Date: Friday 4 May 2007
Subj: India: How far is Jaipur from Malatya?
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
INDIA: HOW FAR IS JAIPUR FROM MALATYA?
In modern, progressive, secular Turkey, anti-Christian hatred has been whipped up by Islamist and nationalist forces and cultivated and perpetuated in the media, often by men and women of influence seeking political mileage. Unfortunately the hate insurgency has not been neutralised by a truth counterinsurgency, and so hate - a highly destructive force - has been permitted to advance. And we have seen the consequences.
In Turkey expatriate Catholic, Turkish-Armenian Orthodox, and expatriate and Turkish Protestants have been victims of fatal hate crimes over the past 15 months. Christians and Christianity have been so thoroughly demonised that zealous, patriotic religious youths have been deluded into believing that if they do their country a favour and slay a Christian then they will be able to literally get away with murder.
The brutality of the 18 April torture and murder of three Christians in Malatya, Turkey (link 1) has left many Turks shocked and ashamed. Finally there is now some will for a decisive (albeit difficult and possibly costly) truth, tolerance, secularism and religious liberty counterinsurgency.
Modern, progressive, secular India, which is treading virtually the exact same path, is only a step away from having its own "Malatya" experience (that is: an act of hate-fueled anti-Christian violence so disgusting and horrific it sends shockwaves through the nation).
ANTI-CHRISTIAN HATE CAMPAIGN PERSISTS UNCHALLENGED
and JAIPUR PASTOR BASHED FOR THE TV CAMERAS
On 24 April, Compass Direct published a report by Vishal Arora, entitled "Hate Campaign Adds Fuel to Persecution in India". (Link 2)
This report details some of the anti-Christian hate that India is being submerged in as Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) forces continue to spew forth anti-Christian propaganda, lies, disinformation, incitement and hatred, all for political gain.
Arora mentions the CD produced by the organisers of the Shabri Kumbh Mela, held in Dangs, Gujarat, in February 2006. The CD titled "Shri Shabri Kumbh 2006: Spirituality along with the Wave of Patriotism" has been widely circulated, distributed and openly sold in the states of Gujarat and Maharashtra and in the north-eastern states.
Anhad (link 3), a non-profit organisation that has admitted a petition to the Supreme Court of India seeking action against the Hindutva forces that distributed the CDs, claims: "In the CD, the narrator, while talking about Hindu tradition and culture, makes constant references to the evil forces and foreign powers that are out to destroy the Hindu religion whilst simultaneously flashing pictures of churches and Cross on the screen as if to insinuate that the Christian community is the evil force and the foreign power that the Hindu community has to reckon with."
Arora notes that on the CD cover there is a caricature of a headless Christian priest wearing a cassock and holding a cross. Anhad comments, "In place of the head is a question mark symbol. The caption on the top of this picture literally translates into 'Church: in the name of service.'" As Arora notes, the Hindutva slogan, 'Hindu Jago, Christi Bhagao' (Arise Hindus, throw out the Christians) represents the overall sentiment of the Hindutva anti-Christian hate campaign.
According to Arora, Hindutva hate material typically brands Christianity and Islam as alien religions and a threat to India. "It alleges that Indian Christians use foreign funds to convert Hindus by force and fraudulent means.
"The hate material casts doubts on the patriotism and loyalty of Christians to the country, questions the roots of Christianity, attacks the tenets of the faith and targets priests, nuns and Christian institutions and social work.
"Hindu extremists use many means to spread hate against Christians on a regular basis. Media used include hate speeches at rallies, distribution of pamphlets and CDs, publication of reports in local newspapers in vernacular languages, publication of books, e-mail campaigns using e-groups, uploading of videos on the Web, and websites.
"The RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] is said to spew hatred through its wide network of 'shakhas' or daily gatherings. According to the RSS, there were about 50,000 'shakhas' in 34,732 locations across the country as of March 2005.
"Additionally, the RSS has more than 17,500 'one-teacher schools' known as 'Ekal Vidyalayas', in 20 states. These schools allegedly teach hate against Christians in the guise of providing education and preventing 'conversion' of tribal people to Christianity. The children of these schools are exposed to Hindu symbols and deities, saints and patriots apart from the regular syllabus.
"The Hindu extremist 'Dharma Raksha Samiti' (Association for Protection of Religion) has posted an anti-conversion documentary in English on the Web.
An Invasion through Conversion Part 1
An Invasion through Conversion Part 2
"Another extremist group, the Kashmiri Hindu Liberation Army, says on its website http://www.hindurashtra.org that Hindus should 'militarize' and 'industrialize' themselves to 'survive'. 'Hinduize the politics and militarize the Hindus. . . Change of religion means change of nation,' the website states, advocating establishment of a single-party, militarized government based on the divine laws of Hindu Dharma(Religion), and Hindutva nationalist ideology." (Compass Direct, India archives: link 2)
JAIPUR PASTOR BASHED FOR TV CAMERAS
Violent persecution of Christians in India has been escalating in both frequency and intensity as the Hindutva forces claw back their lost political territory, as a read through the Compass Direct's India Archives will demonstrate.
On Sunday 29 April, a mob of some twenty militant Hindu youths (Bajrang dal activists) attacked Pastor Walter Masih (or Massey) in his home in Jaipur, Rajasthan, where he leads a small home fellowship. The attack took place in front of Pastor Masih's wife and child and what appears to be an invited television crew.
According to The Hindu, Congress general secretary Ashok Gehlot described the incident as a "very serious matter" and demanded the immediate arrest of the culprits. "Vishwa Hindu Parishad workers have once again taken law into their own hands in the name of stopping religious conversions in the State and this is condemnable," he said. (Link 4)
The following news report from CNN-IBN contains a video of the IBN news broadcast which features excerpts of the filmed attack:
"Pastor attack: Media under scanner"
CNN-IBN, 30 April 2007
As noted in the above report, Indian authorities are looking into the role the media played in the attack. Christians in Rajasthan are calling for a full CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) investigation into the incident.
Another CNN-IBN report poses the question, "Indian media intolerant?" This news broadcast contains two videos from the CNN-IBN program, "India 360".
"Indian media intolerant?" 1 May 2007
Surely the question at the heart of this issue is: What is it that makes youths not only so hateful and violent, but so convinced that their violence is acceptable, justifiable and even heroic, that they would proudly and confidently commit their criminal assault upon a peaceful family before a TV crew for national broadcast?
How far is Jaipur from Malatya?
Not far at all.
Elizabeth Kendal
Links
1) Turkey: German Seminary investigates Malatya murders
by Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC, 1 May 2007.
2) Compass Direct India archives
3) Anhad (Act Now for Harmony and Democracy)
http://www.anhadindia.org/
4) Christian preacher attacked in Jaipur
The Hindu. Monday 30 May 2007
http://www.hindu.com/2007/04/30/stories/2007043005341200.htm
See also: http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=9129&size=A
Friday, May 4, 2007
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Turkey: German Seminary investigates Malatya murders
Date: Tuesday 1 May 2007
Subj: Turkey: German Seminary investigates Malatya murders
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
The following report from Martin Bucer Seminary (MBS) Bonn, Germany, was compiled by Titus Vogt, MBS Dean of International Programs. The English translation was done by Thomas K. Johnson, Ph.D., MBS Professor of Apologetics and Ethics.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
-----------------------------------------------------
THE LAST HOURS OF THE THREE MARTYRS:
Necati Aydin, Ugur Yuksel, and Tilmann Geske
The assassins deceived the victims in order to gain their trust.
Martin Bucer Seminary (Bonn, Germany) reconstructs the last hours of its student, Necati Aydin.
Martin Bucer Seminary (MBS) Dean for International Programs, Titus Vogt, led an investigation into the tragic events of 18 April 2007 by means of putting together the statements from all the witnesses. MBS remains close to the victims, survivors, and witnesses to the brutal murder in Malatya through its Turkish branch, as one of the victims, Necati Aydin, was their student. Until now, MBS has hesitated to give all the details to the public, but MBS President Thomas Schirrmacher has concluded now that nothing stands in the way of a full public statement of all the details.
MURDERERS SPENT MONTHS SURREPTITIOUSLY GAINING THE TRUST OF THE VICTIMS
Some months ago the murderers gained the trust of their intended victims. To do this, the assassins indicated an interest in the Christian faith and said they wanted more information about the Bible and its contents. What deception could be more powerful to Bible publishers who were themselves adult converts from Islam to Christianity? Under this guise, they met repeatedly with their future victims. Clearly the attack was planned well in advance.
On the morning of 18 April, two of the murderers came to the office of Zirve Publishing House in Malatya, which is an extension of a Protestant publisher based in Istanbul, with distribution offices in various Turkish cities. Among other things, they discussed the Christian faith with Necati Aydin, as they had done frequently over the previous months. On this particular morning, in addition to Tilmann Geske, the bookkeeper, Emin M., was also in the office. Everything seemed to be completely normal. In the course of the morning, M. left the office, not suspecting that he would never see Aydin and Geske alive again.
Shortly thereafter the three other assassins arrived and tied up the first two victims, while they threatened them with pistols. Two days before, the assassins had been taken into custody because of wielding weapons in public, but they had been set free because they were only carrying warning pistols.
As soon as the victims were tied up, the murderers began stabbing them with knives all over their bodies. A short time later Ugur Yuksel came into the office; he was immediately grabbed by the murderers and tied up. Right after that Gokhan H., also a Christian, stopped by the Zirve office, but he could not open the door, because it was locked from inside and the lock was jammed. H. tried to call the office and finally reached Ugur on the telephone. Ugur said that the planned meeting was not going to be held in the Zirve office; it would instead be held in a particular hotel. H. had the impression that something was wrong, so he called a friend in the city. This friend advised him to call the police, which Gokham H. did.
When the police arrived a few minutes later, the victims were still alive. The police demanded that the criminals open the door, at which they slit the throats of the victims. When the police forced the door and stormed the office, they found Aydin and Geske already dead. Yuksel was still alive and was rushed to a local hospital. In spite of emergency surgery and 51 units of blood, he died of his numerous and massive knife wounds.
The autopsy reports lead to the following picture: The bodies were covered with about 156 knife wounds in the pelvis area, lower body, anus, abdomen, and back. Their fingertips had been sliced repeatedly; and they had massive slashes on their necks which severed the windpipe and oesophagus.
The distinctively ritual manner of the murder, particularly the slicing of fingertips, is convincing observers of the consciously religious motivation of the assassins. The perpetrators seem to have been following the instructions of Sure 8:12, from the Koran. There it says (in the Rudi Paret German translation of the Koran), "I will strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers. Flay their necks (with a sword) and strike every finger." The last half of the sentence is translated in even more striking terms in some versions. In the Rassoul and Zaidan translation it says, "chop off every finger;" the Azhar and Ahmadeyya translation says, "chop off every finger tip."
Three of the attackers were arrested directly in the office, where the attack was occurring; two tried to escape by climbing down an external downspout pipe. One more attacker was arrested in the second floor of the building, one floor below the crime scene. The final assassin, who is described by the others as the leader of the group, fell to the street from a significant height when the downspout pipe broke off from the wall of the building. He was brought to a hospital and spent some days in a coma, but he is now awake and is being questioned by police.
In the course of the next few days, some other suspects were taken into custody, including the son of a mayor (AKP party) from a town near to Malatya.
FIRST TURKISH MARTYRS SINCE 1923
At a press conference a day after the attack, Pastor Ihsan Ozbek (from Ankara), President of the Association of Protestant Churches in Turkey, said "Yesterday Turkey was buried in the darkness of the Middle East." He compared the common, country-wide, widely hawked conspiracy theories which accuse Christians of conspiring against Muslims with the medieval witch hunts in Europe. These conspiracy theories contain a deep phobia of foreign missionaries. In responding to an inquiry of why Geske, a foreign missionary, was in Malatya, Ozbek said this is already an unconscionable question, since in a truly democratic state one may not ask "why are you or they in Malatya?" The pastor used very pointed words to portray the background of the murders which led the Turkish media to entitle a report on the news conference, "A gruesome brutality, but no surprise." Ozbek said he was convinced that, "it is not the last martyrdom, though we hope from the bottom of our hearts that it could be the last martyrdom."
Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel are the first known Muslim converts to Christianity to be martyred, since the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Ugur Yuksel was buried according to Islamic/Alevitic rituals at the orders of his family which vehemently denies his Christian faith. The German victim was buried on 20 April in the Armenian cemetery in Malatya, following the wishes of his widow. This occurred after a bitter fight with the local authorities who unconditionally wanted to prevent Geske's burial in their city. Because of pressure applied by the German government, his burial was only delayed by three hours, from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eye witnesses say that about 100 mourners from across Turkey came to his funeral. Necati Aydin, who was pastor of the local Protestant church in addition to his work in the Zirve Publishing House, was laid to rest on Saturday, 21 April, in his home town of Izmir. The roughly 500 mourners who attended his funeral were very deeply moved.
MEDIA STORM IN TURKEY
There has been an enormous media storm in Turkey following these events. Many Turks sent letters to the newspapers to express their deep disgust. The widow, Susanne Geske, earned tremendous admiration for her words in a TV interview the day after the massacre. She said she forgave the murderers of her husband, the way Christ forgave his murderers, citing Jesus' prayer, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." This is the reason why she wants to stay in Malatya with her children. Many letters to the newspapers are saying that now they really want to read the New Testament or even to describe themselves as Christians, since they no longer want to have anything to do with Islam.
This brutal attack is not really the act of a group of deluded youth, since the media has been provoking antagonism against Christians for a long time. One of the most harmless media lies is that Christian are paying Muslims to convert to Christianity; one of the more disturbing is that Christians offer prostitutes to Muslims, in order to entice them to become Christians. Two events related to the funeral of Necati Aydin serve to illustrate the deep ambivalence of Turkish society toward Christians. When his coffin was to be flown from Malatya to Izmir, it would not fit into the x-ray machine in airport security. The Turkish newspapers reported that the airport security staff simply broke the handles off the coffin, a sign of their feelings. And during his funeral, one of the police officers standing guard over the funeral called one of the mourners "a son of a whore."
Last Sunday (22 April 2007) the services of many Protestant churches took place under heavy police guard. In one small congregation in one of the parts of Istanbul, two top local police officials came to enquire about their security needs and to urgently suggest the installation of an alarm system and security cameras. And because of the continuing massive threats, many pastors are now accompanied by security guards. This causes great concern for believers in Turkey. In spite of truly positive developments in the realm of freedom of religion in recent years, they now see their freedom of religion as deeply threatened.
END
Subj: Turkey: German Seminary investigates Malatya murders
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
The following report from Martin Bucer Seminary (MBS) Bonn, Germany, was compiled by Titus Vogt, MBS Dean of International Programs. The English translation was done by Thomas K. Johnson, Ph.D., MBS Professor of Apologetics and Ethics.
Elizabeth Kendal WEA RLC
-----------------------------------------------------
THE LAST HOURS OF THE THREE MARTYRS:
Necati Aydin, Ugur Yuksel, and Tilmann Geske
The assassins deceived the victims in order to gain their trust.
Martin Bucer Seminary (Bonn, Germany) reconstructs the last hours of its student, Necati Aydin.
Martin Bucer Seminary (MBS) Dean for International Programs, Titus Vogt, led an investigation into the tragic events of 18 April 2007 by means of putting together the statements from all the witnesses. MBS remains close to the victims, survivors, and witnesses to the brutal murder in Malatya through its Turkish branch, as one of the victims, Necati Aydin, was their student. Until now, MBS has hesitated to give all the details to the public, but MBS President Thomas Schirrmacher has concluded now that nothing stands in the way of a full public statement of all the details.
MURDERERS SPENT MONTHS SURREPTITIOUSLY GAINING THE TRUST OF THE VICTIMS
Some months ago the murderers gained the trust of their intended victims. To do this, the assassins indicated an interest in the Christian faith and said they wanted more information about the Bible and its contents. What deception could be more powerful to Bible publishers who were themselves adult converts from Islam to Christianity? Under this guise, they met repeatedly with their future victims. Clearly the attack was planned well in advance.
On the morning of 18 April, two of the murderers came to the office of Zirve Publishing House in Malatya, which is an extension of a Protestant publisher based in Istanbul, with distribution offices in various Turkish cities. Among other things, they discussed the Christian faith with Necati Aydin, as they had done frequently over the previous months. On this particular morning, in addition to Tilmann Geske, the bookkeeper, Emin M., was also in the office. Everything seemed to be completely normal. In the course of the morning, M. left the office, not suspecting that he would never see Aydin and Geske alive again.
Shortly thereafter the three other assassins arrived and tied up the first two victims, while they threatened them with pistols. Two days before, the assassins had been taken into custody because of wielding weapons in public, but they had been set free because they were only carrying warning pistols.
As soon as the victims were tied up, the murderers began stabbing them with knives all over their bodies. A short time later Ugur Yuksel came into the office; he was immediately grabbed by the murderers and tied up. Right after that Gokhan H., also a Christian, stopped by the Zirve office, but he could not open the door, because it was locked from inside and the lock was jammed. H. tried to call the office and finally reached Ugur on the telephone. Ugur said that the planned meeting was not going to be held in the Zirve office; it would instead be held in a particular hotel. H. had the impression that something was wrong, so he called a friend in the city. This friend advised him to call the police, which Gokham H. did.
When the police arrived a few minutes later, the victims were still alive. The police demanded that the criminals open the door, at which they slit the throats of the victims. When the police forced the door and stormed the office, they found Aydin and Geske already dead. Yuksel was still alive and was rushed to a local hospital. In spite of emergency surgery and 51 units of blood, he died of his numerous and massive knife wounds.
The autopsy reports lead to the following picture: The bodies were covered with about 156 knife wounds in the pelvis area, lower body, anus, abdomen, and back. Their fingertips had been sliced repeatedly; and they had massive slashes on their necks which severed the windpipe and oesophagus.
The distinctively ritual manner of the murder, particularly the slicing of fingertips, is convincing observers of the consciously religious motivation of the assassins. The perpetrators seem to have been following the instructions of Sure 8:12, from the Koran. There it says (in the Rudi Paret German translation of the Koran), "I will strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers. Flay their necks (with a sword) and strike every finger." The last half of the sentence is translated in even more striking terms in some versions. In the Rassoul and Zaidan translation it says, "chop off every finger;" the Azhar and Ahmadeyya translation says, "chop off every finger tip."
Three of the attackers were arrested directly in the office, where the attack was occurring; two tried to escape by climbing down an external downspout pipe. One more attacker was arrested in the second floor of the building, one floor below the crime scene. The final assassin, who is described by the others as the leader of the group, fell to the street from a significant height when the downspout pipe broke off from the wall of the building. He was brought to a hospital and spent some days in a coma, but he is now awake and is being questioned by police.
In the course of the next few days, some other suspects were taken into custody, including the son of a mayor (AKP party) from a town near to Malatya.
FIRST TURKISH MARTYRS SINCE 1923
At a press conference a day after the attack, Pastor Ihsan Ozbek (from Ankara), President of the Association of Protestant Churches in Turkey, said "Yesterday Turkey was buried in the darkness of the Middle East." He compared the common, country-wide, widely hawked conspiracy theories which accuse Christians of conspiring against Muslims with the medieval witch hunts in Europe. These conspiracy theories contain a deep phobia of foreign missionaries. In responding to an inquiry of why Geske, a foreign missionary, was in Malatya, Ozbek said this is already an unconscionable question, since in a truly democratic state one may not ask "why are you or they in Malatya?" The pastor used very pointed words to portray the background of the murders which led the Turkish media to entitle a report on the news conference, "A gruesome brutality, but no surprise." Ozbek said he was convinced that, "it is not the last martyrdom, though we hope from the bottom of our hearts that it could be the last martyrdom."
Necati Aydin and Ugur Yuksel are the first known Muslim converts to Christianity to be martyred, since the founding of the Turkish Republic in 1923. Ugur Yuksel was buried according to Islamic/Alevitic rituals at the orders of his family which vehemently denies his Christian faith. The German victim was buried on 20 April in the Armenian cemetery in Malatya, following the wishes of his widow. This occurred after a bitter fight with the local authorities who unconditionally wanted to prevent Geske's burial in their city. Because of pressure applied by the German government, his burial was only delayed by three hours, from 2:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. Eye witnesses say that about 100 mourners from across Turkey came to his funeral. Necati Aydin, who was pastor of the local Protestant church in addition to his work in the Zirve Publishing House, was laid to rest on Saturday, 21 April, in his home town of Izmir. The roughly 500 mourners who attended his funeral were very deeply moved.
MEDIA STORM IN TURKEY
There has been an enormous media storm in Turkey following these events. Many Turks sent letters to the newspapers to express their deep disgust. The widow, Susanne Geske, earned tremendous admiration for her words in a TV interview the day after the massacre. She said she forgave the murderers of her husband, the way Christ forgave his murderers, citing Jesus' prayer, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." This is the reason why she wants to stay in Malatya with her children. Many letters to the newspapers are saying that now they really want to read the New Testament or even to describe themselves as Christians, since they no longer want to have anything to do with Islam.
This brutal attack is not really the act of a group of deluded youth, since the media has been provoking antagonism against Christians for a long time. One of the most harmless media lies is that Christian are paying Muslims to convert to Christianity; one of the more disturbing is that Christians offer prostitutes to Muslims, in order to entice them to become Christians. Two events related to the funeral of Necati Aydin serve to illustrate the deep ambivalence of Turkish society toward Christians. When his coffin was to be flown from Malatya to Izmir, it would not fit into the x-ray machine in airport security. The Turkish newspapers reported that the airport security staff simply broke the handles off the coffin, a sign of their feelings. And during his funeral, one of the police officers standing guard over the funeral called one of the mourners "a son of a whore."
Last Sunday (22 April 2007) the services of many Protestant churches took place under heavy police guard. In one small congregation in one of the parts of Istanbul, two top local police officials came to enquire about their security needs and to urgently suggest the installation of an alarm system and security cameras. And because of the continuing massive threats, many pastors are now accompanied by security guards. This causes great concern for believers in Turkey. In spite of truly positive developments in the realm of freedom of religion in recent years, they now see their freedom of religion as deeply threatened.
END
Thursday, April 12, 2007
UN Human Rights Council: Protecting Religion
Date: Thursday 12 April 2007
Subj: UN Human Rights Council: Protecting Religion
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
---------------------------------------------
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: PROTECTING RELIGION
---------------------------------------------
On Friday 30 March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution urging a global prohibition on the public "defamation" of religion, "particularly" (specifically) Islam.
The resolution was presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). On 12 April 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights passed the OIC-sponsored resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" (Link 1). According to that resolution the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was to continue examining the situation of Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, monitor defamation of Islam, and report back to the Commission at its 62nd session (April 2006) and make recommendations to improve the situation.
It was phenomenally convenient that the violent "Cartoon Intifadas" of February 2006, which erupted some five months after the controversial Danish cartoons were originally published, occurred only weeks before the UNCHR was due to reconsider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion". You don't have to be too cynical to wonder if the OIC and Arab league sponsored not only the resolution but the Cartoon Intifadas as well.
On 15 March 2006 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace the discredited UNCHR with a restructured, reformed, new and improved UN Human Rights Council. The OIC resolution was presented to UN Human Rights Council on 30 March 2007. The fact that the Council is supposed to be promoting the protection of humans and their fundamental rights, not religions, was simply a non-issue with the majority of the Council.
The Council has no power beyond drawing attention to rights issues, and the non-binding resolution passed by 24 votes to 14, with 9 abstentions.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION
The following is an excerpt from the media release of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It would be fair to say that "defamation" in this context seems to mean any negative critique, as opposed to the dictionary definition: "To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel". (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions
http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on Combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media release from the OHCHR also provides summaries of the debate surrounding the presentation of the resolution.
Tehmina Janjua of Pakistan presented the resolution on behalf of the OIC, making it clear that it was Islam that was in particular need of protection. She asserted that profiling of Muslims constitutes racism. But this is false. "Muslim" is not a race. A "Muslim" is a person who adheres to Islam, which is religious and political but not racial. She complained that Muslims suffered from discrimination, but this is a totally different subject and has nothing to do with "defamation" of Islam. Even when Islam is "defamed" or criticised, that does not automatically lead to discrimination or persecution of Muslims. These human rights abuses arise primarily from poor governance and weak rule of law. In a robust liberal democracy with rule of law and a solid, moral, human rights base, ideas and religions can be criticised, scrutinised, publicly debated and even insensitively ridiculed without it inciting hatred of individuals, discrimination, persecution or backlash.
Birkitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany, representing the European Union (EU), expressed the EU position that dialogue is the best way forward in the ongoing struggle to end intolerance and discrimination without limiting freedom of religion and expression. She noted that adherents of religions other Islam were also suffering, notably Jews and Christians. She noted that it was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination as the two are of a different nature. She noted that various international covenants and declarations already forbid discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and she recommended that the Council remain focused on the rights of individuals.
Several other representatives also objected that the resolution was against defamation of religion rather than discrimination or persecution of individuals on the grounds of religious belief. Another objection was that there was no role envisaged for the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Paul Meyer of Canada reiterated Canada's strong belief in freedom of expression and expressed concern that freedom of expression was not included in the text. He also expressed concern that it was a religion, rather then the adherents of a religion, that was to receive protection. There were also objections to the inappropriateness of equating "defamation" of religion with a manifestation of racism.
Various other state representatives objected to the "unbalanced" and "selective" nature of the resolution. Several states complained that their requests for the resolution to be amended so it could be more balanced and inclusive of religions other than Islam were not taken into consideration. Still most of these objectors failed to even consider the inappropriateness of the Council on Human Rights advocating the protection of a religion rather than human rights.
Japan voted against the resolution on the grounds that the resolution was not inclusive and did not insist that all religions should be fully respected and not subjected to negative labelling. Presumably Japan would not extend the privilege of respect and positive affirmation to Aum Shinri Kyo (Aum Supreme Truth), a religion that through its violence and terrorism has demonstrated that it is unworthy of respect, and fully worthy of negative labelling.
Links
1) Human Rights Resolution 2005/3 "Combating Defamation of Religions" (2005)
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-3.doc
Subj: UN Human Rights Council: Protecting Religion
To: World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty News & Analysis
From: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal
---------------------------------------------
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL: PROTECTING RELIGION
---------------------------------------------
On Friday 30 March, the UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution urging a global prohibition on the public "defamation" of religion, "particularly" (specifically) Islam.
The resolution was presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). On 12 April 2005 the UN Commission on Human Rights passed the OIC-sponsored resolution entitled "Combating Defamation of Religions" (Link 1). According to that resolution the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was to continue examining the situation of Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, monitor defamation of Islam, and report back to the Commission at its 62nd session (April 2006) and make recommendations to improve the situation.
It was phenomenally convenient that the violent "Cartoon Intifadas" of February 2006, which erupted some five months after the controversial Danish cartoons were originally published, occurred only weeks before the UNCHR was due to reconsider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion". You don't have to be too cynical to wonder if the OIC and Arab league sponsored not only the resolution but the Cartoon Intifadas as well.
On 15 March 2006 the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace the discredited UNCHR with a restructured, reformed, new and improved UN Human Rights Council. The OIC resolution was presented to UN Human Rights Council on 30 March 2007. The fact that the Council is supposed to be promoting the protection of humans and their fundamental rights, not religions, was simply a non-issue with the majority of the Council.
The Council has no power beyond drawing attention to rights issues, and the non-binding resolution passed by 24 votes to 14, with 9 abstentions.
SUMMARY OF RESOLUTION
The following is an excerpt from the media release of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). It would be fair to say that "defamation" in this context seems to mean any negative critique, as opposed to the dictionary definition: "To damage the reputation, character, or good name of by slander or libel". (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action on Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions
http://www.ohchr.org/english/press/hrc/index.htm
In a resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) on Combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.
The result of the vote was as follows:
In favour (24): Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.
Against (14): Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom.
Abstentions (9): Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media release from the OHCHR also provides summaries of the debate surrounding the presentation of the resolution.
Tehmina Janjua of Pakistan presented the resolution on behalf of the OIC, making it clear that it was Islam that was in particular need of protection. She asserted that profiling of Muslims constitutes racism. But this is false. "Muslim" is not a race. A "Muslim" is a person who adheres to Islam, which is religious and political but not racial. She complained that Muslims suffered from discrimination, but this is a totally different subject and has nothing to do with "defamation" of Islam. Even when Islam is "defamed" or criticised, that does not automatically lead to discrimination or persecution of Muslims. These human rights abuses arise primarily from poor governance and weak rule of law. In a robust liberal democracy with rule of law and a solid, moral, human rights base, ideas and religions can be criticised, scrutinised, publicly debated and even insensitively ridiculed without it inciting hatred of individuals, discrimination, persecution or backlash.
Birkitta Maria Siefker-Eberle of Germany, representing the European Union (EU), expressed the EU position that dialogue is the best way forward in the ongoing struggle to end intolerance and discrimination without limiting freedom of religion and expression. She noted that adherents of religions other Islam were also suffering, notably Jews and Christians. She noted that it was problematic to reconcile defamation with discrimination as the two are of a different nature. She noted that various international covenants and declarations already forbid discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and she recommended that the Council remain focused on the rights of individuals.
Several other representatives also objected that the resolution was against defamation of religion rather than discrimination or persecution of individuals on the grounds of religious belief. Another objection was that there was no role envisaged for the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression. Paul Meyer of Canada reiterated Canada's strong belief in freedom of expression and expressed concern that freedom of expression was not included in the text. He also expressed concern that it was a religion, rather then the adherents of a religion, that was to receive protection. There were also objections to the inappropriateness of equating "defamation" of religion with a manifestation of racism.
Various other state representatives objected to the "unbalanced" and "selective" nature of the resolution. Several states complained that their requests for the resolution to be amended so it could be more balanced and inclusive of religions other than Islam were not taken into consideration. Still most of these objectors failed to even consider the inappropriateness of the Council on Human Rights advocating the protection of a religion rather than human rights.
Japan voted against the resolution on the grounds that the resolution was not inclusive and did not insist that all religions should be fully respected and not subjected to negative labelling. Presumably Japan would not extend the privilege of respect and positive affirmation to Aum Shinri Kyo (Aum Supreme Truth), a religion that through its violence and terrorism has demonstrated that it is unworthy of respect, and fully worthy of negative labelling.
Links
1) Human Rights Resolution 2005/3 "Combating Defamation of Religions" (2005)
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E-CN_4-RES-2005-3.doc