OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on Freedom of Religion or Belief av Katherine Cash

Katherine Cash, Travel Report: Wien 8-20 June 2009

OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting on Freedom of Religion or Belief
Hofburg, Vienna

Swedish participants : Katherine Cash SMR, Åke Göransson SKR, Urban Gibson OSSE nätverk och SMRs religionsfrihetsnätverkets arbetsgrupp, Ingela Mårtensson Kvinnor för Fred

The meeting consisted of a roundtable for civil society followed by one and a half days of dialogue between member states and civil society.

Please excuse the mix of Swedish and English!

A. Civil society round table

General comments

Bland civila samhällets aktörer är förljande tydligt (och tråkigt!)

det islamofobistiska budskapet som finns mellan raderna från en del ’kristna’ och ’sekulära’ grupper blir mer öppet och tydligt. Bland annat en dansk organisation som delade ut en ’kod’ som de tycker alla muslimer borde skriva på för att påvisa att de inte stödja terror. De driver också för att grupper som inte stå för ’demokratiska värderingar’ ska avregistreras och/eller upplösas. Andra exempel rör frågor kring ’places of worship’. Naturligtvis resulterar detta i att det är nästan omöjligt för det civila samhället att ha ett sammanhållet budskap till medlemsstater.
Det finns ett behov av större representation från ekumeniska organisationer som genuint stå för religionsfrihet för alla samt av grupper med konkreta erfarenheter av hur interreligiös dialog kan bidra till att uppnå förbättrad religionsfrihet för alla för att motverkar extrema röster. Utifrån detta ser jag en fortsatt roll för SMR i OSSE sammanhang.
Majoriteten av grupperna som kommer från väst fokuserar på de problemen som finns i väst. Diskussion av anti-diskriminerings direktiv, samvetsvägran (t.ex. för religiösa individer och religiösa institutioner t.ex. i relation till abort), hate speech legislation, och skatte/bidragssystem som syftar till att förändra trossamfunden doktriner kommer ständigt upp och är kontroversiella. Här går en vis skilje linje mellan humanistiska grupper och religiösa grupper. Det finns ett behov av utrymme för religiösa grupper, humanistiska grupper och stater att diskutera frågorna på djupet vilket inte är möjligt i denna fora men borde kunna rymmas inom ramen för dialog på EU nivå. Samtidigt tränger denna diskussion ut en del kanske viktigare diskussion av de värre brotten mot religionsfriheten som finns längre österut.
Majoritetsgrupper har svårt att acceptera religionsfrihet för grupper de inte tycker om samtidigt som de reagera mot kränkningar mot deras trossyskon i länder där de befinner sig i minoritet. Inkonsekvent förhållningssätt.
Det finns många representanter för minoritetsgrupper i forna Sovjet som lider av kraftiga begränsningar i religionsfriheten. Dessa grupper kommer från många länder och många olika trosinriktningar. Ett problem är att det inte blir ett sammanhållet kraftigt budskap (samt att deras röst dels trängs ut och dels motverkas av aktörer från Väst).

En intressant fråga mellan CS organisationer är hur man förstår ’rule of law’. I väst säger många grupper att alla religiösa grupper måste följa lagen punkt slut (t.ex. humanisterna men också NGOs som mistänker muslimer för att dölja terror verksamhet). Argumenten låter dock annorlunda när det gäller om rule of law innebär att kyrkor måste följa anti-diskriminerings lagstiftning. I många länder i OSSE området stämmer lagen inte överens med religionsfrihets normer och respekterar inte de övriga mänskliga rättigheterna. Argument kring rule of law behöver ta hänsyn till att en del grupper i öst måste bryta mot lagen bara för att existera. Möjligheten att ifrågasätta själva lagarna måste ju behållas.

På civil society roundtable försökte man komma fram till några rekommendationer till medlemsstaterna vilket visade sig vara mycket svårt.

SMR bidrog till debatten med följande punkter:

In many if not most situations many religious communities and life stance communities such as atheists are all negatively affected by limitations in freedom of religion or belief. Religious communities need to focus on inter-religious dialogue specifically on freedom of religion or belief – in order to be able to approach states together instead of fighting separately for freedoms for ourselves. If we are genuinely committed to religious freedom for all then we need to build forums to work together to enable it. We therefore recommend civil society at local, national and international levels to create informal and formal contexts for dialogue and cooperation for the promotion of FORB. We recommend the OSCE and member states to encourage this process.
Member states should implement their existing commitments to FORB.
Member states with the means should increase their support to OSCE projects to promote freedom of religion or belief.
Freedom of religion or belief issues should be integrated into the entire work of the ODIHR (Office for democratic institutions and human rights) for example into the training of civil servants and municipalities within the context of work to establish the rule of law).
We actively encourage member states to make use of the Toledo guiding principles on teaching of religion or belief in public schools.
We encourage member states to seek advice from the expert panel in reforming religion laws and ask member states to react in the permanent council when other states do not follow the guidance of the expert panel.

SMRs input var bland det mest konkreta och diskuterades men det fanns inget gemensam syn när det gäller de flesta av våra rekommendationer. Att medlemsländer ska leva upp till sina åtaganden är okontroversiellt. Men det finns till exempel ingen samsyn kring Toledo Guiding principles, vilket vissa grupper ser som ’relativistiska’. Vidare motsatt sig en del delegater att medlemsländer skulle reagera när länder inte följer expertpanelens råd eftersom detta höjer statusen på expert panelen och förutsätter att de har rätt. Att uppmuntra inter-religiös dialog var också kontroversiellt, framförallt i relation till om stater ska uppmuntra detta.
Dock låg SMRs bidrag i botten för 2 av de 4 rekommendationerna som rundabordet lyckades komma överens om vilket vi kan vara mycket nöjda med.

Recommendations from the CS roundtable

FORB should be mainstreamed in the work of ODIHR (SMR recommendation)
Participating states are encouraged to implement FORB according to existing commitments and to make use of the assistance available from ODIHR (recommendation från många inclusive SMR)
Rule of law should be respected by states
Participating states should actively create an atmosphere in the public space conducive to FORB and to inter-religious dialogue (en bearbetning av en SMR recommendation)

B: Supplementary Human Dimension Implementation Meeting

Det formella mötet fokuserade på tre områden

Hur situationen ser ut när det gäller religionsfrihet i medlemsstater.
Registrerings frågor (möjligheter för religiösa grupper att få legal personality utan diskriminering
Places of worship

SESSION I: Situationen i medlemsstater

Keynote introduction: Ukrainian religious liberty academic expert and activist, Prof Liudmyla Fylypovych

FORB fundamental human right. Juridic norm and reality of life in many states and for many peoples. Conditions have been created for the free expression for individual and collectives. Knowledge and expertise on FORB has been accumulated at the international level – enables a quantitative assessment.
Inter–faith dialogue main mechanism for conflict resolution. Recent years – rolling back of freedoms. Numbers of persecuted not decreasing. In some countries relations between state and civil society collapsing. Politicisation of religion is increasing. A number of religious leaders strive to curry favour. Cases to European Court of Human Rights increasing continually. Unclear why in presence of so many declarations and norms that have been adopted, the commitments and norms are not practiced. States should ensure that they are fully operational.
Recommendations:

OSSE:

Need to strengthen programmes. Especially focussing on strengthening national institutions, eg ombudsman for human rights and their activities on FORB.
should conduct focused acitivies to pool resources. Eg pan-european forum of NGOs
Actively support NGOs defending FORB and religious organisations dealing with inter-faith projects and building on the excellent work started by ODIHR on website.
OSCE should disseminate info on how international organisations can facilitate FORB.
Facilitate inter-faith activities promote social projects over boundaries
Facilitate non-denominational activities eg inter-faith festivals, days of religious freedom.
Support Toledo guiding principles – avoiding excessively narrow faith approaches
Education programmes for youth at risk
Training for professions whose employment may touch on FORB – religious leaders, journalists, judges, prosecutors

Stability of societies undermined by economic crash. Order and wellbeing of members, newly democratic states face threat of return to totalitarianism. Need to work together to find solutions.

Inputs:

NGOs och stater gav sina synpunkter på hur det ser ut – ofta med stora skillnader i deras bilder av verkligheten!
European Commission on racism and intolerance: Many laws exist which on paper seem adequate. But when implementation is biased, discriminatory – increasing gap between what is written on paper and what happens on the ground.
Flera organisationer (framförallt Holy C) tryckte på vikten av att lyfta fram religionens positive roll i samhället.

SESSION II LEGAL STATUS OF RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

Keynote speech: Prof Balazs Schanda – Dean Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Pazmany Peter Catholic University, Hungary

Is the issue of the status of religious and belief communities relevant? International commitments are binding. This freedom does not require a specific system of relations between state and belief communities. Freedom can be guaranteed in very different systems.

Legal personality and systems of recognition: necessary for practical reasons. Concrete needs such as property ownership and bank accounts. Beyond practicalities status bears a message.

Having special legal status may carry the message of being recognised mainstream. IN OSCE area at least 4 different approaches.

Countries not providing special status for religious communities – communities fit into the wider system – eg NGOs, trusts, charities.
Very open systems – in some countries instead of recognition it is registration without any scrutiny. Rapid and open – all communities are equal, status not implied. But some may in other ways get more status. Religious communities risk not getting the special recognition that otherwise get.
Two tier system. Base level status given and equal freedom granted for base level and mainstream communities. Criteria must be clear. If ‘mainstream or professional’ level criteria unclear or exist to block communities then system creates problems. For example not all countries willing to have an agency who analyses this in a transparent way.
System of recognition of religious communities – done by government agency, possibility for judicial review. Key requirement – recognition should not be a precondition for manifesting or exercising freedom of religion in community with others, receiving funds, having places of worship. Registration is not automatic – an alternative legal form based on freedom of association must be available to enable freedom for all. Should work strictly under non-discrimination policys with clear criteria.

Autonomy – the status of religious communities is not a prerequisite for exercising FORB. Should not aim at a uniform system for all countries. What must be uniform is access to freedom of religion. Does the system of registration guarantee autonomy?

Challenges:

The internal organisation or international character of religious communities. Countries have a traditional notion of religious communities and shape the legal structure based on one or a few traditional communities. Other communities may have difficulties fitting into the structure. The actions of religious communities are controlled – but there must be clear boundaries. Moral and religious convictions must be free.
Challenge of equal treatment in the field of religious autonomy. Genuine religious offices are usually not at stake but institutions run by churches are questionable. Are religious organisations free to choose personnel or bound by the principles of non-discrimination?
Religious education – speaking and teaching, providing information on religion is gaining space which is good. But the space it is gaining is often at the expense of religious teaching from a particular tradition. This is a threat to autonomy. Neutral info should be alongside the right of belief communities to provide education in line with their convictions.

Inputs

The debate revolved partly around a number of issues in particular:

specific situations for vulnerable communities who have difficulties in attaining registration
whether specific states systems for registration are discriminatory
whether anti-discrimination legislation should apply to religious
bodies providing services to the wider community (with and/or without state funding)
the role of dialogue between government and religious communities
the meaning of the rule of law – does national/European anti-discrimination legislation conflict with/supersede freedom of religion which is international law.

SESSION III Places of worship

Moderator Mr Sergey Lagodinsky, Fellow Global Public Policy Institute, Germany

Keynote speaker: Prof Cole Durham Director, Centre for Law and Religious Studies, Brigham Young University, USA.

With the exception of forum of internum, no other aspect is so central as with freedom of worship. Not surprisingly freedom of worship is recognised in OSCE commitments and therefore right to establish and maintain places of worship and assembly. Honouring remains a problem in almost all countries. Recurrent refrain when a religious community seeks to buy, rent or build a place of worship. Not in my back yard mentality. US statistical results – newer or less popular groups had much more problems than mainline groups. Even mainline groups had substantial problems. Problems pervasive, widespread and complex. For all the reasons that make predjudice hard to understand.

Types of problems to arise and contexts are varied. Land use restrictions push groups to unattractive, inaccessible or expensive locations. Problems occur due to shifts in demography. Surrounding land uses affected. Right to worship comes into conflict with legitimate areas such as traffic regulations. Gives authorities power. But also open to behind the scenes pressure and risk of discrimination. Can result in it being almost impossible for groups to establish worship places. At local level which makes it even harder to solve. This failure to solve means that there is an infringement of their fundamental right to worship. Advisory council – these issues should be studied at greater depth. Need to understand better how these problems affect differing groups and differing traditions and needs.

Keynote 2 Nina Fokina, Chair of Almaty Helsinki Committee Kazakhstan

Concept of place of worship. Since Vienna document participating states agree to respect religious communities and associations to allow them to create places of worship. Today in my view the interpretation of this right requires clarification. Need to rethink the concept of places of worship. Remaining mindful of the hierarchical variety of faith groups new and old, close relation between this and other rights. Right to maintain or create places of worship means right to build, own or rent property. Should be based on civil code on land use and avoid any discrimination based on belonging to one religion or another. Should be no additional requirements compared to other building uses.

The state usually forbids setting up of places of worship in restricted environment eg army camps, prisons. However even in these situations it is important to serve minorities.

A number of religious communities or religious events in a number of locations eg congresses. A great many governments use law on demonstrations to cover this which is more limiting than religion law. Small religions often don’t have premises available but should be able to come together. Some governments limit or prevent meetings for the purposes of worship. It is clear that the requirement to abide by the law – but the state has no right to deem people members of sect and prohibit their access to places they deem to be holy.

Important Topics for discussion

Question of the concept of the place of worship, what goes beyond the place of worship but should be covered as well.

Legal boundaries – to what extent does this limit access to places of worship
Participative approach – how do we engage people who live in the area, to enable a civil discussion to enable us to fulfil duties.

Desecration and hate crimes -

Inputs

A number of NGOs/faith communities highlighted ways in which the right to places of worship are not respected in various countries. Others raised the issue of burial rights. Others (including states) raised the issue of desecration of places of worship and burial grounds (eg Kosovo and Serbia)
There were a number of inputs focussing on how muslims should follow the law in the building of mosques, importance of preserving the architectural character of areas, that mosques should only be used as places of worship, not as teaching or training centres. Promote a narrow definition of places of worship. (Islamophobia and a blatant if not deliberate failure to recognise that every place of worship including almost all churches act in reality as multi-purpose community centres. This reasoning also undermines potential for groups in difficult situations in the former Soviet bloc to access their right to places of worship)
Academics input – Peter Petkoff Oxford centre for law and religion.  Recommends that what is meant by a place of worship – needs to be very broadly construed to include humanist gatherings, the home. Court cases concerning sacred places in US can even include national parks. If you start making a list you could bring a potential for discrimination for those not covered in the list. An integrated approach to nailing down the term is important. Important to link property rights. Human rights approach doesn’t always bring private property rights into it so important to highlight. Regarding international legal instruments recommend a comprehensive integrated approach. Put together and evaluate the different international instruments. They are all over the place! Hard for lawyers to find and use them. Hierarchy, either or or complementary. Use case studies – national heritage approach or human rights approach or protection of cultural sites in situations of war. Would welcome the commissioning of something equivalent to the Toledo guiding principles.

Swedish Mission Council input

Support previous input that a broad definition of places of worship is important as a narrow definition can easily be misused as we have seen in certain member states where even prayer by families or groups of friends meeting together in the home are restricted. Places of worship are often multifunctional. It is important to remember that assembly for the purpose of the manifestation of religion can take many forms and that non-worship uses of the building are commonly also legitimate forms of the manifestation even if abuses naturally occur on occasion.

Highlight the importance of encouraging formal and informal meeting places for interreligious dialogue at local, national and international level on the basis of a shared understanding of the right to places of worship. Such dialogues could be more clearly focused on religious freedom issues for example with the specific aim of easing planning processes and or to deal with hate crimes against places of worship.

As religious communities we have a shared interest in the respect of worship places.
Trollhätan Mosque example from Sweden. (churches raise funds to rebuild mosque burnt down in islamophobic attack.

Panel sum up

What will you take home with you from this forum?

Nina: I will take back home conviction that the rule of law and the primacy of the freedom of conscience is not charity given us by government but a commitment of governments within the OSCE. Understanding of problem of places of worship should be considered in a broader way. Worshipers themselves should determine what these places should be. I have enjoyed positive examples of how civil society in cooperation with government can solve these problems.

Cole Durham: clear that we need a broad concept – multiple functions. We need more than just the rule of law. Rule of law is not the only criteria – specified in law, justifiable and necessary in a democratic society for approved purpose – eg health, safety, public morals.
Sometimes people in land use world think they have unfettered discretion to pass laws. When should these laws be limited, when do they pose excessive restraints on rights of worship.
Human rights law helps against the inadvertent tyranny of the majority.

CLOSING SESSION – not present no notes taken.

Publicerad den 26 november, 2009

Den ideella organisationen OSSE-nätverket