Keynote Presentation: "Religious Freedom:
Dream or Reality?"
An Assessment of the Mandate on Freedom
of Religion or Belief
by Professor Abdelfattah AMOR
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion
or belief
of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights
The
United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms
of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
Belief was adopted by the General Assembly on November 25,
1981. The Commission on Human Rights, by its resolution of
10 March 1986, agreed, in order to see to the application
of this Declaration, to name a Special Rapporteur charged
with examining, in all parts of the world, incidents and governmental
measures which were incompatible with the provisions of the
Declaration, and to recommend measures appropriate to remedy
such situations.
In 2001, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the Declaration,
the title of the mandate was changed from Special Rapporteur
on religious intolerance to Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief. This means that the Rapporteur's expertise
is not limited anymore simply to manifestations of intolerance
and discrimination based on religion or belief but that it
includes, from then on, all questions related to the freedom
of religion or belief whether at the level of controlling
intolerance or discrimination or at the level of their prevention.
Since the creation of the mandate, 37 reports have been presented,
of which 16 were general reports submitted to the Commission
on Human Rights, 7 were interim reports submitted to the General
Assembly, and 14 were reports of visits submitted to the Commission
and the Assembly. To these reports there should be added some
studies, notably those established in the context of the preparatory
process for the Durban Conference on racism and those elaborated
in the context of the preparatory process for the Madrid Conference
on the freedom of religion or belief in relation to education.
Furthermore, an international investigation has been undertaken
in the content of school curricula and textbooks concerning
religion or belief.
All activities of the mandate appear in the context of two
essential preoccupations: on the one hand the controlling
of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief,
and on the other hand the prevention of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief. These are the two types of activities
that will be the subject of some commentaries that will be
followed by general observations.
*
* *
Concerning activities related to controlling intolerance and
discrimination, they revolve, essentially, around official
communications and visits in situ.
*
Relative
to the official communications and to the subsequent answers,
one should first indicate that, up to now, 756 communications
have been transmitted to 130 States, including 27 urgent appeals.
One may note that, since the creation of the mandate, an exponential
evolution of the number of communications has been recorded.
The minimum number, that is to say 7 communications, corresponds
to the date of the setting up of the mandate in 1988, while
the maximum number, namely 92 communications, concerns the
year 1992. One observes, essentially, three periods of evolution
of this very strong rise in the number of communications:
-1989-1994: 30 communications on average
-1995-1999 :56 communications on average
-2000-2002: 89 communications on average
Furthermore, one may note an exponential evolution in the
number of States covered by several communications. The sending
of several communications to a State was started in 1989 and
rose significantly after 1989 and especially in 2000 when
at least 11 States were concerned by two communications while
one State was regularly in receipt of five communications,
and that developed into the practice of the sending of three
to four communications by each State. This practice is by
no means selective with regard to a given State, but is the
reflection of situations or particularly critical cases in
a given country. There has been a rise since the year 2000,
because this became a regular rather than occasional means
of follow-up of serious problems in a particular State.
Concerning
the urgent appeals, their number has remained limited, in
accordance with the objective which underlay the institution
in 1994 of this new type of communication in the mandate on
the freedom of religion or belief, namely how to respond in
a more efficient and faster manner to very serious situations
and cases. This means, for example, cases or situations consisting
of extreme manifestations of fanaticism or obscurantism with
consequences for the whole of humanity, such as the destruction
of pre-Islamic monuments like the statues of the Buddha of
Bamyan, or the proposal of the marking of non-Muslims by a
distinctive sign on their dress, recalling, notably, the horrors
of World War II. These urgent appeals cover also any attacks
or risks of attack on people's physical integrity. The urgent
appeal is also necessary at the time of attacks on the very
essence of the liberty of conscience, belief or religion,
as for example the affair of Professor Nasr Hamed Abou-Zid
of the University of Cairo in Egypt, who was declared apostate
by the Egyptian judiciary which then decided to divorce him
from his Muslim wife on the pretext that a Muslim woman cannot
remain married to an apostate.
With regard to the reactions of States to the official communications,
in a general manner the answers tend to come late; they arrive
several months after the transmission. But States are trying
to adapt to these requests which have become numerous on the
one hand because of the evolving number of communications
and on the other hand because of the multiplication of the
mandates. The answers, when they arrive, are often enough
treated during the procedure following the one of the transmission.
The fact remains that a certain number of States, about twenty,
have never given any responses to the communications that
have been transmitted to them.
The analysis of the communications since the creation of the
mandate permits one to establish the seven following categories
of breaches of principle:
1. Breaches of the principle of non-discrimination in the
domain of religion or belief, namely: policies, legislation
and regulations, discriminatory practices and acts, on the
one hand in opposition to some communities in the domain of
religion or belief, in particular when these communities are
minorities or are not related to the official religion, and,
on the other hand, in opposition to women, according to the
interpretation of the religion or of traditions which purport
to be founded on the religion or the belief.
2.
Breaches of the principle of tolerance in the domain of religion
or belief, namely: policies, practices and acts of religious
intolerance issuing from the state or the society, in particular
from such non state-controlled entities such as communities
in the domain of religion or belief, or such as politico-religious
groups, the strongest manifestations of which are linked to
religious extremism; and this is also a role of the media
in the propagation of a climate of intolerance especially
in opposition to some minority communities.
3.
Breaches of the principle of freedom of thought, conscience,
religion or belief, namely: policies, legislation and regulations,
practices and acts contrary to the principle of conscientious
objection and to the freedom to change or to keep one' s religion
or belief.
4.
Breaches of the principle of freedom to manifest one's religion
or belief, namely: policies, legislation or regulations, practices
and acts constituting controls, interferences, prohibitions
and abusive restrictions aimed at the freedom to manifest
one's religion or belief.
5.
Breaches of the principle of freedom to have control of religious
property, namely: policies, practices and acts affecting the
freedom to have control of religious property, such as confiscations
or non-restitution of properties, denial of access to places
of worship or to sites which have a religious or spiritual
significance (for example sites consecrated by autochthonous
populations), closures, attacks and destruction of these places
as well as of cemeteries, burial grounds and religious schools.
6.
Breaches of the principle of the right to life, to physical
integrity and health of all people (religious believers and
non believers), namely: policies, practices and acts that
show themselves as threats, rough treatment, arrests and detentions,
forced disappearances, condemnations to death, executions
and murders.
7.
Breaches of principles which affect women and show themselves
through all categories of breaches of principle. It is important
to underline that these breaches of principles are not only
the acts of groups and extremist communities, but are also
and most often found in society and in official institutions.
Relative to religions and to beliefs covered by the communications,
there are grounds to indicate that most communities of religion
or belief, throughout the world, have been concerned.
On the one hand there are the religions commonly qualified
as "great religions" because of their long history
and/or their numerical importance on the international level,
namely the religions of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism
and Hinduism. In this group are evidently included the main
currents of each religion, for example the communities of
Catholicism, and of the Reformed and the Orthodox Churches
for Christianity.
On the other hand there are the other communities of religion
or belief which are in general numerically more limited on
an international scale, for example the Baha'is, the Jehovah's
Witnesses, the Ahmadis, as well as the humanists or the non-believers.
Particular attention was also given to the beliefs and spiritualities
of autochthonous peoples.
Concerning the evolution of the breaches of principle affecting
religions or beliefs, the Christian religion appears to be
the most affected quantitatively, followed in decreasing order
by minorities or minority groups including those described
as sectarian, then by the Muslim religion, Buddhism, Judaism
and Hinduism.
Of course these evolutions must be understood in the context
of the mandate on the freedom of religion or belief and its
own limits. It is clear that, beyond this classification and
its analysis, no religion or belief is safe from violations
and that intolerance is not the particular shortcoming of
any one State, nor any one category of States, nor of any
one religion or belief in particular.
*
As for visits in situ, they tend, in accordance with the resolutions
of the Commission on Human Rights, on the one hand to examine
any incidents and governmental measures incompatible with
the provisions of the Declaration of 1981 as well as any experiences
and positive initiatives in the domain of the freedom of religion
or belief and on the other hand to formulate recommendations
intended not only for the State visited but also for the international
community.
Most States accept requests for a visit and cooperate both
at the level of the progress of the visits and at that of
their follow-up. A particular mention, in this respect, must
be made relative to one visit to the Holy See. Conceived in
order to specify the position of the Catholic Church with
regard to questions in relation to the freedom of religion
or belief, it took place under very good conditions and permitted
the establishment of a dialogue and of a very useful cooperation.
Visits to the representatives of other great religions are
under consideration.
One will notice, however, that a certain number of States
continue to refuse visits in situ. This is the case notably
for Indonesia, Russia and North Korea. Nor does Israel accept
the visits of the Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion
or belief, neither in the general context of his or her mandate
nor in the context of Resolution S-5/1 as adopted by the Special
Session of the Commission on Human Rights on 19 October 2000.
*
* *
The second section of the activities of the mandate concerns
the prevention of intolerance and discrimination based on
religion or belief, it being understood that such prevention
can be ensured, essentially, by dialogue and education.
*
Dialogue is in itself a value. It takes on a particular importance
when it is concerned with religions or beliefs. The certainties
and the truths that underlie these have often, through history,
left little space for understanding and tolerance, sometimes
thus nourishing tensions and conflicts. For decades, a sustained
current of opinion, notably on important fringes of the great
religions, has not ceased to put into relief the role of religions
as a factor of cooperation and peace. Although sometimes coming
up against questions of a dogmatic nature, this current is
slowly and progressively developing. Whatever are the difficulties
with which it collides, inter-religious dialogue constitutes
a means that can help to contain conflicts and sometimes to
solve them. By the pedagogy that it can develop, it participates
in the prevention of intolerance and discrimination based
on religion or belief. Accordingly the mandate on the freedom
of religion or belief has granted to inter-religious dialogue
a great importance and this has led to initiating or sustaining
some activities in this domain on the occasion of in situ
visits. It is primordial that contacts between the religions,
created by dialogue, create a space for better understanding
in order to permit or to reinforce respect for the diversity
of religions or beliefs, as they are defined and guaranteed
by the international norms of human rights. That is to say
that inter-religious dialogue must contribute to the peaceful
management and prevention of conflicts and of violations of
human rights throughout the world.
I would wish to underline, on this topic, some initiatives
which recognize the essential value of inter-religious dialogue
or aim to promote it and in which the activity of this mandate
is engaged.
Confirming and deepening the rationale of the Nations United
Year for Dialogue between Civilizations, the General Assembly,
by its Resolution 56/6 of 9 November 2001, established a Global
Agenda for Dialogue between Civilizations; article 4 of this
Resolution foresees that the dialogue between civilizations
can contribute to a great extent to progress in the following
domains: promotion of understanding and mutual knowledge between
social groups, cultures and civilizations of various regions,
including on the levels of culture, religion, education, and
information on science and technology. The resolution had
previously recalled that human beings must show mutual respect
for the whole diversity of their beliefs and that States had
committed themselves to do all in their power to ensure that
religious sites are fully respected and protected.
In the context of the Year for Dialogue between Civilizations,
UNESCO launched programmes for inter-cultural and inter-religious
dialogue and developed these programmes, notably in the year
2001 during which numerous events were organized. One may
also underline the fact that the General Conference of UNESCO
adopted, on 2 November 2001, the Universal Declaration on
Cultural Diversity, and that this constitutes a powerful moment
for the promotion of tolerance, for respect and understanding
of the other. At the level of the UNESCO, it is important
to note that to the traditional approach to dialogue, which
can be at once relevant but reductive, there has been added
the notion of interaction. Indeed reciprocal knowledge can
reinforce identities, while interaction focuses light on proximity
and pluralism.
One may add too that the Declaration and the Programme of
Action of the Durban Conference against racism invite us to
the development of inter-religious dialogue as a means for
tolerance and understanding. It comes out again, particularly
in paragraph 2 of the Declaration that the victims of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
can "suffer multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination
based on other related grounds, such as... religion".
Paragraph 8 of the Declaration indicates that: "religion,
spirituality and belief play a central role in the lives of
millions of women and men, and in the way they live and treat
other persons. Religion, spirituality and belief may and can
contribute to the promotion of the inherent dignity and worth
of the human person and to the eradication of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance".
As
for the Programme of Action of Durban it requests States "to
implement policies and measures that are designed to prevent
and to eliminate all such discrimination on the basis of religion
and belief, which, when combined with certain other forms
of discrimination, constitutes a form of multiple discrimination"
(para. 14). It is also asked of States "to promote and
protect the exercise of the rights set out in the Declaration
on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief
in order to obviate religious
discrimination which, when combined with certain other forms
of discrimination, constitutes a form of multiple discrimination"
(para. 79). States are, furthermore, urged "that techniques,
mechanisms, policies and programmes for reconciling conflicts
based on factors related to race, colour, descent, language,
religion, or national or ethnic origin and for developing
harmonious multiracial and multicultural societies need to
be systematically considered and developed" (para. 171).
One
may refer, also, to the title of a text that inspires the
mandate in the domain of inter-religious dialogue: the Declaration
of the Millennium adopted by the General Assembly in the context
of its Resolution 2001/42. The Millennium Summit for World
Peace that met in New York in August 2000, brought together
for the first time more than one thousand persons responsible
for different religions or convictions, and led these people
to commit themselves to work in concert to guarantee peace
in the world. They underlined their commitment to use their
moral authority to contribute to reconciliation and to promote
acceptance of diversity. Finally, they signed an engagement
in favour of world peace where it is recognized that all religious
traditions teach that it is agreed to treat one's neighbour
as oneself, whatever the differences that may exist concerning
race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, economic level,
age and sex.
Evidently there is a multitude of other important texts on
inter-religious dialogue that deserve to be mentioned here.
One may limit oneself to recall, in this respect, the text
that emerged from the meeting of the Parliament of the World's
Religions of 1993 in Chicago and the different texts that
emerged from the seminars organized by the High Commissioner
for Human Rights for the promotion of inter-religious dialogue.
*
The
second essential factor for the prevention of intolerance
and discrimination based on religion or belief is the one
of education.
The
prevention of intolerance and discrimination based on religion
or belief, as also the prevention of all violations of human
rights in general, can be ensured primarily by education.
This can indeed contribute, in a decisive manner, to the internalization
of the values centred on human rights and to the emergence
of attitudes and behaviour of tolerance and non discrimination.
Thus, the school, as the main element in the education system,
can constitute an essential and privileged vector of prevention.
One may recall, in this respect, that the Vienna Conference
on Human Rights had reaffirmed that: "States are duty-bound,
as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and in other international human-rights instruments,
to ensure that education is aimed at strengthening the respect
of human rights and fundamental freedoms
Education should
promote understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations
between the nations and all racial or religious groups and
encourage the development of United Nations activities in
pursuance of these objectives. Therefore, education on human
rights and the dissemination of proper information, both theoretical
and practical, play an important role, in the promotion and
respect of human rights with regard to all individuals, without
distinction of any kind such as race, sex, language or religion,
and this should be integrated in the educational policies
at the national as well as international levels".
Since
1993, particular attention has been given, in the context
of the mandate, to questions of education, notably of school
education. Charged by the Commission on Human Rights to examine
the contribution that education can bring in order to promote
religious tolerance in a more efficient manner, I undertook,
in 1994, an investigation by the means of a questionnaire
addressed to States on problems related to the freedom of
religion or belief as seen through the syllabi and textbooks
of primary or elementary and secondary educational institutions.
In
the light of the results of the analysis of the answers of
77 States to this questionnaire and of other elements drawn
from researches made on some countries not having answered,
as well as of the experiences of certain international organizations,
it was deemed necessary to hold an International Consultative
Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion
or Belief, Tolerance and Non- Discrimination, the goal of
the conference being to contribute to the establishment of
an international strategy for schools centred on human rights
and especially on the struggle against intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief.
The
conference took place 23 to 25 November 2001 in Madrid, in
collaboration with the Spanish government, on the occasion
of the twentieth birthday of the UN Declaration on the Elimination
of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief. More than 800 people were present in Madrid
including 80 state-sponsored delegations, the representatives
of inter-governmental and of non-governmental international
organizations, of communities of religion or conviction, and
of national institutions as well as experts. The final document
of the conference was adopted on 25 November 2001, by consensus.
In
the preamble to the final document, the Conference recalls
various general principles to guide all action concerning
prevention, notably the principle according to which tolerance
implies the acceptance of diversity and respect of the right
to difference. It immediately underlines the objective that
it has set, namely "the urgent need to promote, through
education, the protection and the respect for freedom of religion
or belief in order to strengthen peace, understanding and
tolerance among individuals, groups and nations and with a
view to developing a respect for pluralism". To reach
this objective, the final document defines the qualitative
criteria to which teaching must answer while especially referring
to article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The final document gives expression also to measures of a
general order and to targeted measures that it agrees to implement,
and in this respect it appeals not only for a contribution
from the concerned States, organizations and institutions,
but also from all actors in the society, in particular the
media, the non-governmental organizations, the groups and
communities of religion or belief, and parents.
Since
the school should be safe from all political and ideological
indoctrination, it is agreed to exercise great vigilance about
the content of the teaching. In this sense the Conference
esteems that every State "should promote
educational
policies aimed at strengthening the promotion and protection
of human rights, eradicating prejudices and conceptions incompatible
with freedom of religion or belief ... and should take appropriate
measures against those which manifest themselves in school
curricula, textbooks and teaching methods".
Numerous
dispositions of the final document concern the teaching body
for which the need of training had clearly appeared at the
time of the analysis of the answers of the States to the questionnaire
established in preparation for the Conference. These dispositions
are inspired by the recommendation of UNESCO on education
for international understanding, cooperation and peace and
on education relative to human rights and to fundamental freedoms,
dated 19 November 1974, in particular in the section dedicated
to the preparation of educators.
So
that educators can play their role in an efficient manner,
it is recommended to States to develop "the motivation
of teachers for their action by supporting and encouraging
commitment to the human rights values", to prepare teachers
"to educate children concerning a culture of respect
for every human being" and to encourage "academic
research in relation to freedom of religion or belief".
It is also recommended to States to " favourably consider
,
where appropriate, providing teachers and students with voluntary
opportunities for meetings and exchanges with their counterparts
of different religions or beliefs" and "encouraging
exchanges of teachers and students and facilitating educational
study abroad".
The
final document recommends "the renewal, production, dissemination,
translation and exchange of means and materials for education
in the field of freedom of religion or belief" as well
as the study and the dissemination of various experiences
of education and notably of innovative experiences undertaken
throughout the world.
The
conference did not fail to insist on the attention that it
agrees should be attached to discriminations of which women
continue to be victims concerning education and on the necessity
to "reinforce the protection of the right of girls to
education, especially for those coming from vulnerable groups".
*
* *
Any report on the situation of the freedom of religion or
belief in the world today seems most troubling if one refers,
notably, to the successive Resolutions of the Commission on
Human Rights and of the General Assembly, in particular the
most recent Resolution adopted by the Commission of the Human
Rights in its fifty-eighth session where it noted with concern
that serious manifestations of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief, including acts of violence, intimidation
and coercion motivated by religious intolerance continue to
occur in numerous regions of the world and threaten the enjoyment
of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
However,
the assessment of the activities of the mandate since its
creation, as much in the domain of control as in that of prevention,
can lead to more nuanced appreciations and to perspectives
of an evolution in the current state of freedom of religion
or belief. Indeed, the comparative analysis of the general
reports and of missions as well as communications addressed
in the context of the mandate since it was set up, permit
one to note, at the same time, that there are examples of
intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief
throughout the world, but also cases and situations which
are positive in regard to the Declaration of 1981, and notably
that there are improvements in some domains and in some countries.
There do indeed emerge the following points of evolution:
a) A progressive decline of anti-religious policies and of
total control of the religious sphere in the name of a political
ideology; this has happened since the end of the Cold War.
This tendency is translated, on one hand, by many States having
abandoned the pure and hard "Marxist ideology",
by the normalization of State-Religion relations, but also
for some by renewed ties and bonds with the traditional "church",
and, on the other side, by the persistence for a very restricted
number of States of a politics of hostility towards religion,
but in a subtler manner namely a display of an official policy
of recognition of religion, but actually of instrumentalization
of the religious sphere, which becomes a prisoner of the political
sphere.
b) The maintenance of discriminatory or intolerant policies
with regard to minorities in the context of States having
an official religion or an anti-religious secularism.
c)
A strong growth of policies in opposition to minorities qualified
as "sects".
d)
A rise of extremism affecting all religions whether Islam,
Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. This extremism has become,
progressively and very often, the action of non state-controlled
entities. It is in this case sometimes a matter of fanatical
groups and obscurantists, sometimes a matter of groups which
have a project concerned with using the political sphere in
order to impose their religious interpretation on society,
but especially a matter of professionals of extremism instrumentalizing
the religious sphere to political ends. Nevertheless, this
activism of extremism often depends on the active or passive
complicity of national or foreign state-controlled entities.
e)
A progression of non-belief within society and of which a
militant expression is developing and entering into competition,
or even into conflict, with religions.
f)
The persistence of forms of discrimination and intolerance
imputed to religion and traditions affecting woman and resulting
either from state-controlled policies, or from non state-controlled
entities, particularly extremist ones, or, in a more general
and discreet manner, from the burdens of society as a whole
and from the patriarchal nature of the state.
g)
A very strong progression of inter-religious dialogue for
the control and prevention of conflicts as well as for reconciliation.
h)
Relative to the victims of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief, they are always very various,
whether believers or non-believers, coming from communities
of religion or belief or from society in general. However
those especially affected are the vulnerable groups including,
on the one hand, women, and, on the other hand, minorities.
This
assessment is, therefore, at once, a source of concern, but
also of hope, like all reality. It says that there are grounds
to pursue one's efforts to confront intolerance and discrimination
while controlling them on one side and preventing them on
the other. It is indeed fundamental to act, daily, in the
short term in denouncing before the international community
all incidents incompatible with the Declaration of 1981, but
it is also vital to work in the long term on tackling the
roots of intolerance and discrimination by means of prevention.
The
change of title of the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance
to that of Special Rapporteur on the freedom of religion or
belief, by the Resolution 2001/42 of the Commission on Human
Rights, surely represents a full recognition of the role of
the mandate as well in control as in prevention, that constitute
together complementary and indispensable activities.
It
remains, evidently, understood that the activity of the mandate,
as much as its results, is located in - and is bound to -
a larger and more complex context. Indeed, the application
of the Declaration of 1981 is not separable from the general
question of respect for the whole sweep of human rights, which
cannot realize real promotion in the absence of democracy
and development. There are grounds to think, from now onwards,
that activity for the promotion of human rights should be,
in a simultaneous manner, on the one hand an activity for
the establishment, consolidation and protection of democracy
as the expression of human rights on the political plane,
and on the other hand an activity which tends to contain and
to bring down extreme poverty and to encourage the rights
of individuals and peoples to development, as an expression
of human rights and solidarity between human beings on the
economic, social and cultural planes. This is to say, as the
Vienna Conference on Human Rights put it, that democracy,
development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
are interdependent and bound intimately together.
Consideration
of this context has not created any obstacle to the strengthening
of controls in the domain of freedom of religion or belief
through the considerable widening of the number of States
covered by the official communications, by the strong increase
of the number of communications including those for one and
the same State, by the institution of the procedure of the
urgent appeal and by the growth of the demands of visits in
order to guarantee the conduct (on average of two missions
per year) as well as by the creation of a procedure of follow-up
of the recommendations formulated in the reports of visits.
One
may specify, furthermore, that there has been particular usefulness
in the addition to the mandate on the freedom of religion
or belief of the dimension of prevention by encouragement
of and involvement in activities of inter-religious dialogue
(by privileging this question at the time of the traditional
visits in situ, by establishing visits to the main communities
of religion or belief, and by taking part in the international
committee for inter-religious dialogue of UNESCO), and by
the initiatives aimed at development of a prevention strategy
notably in the domain of school education, thanks to the organization
of the International Consultative Conference on School Education
in Relation with Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance
and Non-Discrimination held in Madrid in November 2001. Beyond
the activity engaged in this double sector of control and
prevention, concrete measures have been proposed on specific
and important questions, namely on the one hand extremism,
and, on the other, women's condition in regard to religion
and traditions:
a)
Concerning extremism, whether it stems in reality or in a
fictitious manner from religion, whether it adopts, provokes
or maintains violence, or whether it borrows some less spectacular
forms of intolerance, this curse constitutes an attack not
so much on freedom as on religion itself. It is not the particular
shortcoming of any one society, of any one State, of any one
religion. It is necessary that, with regard to this growing
and tentacular phenomenon which menaces peace and especially
affects vulnerable groups (women and minorities), the international
community should react by combatting it, notably by the development
and the adoption of a minimum of rules and common principles
of conduct and behaviour.
b)
Concerning women's condition, it is important that the whole
range of the applicable mechanisms of the United Nations should
establish a common action plan against discrimination and
intolerance (supposedly prescribed or justified by religion
or traditions) with regard to women.
In
a general manner, the mandate on the freedom of religion or
belief has known, since its creation to our present day, how
to adapt to the challenges and the evolutions in the domain
of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.
These challenges and evolutions include the increasing role
of non state-controlled entities as authors of violations,
the development of religious extremism, and the particular
treatment to be brought to vulnerable groups, such as minorities
and women, as well as specific problems identified by the
Commission on Human Rights (for example defamation or racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and associated intolerance).
The
efforts accomplished in the context of the mandate in order
to respond to a situation in constant evolution have certainly
produced some visible results in the short and medium term,
but it is necessary to hope for this in the long term too.
These efforts must, however, be redoubled faced with the size
of the task; but such an enterprise requires a minimum of
human and financial resources in the context of the mandate,
and especially the preservation of the credibility of the
system of protection and promotion of human rights.
The
human and material means are susceptible of being strengthened
if the international community or some of its members really
want this.
The
cardinal question seems to be located elsewhere, however,
and to affect one's attitude with regard to human rights.
First, the unconsidered development of the mandates and the
items of the agenda of the Commission on Human Rights, at
the same time as the maintenance of its work methods which
have not changed for the essential, have led to absurd situations
such as the progressive limitation of the number of pages
of the reports that must not exceed 15 pages anymore in single
spacing (or 30 pages in double spacing), such as the virtual
lack of concern for the translation and distribution of reports,
or such as, at the time of the last session of the Commission,
the limitation to five minutes of the time for oral presentation
of reports. Everything happens, in short, as if the Commission
has created mandates for the good of its own conscience while
trying to limit their effects on itself. This is at least
the impression that emerges from the last session of the Commission.
Then,
yet more seriously, since September 11 the struggle against
terrorism seems to have to justify even the most serious attacks
on human rights coming from states known traditionally for
their protection of human rights and for the lessons that
they intended to give in this domain. Here is a change whose
consequences are not easy to grasp especially as they expose
human rights to be conjugated in terms of variability, selectivity
and conjuncture. I believe that it is urgent to say, and I
say it seriously, that the logic of the reversibility of the
protection and promotion of human rights is a discounted logic
of humanity, a logic of distinction between us and the other,
in short a logic of intolerance, of hate and of confrontations.
It
behoves women and men of good will to appeal for tolerance
to prevail, for a sense of measure and of reason. We must
hope that there is still time to do so.
***
Unofficial
translation from the French original; all quotations from
UN documents have been checked against the language of origin
or the official translation, but some references (not in quotation
marks) have not been checked against original wording.
|