THE OSCE CHALLENGED - NHC/IHF

PART II: OSCE PRIORITIES AND PERSPECTIVES FROM CIVIL SOCIETY
heading_white

focal group on religious freedom and the struggle against terrorism
“When might limiting religious freedom be really necessary?”

heading_white
Discussing the issues raised by Mr. Krassimir Kanev in his keynote speech , the focal group on Religious Freedom and the Struggle against Terrorism formulates four conclusions. Firstly, the development of anti-religious feeling in Europe should be taken seriously, especially when used to justify violations of the right to religious freedom. Secondly, “9/11” has had both a direct and an indirect impact, often a negative one, on the exercise of freedom of religion; it is important to recognise that “9/11” is used as an extra argument to curtail freedom, especially freedom of religion. Thirdly, it is important to precisely define conditions in which curtailing religious freedom is unavoidable in order to combat terrorism effectively.
Fourthly, the state should not only guarantee the security of its citizens and society, but also the well-being of its citizens. Therefore, respect of all human rights, including freedom of religion, is a prerequisite for good governance.
heading_white

Report by Ms. Lamija Muzurovic (IHF) and Ms. Karin Mol(BBO).

Mr. Jan van Butselaar (Dutch Platform on International Freedom of Religion and Belief) and the Chair of the focal group “Religious Freedom and Fight Against Terrorism”, opens the discussion stating that freedom of religion and the fight against terrorism had played an important role in the Netherlands OSCE Chairmanship. He says that freedom of religion is not under attack due to existing legal instruments, but problems still do exist as basic rights are violated, such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of asylum. After all, these rights are closely connected with freedom of religion. He also observes that due to recent developments, anti-Islamism is gaining momentum. Finally, Mr. Butselaar adds that pressure on freedom of religion was observed in the Netherlands, because of limitation of Islamic education.

Mr. Butselaar raises three questions:

is the reaction to “9/11” vis-à-vis freedom of religion still to come?
can the spread of anti-Islamism, as present nowadays in the media, be seen as a general anti-religious feeling building up in Europe?
is it conceivable that in some circumstances it would be necessary to limit freedom of religion in order to tackle terrorism?

Mr. Krassimir Kanev (Bulgarian Helsinki Committee) maintains that freedom of religion was not attacked directly, because it unites several rights, but that it suffered still. Problems, however, existed already before “9/11”, for example, anti-religious feelings were present in France as far back as in 1793. He reminds the audience that many countries imposed limitations of religious freedom in their legislation.

Mr. Yevgeniy Zhovtis (Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law) observes that international law presupposes limits on freedom of religion. He states that, often, national legislation is not aimed at respecting freedom of religion, but at aiding the state to control it. The Kazakh Law on Religious Association controls religious organizations, especially the non-traditional ones. As an example: in order to register a religious organization in Kazakhstan, it is necessary to have at least 50 members. The war on terrorism is used as a justification for such an approach. The former KGB sees this as a good opportunity to become active in the field.
Furthermore, Mr. Zhovtis thinks that the international community sometimes “plays games” with some governments, often just informing them about their “concerns”. However, through this approach, the situation is becoming only worse. The real question is: how could governments be forced to fulfil their obligations?

Mr. Cees Flinterman (The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights SIM) states that the war on terrorism should not be used an excuse for infringing upon human rights. He reminds the audience that human rights concepts developed since 1948 on both regional and international levels. But in the Netherlands, since 1579, all religions were tolerated. However, there is a need to remain critical towards developments in this area.
According to Mr. Flinterman, there is a great need to inform and educate. He stresses that governments that violate freedom of religion should be held accountable.

Mr. Jan van Butselaar (Dutch Platform on International Freedom of Religion and Belief) observes that freedom of religion is a very old human right, and that in the present situation, two very confrontational concepts are observed in fighting terrorism: one on general public control and one on respect for human rights. Also Mr. Van Butselaar wonders if criteria could be found to distinguish between a religion such as Islam and terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. He warns that the task of NGOs is to show differentiation and that generalizations should be avoided. It is very important to have dialogue; not only between various groups, but also within groups, as it is increasingly important to start such a dialogue, nowadays.

Mr. Cees Flinterman makes a suggestion about such a dialogue: if states interfere, facilitators and promoters of dialogue should be convened, while the OSCE should, on the other hand, stimulate governments. NGOs should make comments and be positive about the process, but they should avoid any form of polarizing the situation.
Regarding the schooling problem in the Netherlands, he observes that Islamic schools are poor schools, so there should be a possibility to support the start of new schools. Right now there is a proposal to change this policy and to stop funding poor and problematic schools, as these Muslim children have difficulties integrating into Dutch society.

Mr. Krassimir Kanev observes that a ban on the constitutional freedom of association contains a lot of official reasons to prohibit Muslim political parties, as these parties promote Shari’a and want to make the Shari’a the law of the country.

Mr. Jan van Butselaar says that tensions exist between democratic principles and undemocratic norms, and that despite the fact that the Constitution is binding and a starting point, there is a possibility for change.

| page top