Below are some selected quotes from some selected articles on the Gary McFarlane case.
Gary McFarlane: the counsellor whose case led to warnings of 'civil unrest'
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 April 2010
When Gary McFarlane, 48, a father of two from Bristol, began working for Relate, the counselling organisation, in 2003, he did not allow his traditional evangelical Christian beliefs stop him from giving advice to homosexual couples.
It was only three years later, when he qualified as a psychosexual therapist – a role which required him to give intimate sexual advice to couples – that he raised concerns about a potential clash between his work and his moral views.
Sacked Christian counsellor Gary McFarlane's appeal bid dismissed
By Stephen Howard, Press Association, 29 April 2010
A marriage guidance counsellor's bid to challenge in the courts his sacking for refusing to give sex therapy to homosexuals led to a serious clash between Christians and the judiciary today.
In a powerful dismissal of the application to appeal, Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
The judge's ruling continued: "We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs.
"The precepts of any one religion - any belief system - cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other.
"If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens, and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.
"The law of a theocracy is dictated without option to the people, not made by their judges and governments.
"The individual conscience is free to accept such dictated law, but the State, if its people are to be free, has the burdensome duty of thinking for itself. [. . .]
". . . the conferment of any legal protection of preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however long its culture, is deeply unprincipled."
He said this would mean that laws would be imposed not to advance the general good on objective grounds but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective.
"It may of course be true; but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society
"Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer, who is alone bound by it. No-one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims."
Christian sex therapist Gary McFarlane loses appeal bid
BBC 29 April 2010
Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, was sacked by Relate Avon in 2008. He claimed the service had refused to accommodate his Christian beliefs.
Lord Justice Laws said legislation for the protection of views held purely on religious grounds cannot be justified.
He said it was irrational and "also divisive, capricious and arbitrary".
'Strongly-held'
Mr McFarlane said after the hearing that the decision not to let him appeal against the ruling left him "disappointed and upset".
"I have the ability to provide counselling services to same-sex couples," he said.
"However, because of my Christian beliefs and principles, there should be allowances taken into account whereby individuals like me can actually avoid having to contradict their very strongly-held Christian principles."
[. . .]
Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: "Mr McFarlane simply wanted his religious beliefs to be accommodated by his employer, which, in the specific facts of the case, was not unreasonable.
"It seems that a religious bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments."
Judge rules Christians have NO special rights as he throws out case of sex therapist who refused to work with gay couples
By Steve Doughty, Daily Mail, 30 April 2010
A senior judge ruled yesterday that Christian beliefs have no place in the law and no right to protection by the courts.
Lord Justice Laws said that Britain would become a religious dictatorship if the views of a single faith were given a priority over others in legal matters.
In a landmark case, the appeal judge told relationship guidance counsellor Gary McFarlane, a Christian, that he had no right to refuse to give sex therapy to gay couples.
And the judge delivered a scathing criticism of former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who spoke up for Christians who try to follow their beliefs. . .
The Appeal Court judgment is a resounding rebuff for Christian workers who had hoped to persuade employers that they should be allowed to exercise their religious rights by not recognising the legitimacy of homosexual partnerships or by wearing crosses with work uniforms.
And it means that gay equality legislation, however controversial, will in future take precedence over individual conscience.
. . . former Bishop of Rochester the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said the judgment allowed no room for people to act according to their conscience.
He told the BBC: 'I think if we reach a stage where there was a kind of tyranny of legislation without conscience it would be a very sorry stage.'
(The above article includes a very interesting profile of Lord Justice Laws, described as a "legal 'activist'', as well as a section entitled: "Does the law really treat all faiths equally? Other Christians have run into trouble with the courts or their employers when they stood up for their beliefs, but some Muslims have fared better. . .")
Gary McFarlane: judge's assault on 'irrational' religious freedom claims in sex therapist case
A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.
By John Bingham, Telegraph, 30 Apr 2010
Last night there were warnings that the judgment could enshrine the “persecution” of Christians in modern Britain and sideline religion in public life.
Lord Justice Laws ruled that while everyone had the right to hold religious beliefs, those beliefs themselves had no standing under the law.
Mr McFarlane said that his treatment was “without a doubt” an example of Christians being persecuted in modern Britain.
“This is a sad day for our society which I believe is on a slippery slope in terms of balancing competing interests,” he said.
“I represent the Christian faith but I suggest that all other faiths will be concerned about this judgment.”
Last night Lord Carey described the ruling as “deeply worrying”, continuing a move by the courts to “downgrade” the right of religious people to express their faith.
“The judgement heralds a ‘secular’ state rather than a ‘neutral’ one,” he said.
“And while with one hand the ruling seeks to protect the right of religious believers to hold and express their faith, with the other it takes away those same rights.”
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, said that the ruling had “driven a coach and horses” through the ancient ties between Christianity and British law.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
PERSECUTION, whatever that is.
This post is written in the context of the debate concerning whether or not Christians are facing persecution in the UK.
-----------------------
On Easter Sunday, the BBC screened a programme by Nicky Campbell that probed the question of whether or not British Christians are being persecuted. While Campbell acknowledged that "Labour's anti-discrimination legislation has led to clashes between religious conscience and equality for homosexuals", he concluded: "So, are Christians being persecuted? No they're not being tortured or killed like Christians in Pakistan and the Sudan. But a minority believes they are being sidelined and victimised. By the standards of a liberal society that can feel like persecution."
See: BBC’s Nicky Campbell: Christians feel persecuted by human rights law and councils
By Martin Beckford, Telegraph, Religious Affairs Correspondent, 31 Mar 2010
Similarly, in his ecumenical Easter Letter to fellow church leaders, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, maintained that, unlike many other Christians around the world, Christians in the UK are not persecuted, and he called on the church to keep its fears in perspective. In his sights were advocates such as Lord Carey and Bishop Nazir-Ali, who have decried what they maintain is escalating marginalisation, discrimination and persecution of Christians in the UK. (See also UK versus "traditional Christian values".)
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent with Timesonline, entered the debate on 13 April, with a column and video interview in which she echoed Nicky Campbell and Rowan Williams, contending that is shameful to suggest that Christians in the UK are suffering persecution "on a par with" Christians in Jos, Nigeria (not that anyone ever suggested they were). Gledhill maintains that it is ridiculous and embarrassing to suggest that Christians in the UK are being discriminated against or persecuted for their faith.
See: It can only harm Christians to bleat about persecution
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for The Times, 13 April 2010
However:
The Collins Concise Dictionary Fifth Australian Edition (2001) defines "persecute" as: "(1) to oppress, harass, or maltreat, especially because of race, religion etc. (2) to bother persistently."
Jesus warned his disciples that persecution would come, indeed, that it would be inevitable (John 15:18 - 16:33). Jesus explained: "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:19-20a ESV) The Apostle Paul likewise reminded Timothy that "all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12).
The line some want to draw in the sand to separate "us" (not persecuted) from "them" (persecuted) is both imaginary and unhelpful. We are one body, and Christians need to understand that persecution -- which is a complex and varied phenomenon -- is integral to their testimony. This is why Jesus advised his would-be-followers to first count the cost, because unless they were prepared to carry a cross, they may as well not bother even trying to follow him (Luke 14:25-35).
Generally, Christians in the West have had to endure only the mildest forms of persecution: marginalisation, mockery, rejection, maybe some bullying, maybe some discrimination etc. This is because Christians in the West have been protected from violent expressions of hatred not only by rule of law, but by a Judeo-Christian culture that extols religious liberty as a fundamental human right. However, as the culture evolves into "post-Christian" (read "non-Christian"), intolerance escalates, authoritarianism emerges, religious liberty fades, and persecution intensifies. (See Understanding Religious Liberty)
My biggest contention with Ruth Gledhill's statement is her assertion that persecuted Christians are "victims". The Collins Concise Dictionary Fifth Australian Edition (2001) defines "victim" as: "a person or thing that suffers harm". Obviously anyone who "suffers harm" on account of their faith is a victim of persecution. But this is not what Gledhill is talking about. By "victim" she clearly means "loser".
This of course is absolutely ridiculous. When hostility emerges, the loser is the one who compromises or abandons their faith in order to avoid hurt or humiliation. For example, Ruth Gledhill herself admits that she is reluctant to wear a cross because she does not want to be seen as a victim (i.e. one of those losers). According to the Bible, affliction and persecution are means by which God's people are "sifted" (Isaiah 30:28) or "winnowed" (Matthew 3:12). In which case, Ruth Gledhill herself appears to be amongst the "victims" (losers).
On the other hand, those who stand firm despite the cost can never be losers even if they do end up as victims of persecution. Rather, they are winners who did not yield and could not be bowed. Persecuted believers are those who, in the face of injustice, dictatorship and threats stand firm and say, "Over my dead body!"
To suffer persecution for righteousness sake is the ultimate form of cultural criticism. Persecuted believers are protesters who refuse to act against their conscience despite the risks. In suffering the consequences they embody the shame and disgrace of society.
That a supposedly civilised society would persecute peaceful, law-abiding, benevolent citizens simply on account of their faith is shocking and unacceptable -- so shocking and unacceptable in fact, that virtually every state that does it denies it. To cover up what is really happening these states enshrine religious freedom in their constitutions and then enact laws that devout believers simply cannot in good conscience abide, while denying them the right to conscientiously object. For example, no-one is imprisoned for their faith in China! The Christians in China's laogai (gulag/network of nearly 1000 state-owned slave-labour prison camps) are all law-breakers, incarcerated for exercising their faith in a manner deemed unacceptable by the State.
I believe that this is actually the crux of Campbell's, Williams' and Glendhill's complaint with the likes of Lord Carey, Bishop Nazir-Ali and others who are testifying against the escalating hostility in British society. I believe they are desperate to deny that Christians are being persecuted because they cannot tolerate the thought that the UK might be evolving (or regressing) into a place where persecution of the righteous is becoming systematic.
But sometimes it takes the cutting down of the righteous to shock a people out their nonchalance so that they cry out in horror: "What have we become? To what depths have we sunk?" All through the Muslim world, there are Muslims questioning and leaving Islam because they have been shocked out of their nonchalance by Islam's violent persecution of peaceful, righteous Christian believers. As persecution escalates in the UK it will be the same. God is doing something new in the UK.
And with that in mind I would like to close with the very commendable words of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in the same letter quoted above also said: "We who live in more comfortable environments need to bear two things in mind. One is that fellow-Christians under pressure, living daily with threats and murders, need our prayers and tangible support [. . .] But the second point to remember is that we need to keep our own fears in perspective. It is all too easy, even in comfortable and relatively peaceful societies, for us to become consumed with anxiety about the future of Church and society. We need to witness boldly and clearly but not with anger and fear; we need to show that we believe what we say about the Lordship of the Risen Christ and his faithfulness to the world he came to redeem."
I say AMEN to that! And I know Lord Carey and Bishop Nazir-Ali would too.
And when it comes to showing what we believe about the Lordship of the Risen Christ, I advocate that the Church stop wasting time appealing to "Pharaoh" (Exodus 5:15) and instead, look to the Lord, our crowing glory, for the "strength to turn back the battle at the gate" (Isaiah 28:5-6).
by Elizabeth Kendal
-----------------------
On Easter Sunday, the BBC screened a programme by Nicky Campbell that probed the question of whether or not British Christians are being persecuted. While Campbell acknowledged that "Labour's anti-discrimination legislation has led to clashes between religious conscience and equality for homosexuals", he concluded: "So, are Christians being persecuted? No they're not being tortured or killed like Christians in Pakistan and the Sudan. But a minority believes they are being sidelined and victimised. By the standards of a liberal society that can feel like persecution."
See: BBC’s Nicky Campbell: Christians feel persecuted by human rights law and councils
By Martin Beckford, Telegraph, Religious Affairs Correspondent, 31 Mar 2010
Similarly, in his ecumenical Easter Letter to fellow church leaders, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, maintained that, unlike many other Christians around the world, Christians in the UK are not persecuted, and he called on the church to keep its fears in perspective. In his sights were advocates such as Lord Carey and Bishop Nazir-Ali, who have decried what they maintain is escalating marginalisation, discrimination and persecution of Christians in the UK. (See also UK versus "traditional Christian values".)
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent with Timesonline, entered the debate on 13 April, with a column and video interview in which she echoed Nicky Campbell and Rowan Williams, contending that is shameful to suggest that Christians in the UK are suffering persecution "on a par with" Christians in Jos, Nigeria (not that anyone ever suggested they were). Gledhill maintains that it is ridiculous and embarrassing to suggest that Christians in the UK are being discriminated against or persecuted for their faith.
See: It can only harm Christians to bleat about persecution
Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent for The Times, 13 April 2010
However:
The Collins Concise Dictionary Fifth Australian Edition (2001) defines "persecute" as: "(1) to oppress, harass, or maltreat, especially because of race, religion etc. (2) to bother persistently."
Jesus warned his disciples that persecution would come, indeed, that it would be inevitable (John 15:18 - 16:33). Jesus explained: "If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you." (John 15:19-20a ESV) The Apostle Paul likewise reminded Timothy that "all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12).
The line some want to draw in the sand to separate "us" (not persecuted) from "them" (persecuted) is both imaginary and unhelpful. We are one body, and Christians need to understand that persecution -- which is a complex and varied phenomenon -- is integral to their testimony. This is why Jesus advised his would-be-followers to first count the cost, because unless they were prepared to carry a cross, they may as well not bother even trying to follow him (Luke 14:25-35).
Generally, Christians in the West have had to endure only the mildest forms of persecution: marginalisation, mockery, rejection, maybe some bullying, maybe some discrimination etc. This is because Christians in the West have been protected from violent expressions of hatred not only by rule of law, but by a Judeo-Christian culture that extols religious liberty as a fundamental human right. However, as the culture evolves into "post-Christian" (read "non-Christian"), intolerance escalates, authoritarianism emerges, religious liberty fades, and persecution intensifies. (See Understanding Religious Liberty)
My biggest contention with Ruth Gledhill's statement is her assertion that persecuted Christians are "victims". The Collins Concise Dictionary Fifth Australian Edition (2001) defines "victim" as: "a person or thing that suffers harm". Obviously anyone who "suffers harm" on account of their faith is a victim of persecution. But this is not what Gledhill is talking about. By "victim" she clearly means "loser".
This of course is absolutely ridiculous. When hostility emerges, the loser is the one who compromises or abandons their faith in order to avoid hurt or humiliation. For example, Ruth Gledhill herself admits that she is reluctant to wear a cross because she does not want to be seen as a victim (i.e. one of those losers). According to the Bible, affliction and persecution are means by which God's people are "sifted" (Isaiah 30:28) or "winnowed" (Matthew 3:12). In which case, Ruth Gledhill herself appears to be amongst the "victims" (losers).
On the other hand, those who stand firm despite the cost can never be losers even if they do end up as victims of persecution. Rather, they are winners who did not yield and could not be bowed. Persecuted believers are those who, in the face of injustice, dictatorship and threats stand firm and say, "Over my dead body!"
To suffer persecution for righteousness sake is the ultimate form of cultural criticism. Persecuted believers are protesters who refuse to act against their conscience despite the risks. In suffering the consequences they embody the shame and disgrace of society.
That a supposedly civilised society would persecute peaceful, law-abiding, benevolent citizens simply on account of their faith is shocking and unacceptable -- so shocking and unacceptable in fact, that virtually every state that does it denies it. To cover up what is really happening these states enshrine religious freedom in their constitutions and then enact laws that devout believers simply cannot in good conscience abide, while denying them the right to conscientiously object. For example, no-one is imprisoned for their faith in China! The Christians in China's laogai (gulag/network of nearly 1000 state-owned slave-labour prison camps) are all law-breakers, incarcerated for exercising their faith in a manner deemed unacceptable by the State.
I believe that this is actually the crux of Campbell's, Williams' and Glendhill's complaint with the likes of Lord Carey, Bishop Nazir-Ali and others who are testifying against the escalating hostility in British society. I believe they are desperate to deny that Christians are being persecuted because they cannot tolerate the thought that the UK might be evolving (or regressing) into a place where persecution of the righteous is becoming systematic.
But sometimes it takes the cutting down of the righteous to shock a people out their nonchalance so that they cry out in horror: "What have we become? To what depths have we sunk?" All through the Muslim world, there are Muslims questioning and leaving Islam because they have been shocked out of their nonchalance by Islam's violent persecution of peaceful, righteous Christian believers. As persecution escalates in the UK it will be the same. God is doing something new in the UK.
And with that in mind I would like to close with the very commendable words of Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, in the same letter quoted above also said: "We who live in more comfortable environments need to bear two things in mind. One is that fellow-Christians under pressure, living daily with threats and murders, need our prayers and tangible support [. . .] But the second point to remember is that we need to keep our own fears in perspective. It is all too easy, even in comfortable and relatively peaceful societies, for us to become consumed with anxiety about the future of Church and society. We need to witness boldly and clearly but not with anger and fear; we need to show that we believe what we say about the Lordship of the Risen Christ and his faithfulness to the world he came to redeem."
I say AMEN to that! And I know Lord Carey and Bishop Nazir-Ali would too.
And when it comes to showing what we believe about the Lordship of the Risen Christ, I advocate that the Church stop wasting time appealing to "Pharaoh" (Exodus 5:15) and instead, look to the Lord, our crowing glory, for the "strength to turn back the battle at the gate" (Isaiah 28:5-6).
by Elizabeth Kendal
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
WATCHING KYRGYZSTAN
In the late 1980s, President Mikhail Gorbachev introduced social and political reform to the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) through perestroika (restructuring) and glasnost (openness). By 1990, Communism had fallen and the Cold War had ended. At that point, various megalomaniacs -- that is, men who wanted to be presidents rather than prime ministers, governors or generals -- set about exploiting ethnic nationalism in order to tear the centuries-old Russian Federation apart.
By the end of 1991, Kyrgyzstan was independent under the leadership of Askar Akayev, an intellectual and scientist appointed by Gorbachev. Kyrgyzstan was unique amongst its neighbours in that it was the only Central Asian former Soviet Republic not under the control of a former Soviet apparatchik (i.e. not a professional functionary of the Communist Party).
Akayev introduced multi-party democracy and encouraged a degree of openness unknown to Kyrgyzstan's neighbours. In 1998, Kyrgyzstan became the first Central Asian republic to join the World Trade Organisation.
Corruption takes over
In December 2001, America established a Transit Centre at Manas air base on the outskirts of the capital, Bishkek (also spelled Bishek), from where it could supply US troop in Afghanistan.
In an article entitled The Truth Behind The Recent Unrest in Kyrgyzstan (13 April 2010, first of a 3-part series), investment analysts with oilprice.com note: "Cozying up to the presidential administration Washington quickly allowed the administration of President Askar Akayev and its cronies to take over the lucrative refueling and provisioning rights for the bases, paying inflated prices for landing rights and fuel provided by companies under the presidential family's control." And so, as oilprice.com notes, the contracts for the US base at Manas became "a direct source of corruption", whereby Akayev's family profited "by owning the companies with exclusive rights to refuel NATO aircraft."
Repression escalates
But corruption and openness don't mix -- and so in order to allow corruption to flourish, Akayev had to roll back openness and liberty.
Akayev also learned he could play the "Cold-War-isn't-over-yet" game, pitting Russia and the US against each other for financial gain. In September 2003, he upset Washington by signing a bilateral agreement with Russia for the establishment of a Russian military base at Kant, also on the outskirts of Bishkek and only some 30km from Manus (map).
US monies however, did not benefit the Kyrgyz population. The masses remained impoverished while the Akayev clan grew very rich and very powerful. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism advanced at the expense of the impoverished and now harshly repressed masses. Discontent rose as hopes for human rights and democracy faded.
REVOLT
The March 2005 "Tulip Revolution" that ousted Akayev was not a US-sponsored "colour revolution". Rather it was a people's revolt, a coup that, despite its violence and expressions of ethnic Kyrgyz nationalism, won the support of the US which claimed it was part of the domino effect of democracy.
See :
The Tulip Revolution takes root
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times online, 26 March 2005
KYRGYZSTAN’S REVOLUTION: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
A EurasiaNet Commentary, by Justin Burke, 25 March 2005
Corruption takes over
According to oilprice.com, after the "Tulip Revolution" Washington simply : "rewrote its cozy contracts with the Baikyev administration for Manas, delivered intermittent harangues on democracy and human rights, and essentially ignored the country". Subsequently, President Kurmanbek Bakiev became even more corrupt than the man he had deposed. His son, Maksim Bakiev, reportedly earned himself as much as $8 million a month monopolising the sale of fuel to the base.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: Business, Corruption and the Manas Airbase
oilprice.com 15 April 2010
Meanwhile, the masses remained impoverished with unemployment hovering around 18 percent. Discontent was growing. History was repeating itself and for all America's human rights rhetoric, it clearly saw the transit centre at Manas as a higher priority -- something not lost on the repressed and abused masses of Central Asia.
Repression escalates
As corruption, repression and hardship escalated, the masses (especially in the more devoutly Muslim south) increasing leaned towards the 'Islam-is-the-solution' message preached by the Islamic fundamentalists of the Ferghana Valley (southern Kyrgyzstan) -- specifically the jihadist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and revolutionary Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT).
To counter their influence, the Bakiev regime further escalated repression -- a strategy that only served to fuel the cycle. On 12 January 2009, a highly repressive Religion Law was enacted.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: putting the repressive religion law in context
By Elizabeth Kendal, 10 February 2009
World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
As Forum 18 reported at the time (13 January 2009): "Provisions that have caused concern to religious communities and human rights defenders include: a ban on children being involved in religious organisations; a ban on 'aggressive action aimed at proselytism'; a ban on the distribution of religious literature, print, and audio-video religious materials; and de facto compulsory re-registration of all registered religious organisations.
"The 12 January [2009] announcement on the presidential website trumpets the fact that 200 adult citizens permanently living in Kyrgyzstan will now be required before a religious community can apply for state registration, compared to 10 in the current Law. It says 10 registered religious organisations will be needed to form a 'religious association'."
While the law's primary target was the Islamic revolutionary Hizb-ut-Tahrir -- which had been provoking serious unrest in the south -- Protestant Christians (around 0.5 percent) have been caught in its anti-'new', anti-'foreign', anti-'small gatherings', anti-'religious literature', anti-'missionary' net. And because Protestant Christianity is "divisive" -- winning converts amongst Muslims and Russian Orthodox -- the regime exploited repression and persecution of Protestants as a convenient and easy means of appeasing aggrieved elements.
The last straw
In late 2009, confident that there was no organised opposition, Bakiev increased taxes and the cost of utilities. The first price hike came on 1 January 2010, the second would hit six months later. Thus in the middle winter, as temperatures dipped to minus 20 degrees Celsius, Kyrgyz citizens found their heating costs rising by at least 500 percent; electricity by 170 percent, hot water by 100 percent. Many people found themselves forced to choose between spending 80 percent of their salary of utilities, or turning off the gas, electricity and hot water.
See:
KYRGYZSTAN: UTILITY PRICE HIKE SQUEEZES CITIZENS
Liat Asman, Eurasianet, 8 February 2010
REVOLT
On 6 April 2010, anger and despair spilled into the streets. The protests escalated rapidly until the security forces, under the control of President Bakiev's brother, Zhanybek Bakiev, opened fired on the protesters, killing more than 80 and wounding hundreds more. Ultimately however, Bakiev was ousted, retreating south to his home base of Jalal-Abad.
See:
Eyewitness: Bishkek Unrest
Kyrgyz journalist recounts confrontation between protesters and government troops on the streets of Bishkek. By Urmat Imanaliev in Bishkek.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) 10 April 10
US reaps bitter harvest from 'Tulip' revolution
By M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times online, 10 April 2010
Stefan J Bos, in Kyrgyzstans for BosNewsLife reports that throughout the crisis churches have been active caring for the injured, visiting hospitals, holding prayer vigils, assisting with efforts to clean up the streets and repair damage to public facilities.
After fleeing south, Bakiev discovered he had little support left there either.
See: Bakiev Resigns After Support Crumbles
President leaves country, steps down following failed attempt to rally support in southern heartland. By Dina Tokbaeva in Bishkek.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), 15 April 10
(update: Bakiev has since renounced his resignation.)
While Bakiev has since found refuge in Belarus, there are calls for him to be extradited to Kyrgyzstan to stand trial for his crimes.
Heading into the future
The new inclusive interim administration led by Rosa Otunbayev will hold democratic elections and a referendum on an amended constitution later this year. This provides a wonderful opportunity for religious liberty to be restored.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: Omurbek Tekebaev speaks about draft Constitution
Ferghana.Ru 19 April 2010
Kyrgyzstan: Another Chance at Democracy
Getting it right this time will depend on new government’s efforts to overcome legacy of previous authoritarian rulers. By Pavel Dyatlenko in Bishek
Institute for War adn Peace Reporting (IWPR) 11 April 2010
Religious liberty
Forum 18 published a report on 16 April 2010 entitled: KYRGYZSTAN: "Restore religious freedom at least to the level we had before Bakiev", by Mushfig Bayram, in which various religious organisations, civil society and human rights groups express both their hopes and anxieties about the future.
Most importantly, Kanybek Imanaliyev, Head of the Press Service of the Interim Government led by Roza Otunbaeva, told Forum 18 on 15 April: "We want to establish freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We will reform the Constitution, the laws as necessary and the Religion Law."
When Forum 18 asked if religious communities would be able to carry on their normal religious activity while the laws are being changed, Imanaliyev said that "no one can answer that question at the moment. We need to first stabilize the situation. However I do not think there will be any conflicts on religious grounds in the meantime. The people of Kyrgyzstan are tolerant to different religions and confessions."
While expressing great hopes, many human rights advocates and religious leaders are adopting a "wait and see" approach, unsure about what the new administration will be able to achieve in a short time. Furthermore, they doubt that the distinction between "traditional" and "non-traditional" faiths will be able to be addressed without controversy, as this mindset is well entrenched across the whole region.
Threats emerge
After the March 2005 "Tulip Revolution", large numbers of poor southerners answered the call of Kyrgyz nationalists to exploit the chaos and seize land in Bishkek.
See:
KYRGYZ REVOLUTION: TAKING A TURN IN AN UNPREDICTABLE DIRECTION
EURASIA INSIGHT 8 April 2005
Similarly, on 19 April 2010, a violent mob of around 1000 ethnic Kyrgyz -- all well organised outsiders -- rampaged through the village of Mayevka on the outskirts of Bishek. Five were killed as the mob burned homes and seized land belonging to ethnic Russians and Turks (Maskhetian Turks: Georgian Muslims deported by Stalin). Local Kyrgyz reportedly intervened at great risk to defend their besieged neighbours.
Eurasianet reports that as a result of the pogrom, "some non-Kyrgyz residents are now saying they want to leave the Central Asian country".
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has demanded that the new administration in Kyrgyzstan take measures to protect Russian lives and properties in Kyrgyzstan.
See:
KYRGYZSTAN: INTER-ETHNIC TENSION RATTLES BISHKEK
David Trilling, Eurasinet, 20 April 2010
Kyrgyz Interim Leaders Try To Impose Order After Unrest
RFE/RL 20 April 2010
Kremlin Defends Russians Caught in ‘Infectious’ Kyrgyz Violence
Business Week, 20 April 2010
And of course in the midst of all this, Islamic forces will doubtless be viewing Kyrgyzstan's present vulnerability as their great opportunity. The March 2005 "Tulip Revolution" inspired Uzbekistan's Islamists to attempt a "people's revolution" of their own in Andijan in the Ferghana Valley in May 2005.
See:
Uzbekistan: a new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning
By Elizabeth Kendal, 22 march 2007
World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission (WEA RLC)
There is considerable anxiety that Uzbek Islamists will again be closely watching events in Kyrgyzstan, taking notes on how they might engineer regime change to their advantage in Uzbekistan.
Most Kyrgyz citizens want to see their country emerge as a free and democratic state. However, with so many forces working against this outcome, Kyrgyzstan will need plenty of international support.
By the end of 1991, Kyrgyzstan was independent under the leadership of Askar Akayev, an intellectual and scientist appointed by Gorbachev. Kyrgyzstan was unique amongst its neighbours in that it was the only Central Asian former Soviet Republic not under the control of a former Soviet apparatchik (i.e. not a professional functionary of the Communist Party).
Akayev introduced multi-party democracy and encouraged a degree of openness unknown to Kyrgyzstan's neighbours. In 1998, Kyrgyzstan became the first Central Asian republic to join the World Trade Organisation.
Corruption takes over
In December 2001, America established a Transit Centre at Manas air base on the outskirts of the capital, Bishkek (also spelled Bishek), from where it could supply US troop in Afghanistan.
In an article entitled The Truth Behind The Recent Unrest in Kyrgyzstan (13 April 2010, first of a 3-part series), investment analysts with oilprice.com note: "Cozying up to the presidential administration Washington quickly allowed the administration of President Askar Akayev and its cronies to take over the lucrative refueling and provisioning rights for the bases, paying inflated prices for landing rights and fuel provided by companies under the presidential family's control." And so, as oilprice.com notes, the contracts for the US base at Manas became "a direct source of corruption", whereby Akayev's family profited "by owning the companies with exclusive rights to refuel NATO aircraft."
Repression escalates
But corruption and openness don't mix -- and so in order to allow corruption to flourish, Akayev had to roll back openness and liberty.
Akayev also learned he could play the "Cold-War-isn't-over-yet" game, pitting Russia and the US against each other for financial gain. In September 2003, he upset Washington by signing a bilateral agreement with Russia for the establishment of a Russian military base at Kant, also on the outskirts of Bishkek and only some 30km from Manus (map).
US monies however, did not benefit the Kyrgyz population. The masses remained impoverished while the Akayev clan grew very rich and very powerful. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism advanced at the expense of the impoverished and now harshly repressed masses. Discontent rose as hopes for human rights and democracy faded.
REVOLT
The March 2005 "Tulip Revolution" that ousted Akayev was not a US-sponsored "colour revolution". Rather it was a people's revolt, a coup that, despite its violence and expressions of ethnic Kyrgyz nationalism, won the support of the US which claimed it was part of the domino effect of democracy.
See :
The Tulip Revolution takes root
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times online, 26 March 2005
KYRGYZSTAN’S REVOLUTION: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
A EurasiaNet Commentary, by Justin Burke, 25 March 2005
Corruption takes over
According to oilprice.com, after the "Tulip Revolution" Washington simply : "rewrote its cozy contracts with the Baikyev administration for Manas, delivered intermittent harangues on democracy and human rights, and essentially ignored the country". Subsequently, President Kurmanbek Bakiev became even more corrupt than the man he had deposed. His son, Maksim Bakiev, reportedly earned himself as much as $8 million a month monopolising the sale of fuel to the base.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: Business, Corruption and the Manas Airbase
oilprice.com 15 April 2010
Meanwhile, the masses remained impoverished with unemployment hovering around 18 percent. Discontent was growing. History was repeating itself and for all America's human rights rhetoric, it clearly saw the transit centre at Manas as a higher priority -- something not lost on the repressed and abused masses of Central Asia.
Repression escalates
As corruption, repression and hardship escalated, the masses (especially in the more devoutly Muslim south) increasing leaned towards the 'Islam-is-the-solution' message preached by the Islamic fundamentalists of the Ferghana Valley (southern Kyrgyzstan) -- specifically the jihadist Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) and revolutionary Hizb-ut-Tahrir (HuT).
To counter their influence, the Bakiev regime further escalated repression -- a strategy that only served to fuel the cycle. On 12 January 2009, a highly repressive Religion Law was enacted.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: putting the repressive religion law in context
By Elizabeth Kendal, 10 February 2009
World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
As Forum 18 reported at the time (13 January 2009): "Provisions that have caused concern to religious communities and human rights defenders include: a ban on children being involved in religious organisations; a ban on 'aggressive action aimed at proselytism'; a ban on the distribution of religious literature, print, and audio-video religious materials; and de facto compulsory re-registration of all registered religious organisations.
"The 12 January [2009] announcement on the presidential website trumpets the fact that 200 adult citizens permanently living in Kyrgyzstan will now be required before a religious community can apply for state registration, compared to 10 in the current Law. It says 10 registered religious organisations will be needed to form a 'religious association'."
While the law's primary target was the Islamic revolutionary Hizb-ut-Tahrir -- which had been provoking serious unrest in the south -- Protestant Christians (around 0.5 percent) have been caught in its anti-'new', anti-'foreign', anti-'small gatherings', anti-'religious literature', anti-'missionary' net. And because Protestant Christianity is "divisive" -- winning converts amongst Muslims and Russian Orthodox -- the regime exploited repression and persecution of Protestants as a convenient and easy means of appeasing aggrieved elements.
The last straw
In late 2009, confident that there was no organised opposition, Bakiev increased taxes and the cost of utilities. The first price hike came on 1 January 2010, the second would hit six months later. Thus in the middle winter, as temperatures dipped to minus 20 degrees Celsius, Kyrgyz citizens found their heating costs rising by at least 500 percent; electricity by 170 percent, hot water by 100 percent. Many people found themselves forced to choose between spending 80 percent of their salary of utilities, or turning off the gas, electricity and hot water.
See:
KYRGYZSTAN: UTILITY PRICE HIKE SQUEEZES CITIZENS
Liat Asman, Eurasianet, 8 February 2010
REVOLT
On 6 April 2010, anger and despair spilled into the streets. The protests escalated rapidly until the security forces, under the control of President Bakiev's brother, Zhanybek Bakiev, opened fired on the protesters, killing more than 80 and wounding hundreds more. Ultimately however, Bakiev was ousted, retreating south to his home base of Jalal-Abad.
See:
Eyewitness: Bishkek Unrest
Kyrgyz journalist recounts confrontation between protesters and government troops on the streets of Bishkek. By Urmat Imanaliev in Bishkek.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) 10 April 10
US reaps bitter harvest from 'Tulip' revolution
By M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times online, 10 April 2010
Stefan J Bos, in Kyrgyzstans for BosNewsLife reports that throughout the crisis churches have been active caring for the injured, visiting hospitals, holding prayer vigils, assisting with efforts to clean up the streets and repair damage to public facilities.
After fleeing south, Bakiev discovered he had little support left there either.
See: Bakiev Resigns After Support Crumbles
President leaves country, steps down following failed attempt to rally support in southern heartland. By Dina Tokbaeva in Bishkek.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), 15 April 10
(update: Bakiev has since renounced his resignation.)
While Bakiev has since found refuge in Belarus, there are calls for him to be extradited to Kyrgyzstan to stand trial for his crimes.
Heading into the future
The new inclusive interim administration led by Rosa Otunbayev will hold democratic elections and a referendum on an amended constitution later this year. This provides a wonderful opportunity for religious liberty to be restored.
See:
Kyrgyzstan: Omurbek Tekebaev speaks about draft Constitution
Ferghana.Ru 19 April 2010
Kyrgyzstan: Another Chance at Democracy
Getting it right this time will depend on new government’s efforts to overcome legacy of previous authoritarian rulers. By Pavel Dyatlenko in Bishek
Institute for War adn Peace Reporting (IWPR) 11 April 2010
Religious liberty
Forum 18 published a report on 16 April 2010 entitled: KYRGYZSTAN: "Restore religious freedom at least to the level we had before Bakiev", by Mushfig Bayram, in which various religious organisations, civil society and human rights groups express both their hopes and anxieties about the future.
Most importantly, Kanybek Imanaliyev, Head of the Press Service of the Interim Government led by Roza Otunbaeva, told Forum 18 on 15 April: "We want to establish freedom of speech and freedom of religion. We will reform the Constitution, the laws as necessary and the Religion Law."
When Forum 18 asked if religious communities would be able to carry on their normal religious activity while the laws are being changed, Imanaliyev said that "no one can answer that question at the moment. We need to first stabilize the situation. However I do not think there will be any conflicts on religious grounds in the meantime. The people of Kyrgyzstan are tolerant to different religions and confessions."
While expressing great hopes, many human rights advocates and religious leaders are adopting a "wait and see" approach, unsure about what the new administration will be able to achieve in a short time. Furthermore, they doubt that the distinction between "traditional" and "non-traditional" faiths will be able to be addressed without controversy, as this mindset is well entrenched across the whole region.
Threats emerge
After the March 2005 "Tulip Revolution", large numbers of poor southerners answered the call of Kyrgyz nationalists to exploit the chaos and seize land in Bishkek.
See:
KYRGYZ REVOLUTION: TAKING A TURN IN AN UNPREDICTABLE DIRECTION
EURASIA INSIGHT 8 April 2005
Similarly, on 19 April 2010, a violent mob of around 1000 ethnic Kyrgyz -- all well organised outsiders -- rampaged through the village of Mayevka on the outskirts of Bishek. Five were killed as the mob burned homes and seized land belonging to ethnic Russians and Turks (Maskhetian Turks: Georgian Muslims deported by Stalin). Local Kyrgyz reportedly intervened at great risk to defend their besieged neighbours.
Eurasianet reports that as a result of the pogrom, "some non-Kyrgyz residents are now saying they want to leave the Central Asian country".
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has demanded that the new administration in Kyrgyzstan take measures to protect Russian lives and properties in Kyrgyzstan.
See:
KYRGYZSTAN: INTER-ETHNIC TENSION RATTLES BISHKEK
David Trilling, Eurasinet, 20 April 2010
Kyrgyz Interim Leaders Try To Impose Order After Unrest
RFE/RL 20 April 2010
Kremlin Defends Russians Caught in ‘Infectious’ Kyrgyz Violence
Business Week, 20 April 2010
And of course in the midst of all this, Islamic forces will doubtless be viewing Kyrgyzstan's present vulnerability as their great opportunity. The March 2005 "Tulip Revolution" inspired Uzbekistan's Islamists to attempt a "people's revolution" of their own in Andijan in the Ferghana Valley in May 2005.
See:
Uzbekistan: a new wave of serious persecution may be just beginning
By Elizabeth Kendal, 22 march 2007
World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission (WEA RLC)
There is considerable anxiety that Uzbek Islamists will again be closely watching events in Kyrgyzstan, taking notes on how they might engineer regime change to their advantage in Uzbekistan.
Most Kyrgyz citizens want to see their country emerge as a free and democratic state. However, with so many forces working against this outcome, Kyrgyzstan will need plenty of international support.