentarians should refrain from using messages of intolerance or expressions which may negatively affect the enjoyment by all of their freedom of religion or belief. Even more, parliamentarians should speak out firmly and promptly against intolerance, discriminatory stereotyping and instances of religious intolerance.

I wish you all success in performing your challenging duties in this troubled world. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomes and admires your efforts and remains at your disposal.

Thank you