Major Stories – Page 33 – Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)

U.S. State Dept Religious Freedom Report Critical of OIC Efforts to Restrict Freedom

The U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report 2009 challenged the extremist efforts of the OIC in seeking to defy freedom of conscience and freedom of speech, and accounted the continuing abuses by many nations against religious freedom. Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) has held public protests against U.S. government and NGO engagement with the OIC to legitimize the OIC’s anti-freedom endeavors. On October 21, 2009, the U.S. Religious Freedom Commission provided Congressional testimony that U.N. “Religious Defamation” resolutions created by the OIC are leading to efforts at creating a “Global Blasphemy Law.”

VOA Report: US Religious Freedom Report Hits Speech Curbs
— VOA reports: “The U.S. State Department’s annual report on world-wide religious freedom, released Monday, was critical of what it says are international efforts to limit free speech in the name of combating defamation of religion. The Organization of the Islamic Conference, or OIC, has been pushing such anti-defamation measures in U.N. bodies.”
— “The State Department report says the United States deplores actions that show disrespect for religious traditions, including Islam.”
— “But it says the broad anti-defamation measures being sought by the Islamic Conference would have the effect of curbing debate about religious issues and should be discarded in favor of outreach and government defense of religious freedom and free speech.”
— “The comments were the most prominent to date by the United States on efforts led by the OIC to get anti-defamation resolutions approved in the U.N. General Assembly and the U.N. Human Rights Commission.”

— Report Executive Summary Excerpts:
— “Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom”
— “In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the “defamation of religions” concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.”
— “The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.”
— “The forcible return of individuals from another country to face persecution or abuse in their home country in retribution for their religious activism is also of grave concern to the United States. During the reporting period, the Government of China reportedly sought the forcible return of several Muslims living in other countries, including Syria; during previous periods it had done so with Muslims living in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Some had reportedly protested restrictions on the Hajj and encouraged other Muslims to pray and fast during Ramadan. There were credible reports that the Government of China tortured and, in some cases, executed individuals who had been forcibly returned, including some who advocated for religious freedom. Similarly, the Government of Uzbekistan continued to pursue the extradition of suspected Uzbek religious extremists from third countries, particularly from Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Ukraine, including those who had sought asylum. During the reporting period, at least two individuals seeking political asylum in Kyrgyzstan were forcibly extradited to Uzbekistan and imprisoned on religious extremism charges.”

— Executive Summary on Key Threats to Religious Freedom

Afghanistan
— “The Constitution states that Islam is the ‘religion of the state’ and that ‘no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” In 2004, the Constitution accorded Shi’a and Sunni Islam equal recognition. It proclaims that “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.” The Government took limited steps to increase religious freedom; however, serious problems remained. In April 2009 President Karzai signed a controversial law limiting the rights of women from the Shi’a minority. International partners of Afghanistan objected strongly to the law. The President agreed to suspend enactment of the law until the Ministry of Justice had reviewed and amended it. The review process was ongoing at the end of the reporting period. Although the Government and political leaders aspire to a national environment that respects the right to religious freedom, the residual effects of years of jihad against the former Soviet Union, Taliban rule, civil strife, popular suspicion regarding outside influence of foreigners, and still weak democratic institutions hindered the realization of this aspiration. Intolerance was manifested in harassment and occasional violence against religious minorities and Muslims perceived as not respecting Islamic strictures. Within the Muslim population, relations among the different sects continued to be difficult. Non-Muslim minority groups, including Christians, Hindus, and Sikhs, continued to face incidents of discrimination and persecution. Many citizens understand conversion as contravening the tenets of Islam and Shari’a, and most local Christians do not publicly state their beliefs or gather openly to worship.”

Egypt
— “The Constitution provides for freedom of belief and the practice of religious rites, although the Government places restrictions on these rights in practice. Islam is the official state religion, and the principles of Shari’a (Islamic law) are the primary source for legislation. The status of respect for religious freedom by the Government declined somewhat during the reporting period, based on the failure to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of increased incidents of sectarian violence. There were some positive developments, however, including actions by the courts and the Ministry of Interior that opened the door for the possibility that all of the country’s Baha’is would eventually be issued national identification documents that contain a dash or the term “other” in the religious affiliation field. The Government continued to sponsor “reconciliation sessions” following sectarian attacks, which generally precluded the prosecution of perpetrators of crimes against Copts and prevented their recourse to the judicial system for restitution. This practice contributed to a climate of impunity that encouraged repetition of the assaults. Members of non-Muslim religious minorities officially recognized by the Government generally worshipped without harassment. Christians, however, and members of the Baha’i Faith–which is not recognized by the Government–face personal and collective discrimination in many areas. The Government detained members of Islamic religious minority groups, including Quranists and Shi’a, and detained and harassed some converts from Islam to Christianity and pressured them to revert to Islam. One Christian convert told U.S. officials that government authorities had raped her. A court sentenced a Coptic priest to five years of hard labor for officiating at a wedding between a Copt and a convert from Islam who allegedly presented false identification documentation. There continued to be religious discrimination and sectarian tension in society during the period covered by this report, and Egypt’s quasi-governmental National Council on Human Rights expressed concern in its fifth report, released in May 2009, over growing sectarian tension, including the burning of an unlicensed Coptic Church and of homes belonging to Baha’is.”

Indonesia
— “The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the Government generally respected religious freedom in practice; however, ongoing government restrictions, particularly among unrecognized religions and sects of the recognized religions considered ‘deviant,’ were significant exceptions. In some cases, however, the Government tolerated discrimination against and the abuse of religious minorities by societal groups and private actors. Some groups used violence and intimidation to close at least nine churches and 12 Ahmadiyya mosques, and many perpetrators were not brought to justice. Even though the central Government holds authority over religious matters, it did not try to overturn any local laws that restricted rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Members of minority religious groups continued to experience some official discrimination in the form of administrative difficulties, often in the context of civil registration of marriages and births or the issuance of identity cards.”

Iran
— “The Constitution provides that ‘other Islamic denominations are to be accorded full respect’ and recognizes the country’s pre-Islamic religious groups–Zoroastrians, Christians, and Jews–as ‘protected’ religious minorities. Article 4 of the Constitution states that all laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. Despite constitutional guarantees, in practice those who are not Shi’a Muslims faced substantial discrimination. Respect for religious freedom in the country continued to deteriorate. Government rhetoric and actions created a threatening atmosphere for nearly all non-Shi’a religious groups, most notably for Baha’is, as well as for Sufi Muslims, evangelical Christians, and members of the Jewish community. Reports of government imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, and discrimination based on religious beliefs continued during the reporting period. Baha’i religious groups reported arbitrary arrest and prolonged detention, expulsion from universities, and confiscation of property. Government-controlled broadcast and print media intensified negative campaigns against religious minorities, particularly Baha’is, during the reporting period. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued a virulent anti-Semitic campaign, questioning the existence and scope of the Holocaust. Sufis faced an increasing repression campaign including arbitrary arrest and detention, confiscation of property, and defamatory attacks in newspapers and in sermons by Shi’a clerics. The Government vigilantly enforced its prohibition on proselytizing by some Christian groups by closely monitoring their activities, closing some churches, and arresting Christian converts. Laws based on religious affiliation continued to be used to stifle freedom of expression, including through imprisonment of public figures.”

Iraq
— “The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice for Muslims and non-Muslims alike. The Government generally endorsed these rights, but violence by terrorists, extremists, and criminal gangs restricted the free exercise of religion and posed a significant threat to the country’s vulnerable religious minorities. Radical Islamic elements from outside the Government exerted pressure on individuals and groups to conform to extremist interpretations of Islam’s precepts; sectarian violence, including attacks on clergy and places of worship, hampered the ability to practice religion freely. The Government’s growing will and capacity to challenge its militant opponents resulted in a decrease in the overall level of violence and the Government became increasingly successful in restoring security, in a generally nonsectarian manner, throughout the country. Since 2003 the Government has generally not engaged in the persecution of any religious group, calling instead for tolerance and acceptance of all religious minorities. The overall magnitude of sectarian violence declined during the reporting period, but numerous incidents occurred. The general lawlessness that permitted criminal gangs, terrorists, and insurgents to victimize citizens with impunity affected persons of all ethnicities and religious groups, and the mass-casualty attacks primarily targeted the majority Shi’a population. Very few of the perpetrators of violence committed against Christians and other religious minorities in the country have been punished; arrests following a murder or other crime are rare.”

Malaysia
— “The Constitution of Malaysia provides for religious freedom; however, other constitutional provisions designate Islam as “the religion of the Federation,” define all ethnic Malays as Muslim, give the Government authority to regulate Islamic religious affairs, and prohibit the propagation of other faiths among Muslims. In general, there were few reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice. Malaysia maintains a dual legal system with both secular and Shari’a courts, the latter of which have jurisdiction over the Muslim population in certain civil matters. Shari’a courts generally prohibited those officially registered as Muslims from legally converting to another faith. Those who attempted conversion were deemed “apostates” and sometimes sent to religious “rehabilitation” centers, where they received coerced religious instruction. The Government maintained a list of 56 “deviant” Islamic sects, and members of these and other banned groups may also be subject to “rehabilitation.” Officials at the state level sometimes interfered with mosque activity by using mosques to convey political messages, preventing certain imams from speaking, and overseeing the content of sermons. Religious minorities remained generally free to practice their beliefs. Nevertheless, over the past several years, many have expressed concern that the civil court system has gradually ceded jurisdiction to Shari’a courts, particularly in areas of family law involving disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims. Religious minorities continued to face alleged violations of property rights and limitations on religious expression. The Hindu community continued to express concern about the demolition of Hindu temples.”

Nigeria
— “The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, including freedom to change one’s religion or belief and freedom to manifest and propagate one’s religion or belief through worship, teaching, practice, and observance. The Constitution prohibits state and local governments from adopting a state religion or giving preferential treatment to any religious or ethnic community, but the Constitution also provides that states may establish courts based on common law or customary law systems. Twelve northern states use Shari’a courts to adjudicate criminal and civil matters for Muslims and common law and customary law courts to adjudicate cases involving non-Muslims. The Government generally respected religious freedom in practice, although local political actors stoked sectarian violence with impunity, occasionally using religion as a catalyst. Violence, tension, and hostility between Christian and Muslim communities increased, as political and socioeconomic conflicts often divided persons along religious lines and were expressed in the targeting of religious symbols and spaces. Sectarian violence, exacerbated by indigene/settler laws, discriminatory employment practices, livelihood differences, and resource competition, was particularly acute in the Middle Belt and served to heighten tensions between religious groups, even in parts of the country that did not experience the violence. Religious differences often paralleled and exacerbated differences between ethnic groups. While the law prohibited religious discrimination in employment and other practices, some private businesses continued to discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity in their hiring practices. In many communities, Muslims or Christians who converted to another religion reportedly faced ostracism by members of their former religion.”

Pakistan
— “The country is an Islamic republic; Islam is the state religion, and the Constitution requires that laws be consistent with Islamic principles. Despite some positive steps to improve the treatment of religious minorities during the reporting period, discussed in Part III, serious problems remained. Law enforcement personnel abused religious minorities in custody. Security forces and other government agencies did not adequately prevent or address societal abuse against minorities. Discriminatory legislation and the Government’s failure to take action against societal forces hostile to those who practice a different religious belief fostered religious intolerance, acts of violence, and intimidation against religious minorities. Specific laws that discriminate against religious minorities include anti-Ahmadi and blasphemy laws that provide the death penalty for defiling Islam or its prophets. The Ahmadiyya community continued to face governmental and societal discrimination and legal bars to the practice of its religious beliefs. Members of minority Islamic sects also claimed governmental discrimination. Freedom of speech is subject to “reasonable” restrictions in the interests of the “glory of Islam.” Relations among religious communities were tense. Societal discrimination against religious minorities was widespread, and societal violence against such groups occurred. Non-governmental actors, including terrorist and extremist groups and individuals, targeted religious congregations. A domestic insurgency led by Sunni Taliban elements increased acts of violence and intimidation against religious minorities and exacerbated existing sectarian tensions. Imposition of extremist religious views on the majority Muslims loomed large as a threat throughout the reporting period due to the increased activity of an extremist insurgency, particularly in the Swat Valley. In various incidents, Muslims with liberal views, particularly women, were asked to follow a strict version of Islam and were threatened with dire consequences if they did not abide by it.”

Saudi Arabia
— “Freedom of religion is neither recognized nor protected under Saudi law and it is severely restricted in practice. The Government confirmed that, as a matter of policy, it guarantees and protects the right to private worship for all, including non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious services. This right was not always respected in practice and is not defined in law. The King’s official title is “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” reflecting the importance the royal family attaches to upholding Islam within the country as a central pillar of its legitimacy, both domestically and within the global Muslim community. The deep connection between the Al-Saud family and the religious establishment results in significant pressure on the state and society to adhere to the official Saudi interpretation of Islam and conservative societal norms. Some Muslims who do not adhere to this interpretation faced significant political, economic, legal, social, and religious discrimination, including limited employment and educational opportunities, underrepresentation in official institutions, and restrictions on the practice of their faith and on the building of places of worship and community centers. The largest group affected was the Shi’a. Moreover, the public practice of non-Muslim religions is prohibited, and the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (CPVPV) continued to conduct raids on private non-Muslim religious gatherings. Although the Government also confirmed its stated policy to protect the right to possess and use personal religious materials, it did not provide for this right in law or practice. There were fewer charges of harassment and abuse at the hands of the CPVPV than in previous years, but incidents of CPVPV excesses continued to cause many non-Muslims to worship in secret, for fear of the police and CPVPV. Saudi textbooks continued to contain overtly intolerant statements against Jews and Christians and subtly intolerant statements against Shi’a and other religious groups, notwithstanding Government efforts to review educational materials to remove or revise such statements.”

Somalia
— “Although the Transitional Federal Charter provides for religious freedom, there were limits on the extent to which this right was respected in practice. The Charter establishes Islam as the national religion, and proselytizing for any religion other than Islam is strictly prohibited. Moreover, statutes and regulations provide no effective recourse for violations of religious freedom. The independent regions of Somaliland and Puntland establish Islam as the official religion. On May 10, 2009, the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) ratified legislation to implement Shari’a law nationwide. In practice, the TFG does not have the capacity or mechanisms to implement the legislation uniformly. The TFG generally did not enforce legal protections of religious freedom. There was a decline in the status of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period, primarily as a result of extremist militias taking control over significant territory in the country. Militia groups, particularly those associated with the U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization al-Shabaab, often imposed through violence a strict interpretation of Islam on communities under their control. In religiously motivated violence, al-Shabaab destroyed the tombs of revered Sufi clerics and killed clerics, civilians, and government officials of Sufi orientation. In targeted assassinations, members of these extremist groups killed TFG officials and allies they denounced as non-Muslims or apostates. There were also reports that individuals who do not practice Islam experienced discrimination, violence, and detention because of their religious beliefs. There were no public places of worship for non-Muslims in the country. A political process to establish peace and stability in the country continued.”

Sudan
— “The Interim National Constitution (INC) provided for freedom of religion throughout the country; however, the INC enshrined Shari’a as a source of legislation in the north, and the official laws and policies of the Government of National Unity (GNU) favor Islam in the north. The Constitution of Southern Sudan provides for freedom of religion in the south, and other laws and policies of the Government of South Sudan contributed to the generally free practice of religion in the 10 states of the south. Although the GNU generally did not vigorously enforce its strictest restrictions on religious freedom, it generally did not respect religious plurality and continued to place some restrictions on Christians in the north. Even so, unlike in prior reporting periods, Christian churches in the north reported that they held regular religious services and large holiday celebrations without government interference. There were some reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief, or practice, and religious prejudices remained prevalent throughout the country.”

— Executive Summary on China
— “The Constitution protects only “normal religious activities,” and officials have wide latitude to interpret the meaning of ‘normal.’ Citizens do not have the ability to bring legal action based on the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom. The Government officially restricts legal religious practice to the five (Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Catholic, and Protestant) state-sanctioned “patriotic religious associations.” The treatment of religious groups varied significantly among different religions and different locations. During the reporting period, officials continued to scrutinize and in some cases interfere with the activities of religious and spiritual groups. In some areas government officials violated the rights of members of unregistered Protestant and Catholic groups, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and members of groups the Government determined to be “evil religions,” especially the Falun Gong. The Government strongly opposed the profession of loyalty to religious leadership outside the country, most notably the Pope and the Dalai Lama. Government officials asked some unregistered Protestant house churches in Beijing to stop meeting during the 2008 Olympic Games.
— China – Tibetan Autonomous Region and Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region
The Government’s repression of religious freedom remained severe in Tibetan areas and in the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR). Religious adherents in the XUAR, the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR), and other Tibetan areas suffered severe restrictions on religious activity, as a consequence of the Government’s tendency to conflate concerns about separatism and religious extremism with peaceful expressions of religious beliefs and political views. In the XUAR, the Government’s concerns also included terrorism. After the March 2008 protests in the TAR and other Tibetan regions, the Government harshly criticized the Dalai Lama and accused him of instigating the protests. Ethnic Tibetans and Uighurs had difficulty obtaining passports from the Government, limiting their ability to travel abroad for religious purposes. Tibetan Buddhist monks and nuns also reported that they were frequently denied registration at hotels, particularly during sensitive times, including the period around the Beijing Olympics.

Communist North Korea
— “Although the Constitution provides for “freedom of religious belief,” genuine religious freedom does not exist, and there was no change in the extremely poor level of respect for religious freedom during the reporting period. The Government severely restricted religious freedom, including organized religious activity, except that which was supervised tightly by officially recognized groups linked to the Government. Some foreigners who have visited the country stated that services at state-authorized churches appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime. The 2008 Korean Institute for National Unification White Paper indicated that the regime used authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens were strictly barred from entering places of worship. Defectors reported the regime increased its investigation, repression, and persecution of unauthorized religious groups in recent years. Despite these restrictions, reports indicated contacts with religious personnel both inside the country and across the border in China appeared to be increasing. In June 2009 South Korean activists reported that Ri Hyon Ok was publicly executed for distributing Bibles in the city of Ryongchon near the Chinese border. She was allegedly accused of spying and organizing dissidents. These claims could not be independently verified. An estimated 150,000 to 200,000 persons were believed to be held in political prison camps in remote areas, some for religious reasons. Prison conditions are harsh; torture and starvation are common. Refugees and defectors who had been in prison stated that prisoners held on the basis of their religious beliefs generally were treated worse than other inmates.”

Video of Briefing on State Department Report on Religious Freedom

U.S.: Nation of Islam Hate Group Leader Louis Farrakhan speaks on the Taliban

Multiple media sources have reported on the Nation of Islam hate group’s leader Louis Farrakhan speaking about the Taliban at Memphis, Tennessee public meeting where local Memphis officials attended. In the public meeting in Memphis, hate group leader Farrakhan explained America’s war against the extremist Taliban as based on an oil deal gone sour.

— Tri-State Defender reports: “Farrakhan is a self-described teacher. And while in Memphis, his subject lessons included: the history of the Taliban and how the war got started; how men and women should view and treat themselves and each other; what can be done to help children; and how the definition of terrorism should include those in Washington who vote their self interest even when their position is not in the best interest of America.”

— Commercial Appeal reports:
— “He said the U.S. government invited the Taliban to Washington in July 2001 to ask the extremist Islamic group’s permission to build a pipeline through the Middle East to get oil to the Persian Gulf.”
— “‘You either accept a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs,’ he said American leaders told Taliban leaders, but the Taliban would not approve.”
— “President George W. Bush’s administration then used the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a reason to invade Afghanistan, Farrakhan said.”
— “‘It has nothing to do with anything but oil,’ he said, and the American government used Osama bin Laden as a ‘patsy’ to make Americans hate Islam.”

— Reported in the NOI’s “Final Call,” Farrakhan also claimed that American cities would resemble Gaza and Lebanon: “What you saw in Gaza and Lebanon you will soon see in the inner cities of America. You have become toxic waste and the people at the top are planning our destruction as I speak.”

— “The Nation of Islam” listed as a “black separatist” “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Nation of Islam Hate Group Leader Louis Farrakhan speaks in Memphis on Taliban and other topics (AP Photo/Lance Murphey)

Rifqa Bary tells Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) she was abused, was supposed to have arranged marriage

Rifqa Bary tells Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) she was abused, was supposed to have arranged marriage
— Orlando Sentinel reports: “Ohio teen runaway Fathima Rifqa Bary told Florida investigators about her religious conversion, explained how and why she ended up in Florida and detailed a fearful life with her Muslim family, including the fact she was supposed to be in an arranged marriage.”
— “A month after she ran away from her home outside Columbus, the 17-year-old girl met with several investigators with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for more than two hours and answered questions about her journey to Florida and her family life.”
— “Rifqa’s case drew attention from investigators after she was reported missing by her parents in Ohio and then surfaced in Orlando while living with husband-and-wife pastors. She claimed that she had converted to Christianity and feared that her Muslim father would harm or kill her because of her religious conversion.”

— Video

— Audio

Florida: Interview Released In Religious Runaway Case — Rifqa Bary case
— WESH: “Over 100 pages of an Aug. 24 interview with 17-year-old Rifqa Bary was released Thursday.”

— PDF: Rifqa Bary Interview With FDLE

— Florida: Judge Orders Christian Convert Runaway to Return to Ohio

Rifqa Bary, 17 - reports say she is threatened with death by her family in Ohio for converting from Islam to Christianity

U.S. Religious Freedom Commission Testimony that U.N. “Religious Defamation” Resolutions Leading to “Global Blasphemy Law”

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Testimony of Leonard A. Leo Before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) on Implications of the Promotion of “Defamation of Religions” — October 21, 2009

— “Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing on this important and timely issue. For a number of years, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has been monitoring closely, and speaking out against, the campaign by some countries to create a global blasphemy law through the passage of UN resolutions against the so-called ‘defamation of religions.'”
— “While they may sound tolerant and progressive, these resolutions do not solve the very real problems of persecution and discrimination suffered by the adherents of many religions around the world. Rather, they exacerbate these problems. The “defamation of religions” concept promotes intolerance and human rights violations, creating wide latitude for governments to restrict free expression and religious freedom. In addition, the concept deviates sharply from the historically rooted object of international human rights protections by addressing the interests of religious institutions and interpretations, rather than the rights of individuals. ”
— “Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims. Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined. The resolutions also do not define what would make a statement defamatory to religions or explain who decides this question. For its part, the OIC appears to deem any criticism of Islam or Muslims to be religiously defamatory speech — a view that goes well beyond the existing legal concept of defamation, which protects individuals against false statements of fact that damage their reputation and livelihood.”
— “In terms of states’ practices, there is no universal international approach toward ‘defamation of religions.’ The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights conducted a survey in 2008 and found no common understanding of the concept among those countries that said they had laws on the issue. Instead, the laws surveyed addressed ‘somewhat different phenomena and appl[ied] various terms such as contempt, ridicule, outrage and disrespect to connote defamation.'”
— “What should we glean from this narrow focus on Islam and the ambiguity of the applicable legal standard? For the Commission, it signals that the ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions are a poorly veiled attempt to export the repressive blasphemy laws found in some OIC countries to the international level. Under these laws, criminal charges can be levied against individuals for defaming, denigrating, insulting, offending, disparaging, and blaspheming Islam, often resulting in gross human rights violations. In Pakistan, for example, the domestic law makes blasphemy against Islam a criminal offense subject to severe penalties, including death. Extremists have abused these broad provisions to intimidate members of religious minorities, including members of disfavored minority Muslim sects, and others with whom they disagree, and unscrupulous individuals have found them to be useful tools to settle personal scores. Blasphemy allegations in Pakistan, which are often false, have resulted in imprisonment on the basis of religion or belief, as well as vigilante violence resulting in the death of accused individuals.”
— “The ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions usually come before the UN General Assembly in the fall and the UN Human Rights Council in the spring, and they continue to pass each year in each body. Yet there is some good news to report: the international community is starting — though I would stress only starting — to understand the problems with these resolutions. The last three times they were considered the votes in favor decreased from a majority to a plurality of members. At both the March 2008 and March 2009 Human Rights Council sessions, as well as the December 2008 General Assembly, the combined number of no votes and abstentions outnumbered the yes votes, although the resolutions still passed. The Commission hopes that this trend will continue when the expected ‘defamation of religions’ resolution comes before the General Assembly later this fall. To that end, we are working on a number of fronts, including with various Members of Congress, to encourage UN member states to oppose these resolutions. The Commission welcomed Secretary Clinton’s recent remarks in New York affirming the United States’ continued opposition, and we urge the State Department to continue vigorously to engage all governments to urge them to vote no.”
— “Like any smart tactician that detects a weakening of support, the OIC is diversifying its push for banning certain forms of speech by reaching into other venues and masking its objective through other language. The OIC sought, but failed, to insert language against the ‘defamation of religions’ in the outcome document of the April 2009 Durban Review Conference. Instead, a compromise was reached to include a phrase deploring ‘the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief.’ This is a somewhat better approach because it focuses on individuals, not religions, and does not attach legal prohibitions or punishments.”
— “The OIC also has attempted to include the ‘defamation of religions’ concept into UN resolutions dealing with the freedom of expression. At the most recent UN Human Rights Council session, the United States worked with Egypt to jointly sponsor a compromise freedom of expression resolution that sought to find common ground between the ‘defamation’ proponents and opponents. Like the Durban II Conference document, this resolution does not mention ‘defamation of religions,’ but rather focuses on negative religious stereotyping, thereby rightly keeping the focus on individuals rather than belief systems. It also does not call for any laws against such stereotyping, but instead expresses concern about it.”
— “However, many in the human rights community were surprised by the United States’ co-sponsorship of this resolution because it condemned ‘any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence’ and called on states to ‘take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations’ to address such advocacy. Having just returned from Commission delegations to the European Union and Holy See, I know that many of our EU partners were equally surprised. The language on advocacy of hatred constituting incitement is taken from Article 20(2) of the International Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR. Article 20(2) also requires states to enact laws against such incitement — a requirement on which the United States has placed a reservation to the extent that doing so would violate U.S. constitutional free expression guarantees. To be sure, the U.S./Egypt resolution does not expressly call for legal prohibitions, and therefore does not run afoul of the U.S’s reservation, and the U.S. previously has supported UN resolutions on religious intolerance and discrimination that condemned incitement but did not require laws against it.”
— “But the Commission is concerned that this use of the incitement language is a Trojan Horse for the ‘defamation of religions’ efforts. The United States and other supporters of free expression therefore must remain vigilant against attempts to conflate ‘defamation of religions’ and Article 20(2) incitement. In addition to seeking a new anti-blasphemy norm through the ‘defamation’ resolutions, the OIC has argued in various UN contexts that speech insulting or criticizing religions is outlawed under existing international law norms against incitement — citing ICCPR Article 20(2).”
— “Article 20(2) has always been and should continue to be a limited exception to the fundamental individual freedoms of expression and religion meant to protect individuals from violence or discrimination, not to protect religious beliefs from criticism. The United States should recognize that the defamation proponents’ efforts to redefine and significantly broaden this provision are of serious concern.”
— “National or international laws purporting to ban criticism or ‘defamation’ of religions are not the solution to the very real problems of religious intolerance and discrimination. In fact, such prohibitions do more harm than good, as evidenced by the human rights abuses perpetrated under them in countries such as Pakistan. The United States should continue strongly to oppose, and urge other UN members to oppose, both the ‘defamation of religions’ resolutions and all efforts to reinterpret ICCPR Article 20(2) to encompass allegedly religiously defamatory speech.”

“Expert: UN resolutions would create ‘global blasphemy law'”
— Christian Post reports: “The so-called ‘defamation of religions’ UN resolutions would create a ‘global blasphemy law,’ the chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom warned on Wednesday.”
— “USCIRF Chair Leonard A Leo testified to Members of Congress on the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission that although the resolutions proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference sounded ‘tolerant and progressive,’ they would in reality ‘exacerbate’ religious persecution and discrimination around the world.”
— “Although the ‘defamation’ resolutions purport to protect religions generally, the only religion and religious adherents that are specifically mentioned are Islam and Muslims,’ pointed out Leo, who noted USCIRF has been closely monitoring the resolutions for several years.”
— “‘Aside from Islam, the resolutions do not specify which religions are deserving of protection, or explain how or by whom this would be determined.'”
— “Out of concern that the resolutions would be abused to oppress religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, Christian as well as secular human rights groups launched several campaigns this year alerting UN members to the potential danger of such proposals.”

Research Notes on UNHRC Resolutions and Texts:

— October 2, 2009: UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 does not see any specific reference to “Islam” in the text of the resolution

— March 26, 2009: UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/10/L.2/Rev.1 does specifically single out “Islam” and “Muslims” without any specific reference to other religions

— December 11, 2007: Widely ignored UNHRC Resolution A/HRC/6/L.15/Rev.1 mentions other religions and calls for religious freedom of conscience – the OIC nations abstained from voting on this resolution

October 25: Pakistan Christians to Launch Movement for Repeal of Pakistan Blasphemy Laws

Pakistan Christian Post: “All Christian Parties Conference to End Blasphemy law set to launch movement”
— “Pakistan Christian Congress PCC extended invitation to leaders and organizations which are struggling to repeal blasphemy law in Pakistan to participate in All Christian Parties Conference on October 25, 2009, at Rawalpindi Press Club.”

Other Reports:

Pakistan: Meeting to suggest changes in blasphemy laws postponed until January 2010

Pakistan — IPS Report on Pakistan Blasphemy Laws

Pakistan Blasphemy law is root cause of violence against Christians — George Murad

Pakistan — ICC report: “Pakistan Court Grants Bail to Six More Muslims Accused of Violence against Christians”

Pakistan Christians Call for Justice while Extremists Oppose Changes in “Blasphemy Law”

Pakistan — SAP-PK: Pak Government Hostage to the Extremists Will Not Abolish the Blasphemy Law

Pakistan Christian Post: “Attack on Gojra Christians was supervised by government of Pakistan”

Pakistan: End Blasphemy law Conference by PCC on October 24, noticed in Pope-Zardari meeting

NYC: Repeal blasphemy law in Pakistan. Rev. Fr. Ilyas Gill

Pakistan: Dutch Pakistani Christians will protest to end blasphemy law

Pakistan — ICC report: “Pakistan Grants Bail to 13 Muslims Accused of Carnage Against Christians”

“Pakistani Christians demand repeal of blasphemy law not revision vow of Shahbaz Bhatti”

Pakistan: Questions Asked About Death of Christian Youth Arrested for “Blasphemy” — Protests Against “Blasphemy” Law Broken Up — Youth Buried

Pakistan: Mentally challenged woman accused of blasphemy: ‘Woman not presented in court for 13 years’

Pakistan: young Christian man accused of blasphemy killed in prison

Pakistan: Additional Report on Church Burning in Sialkot

Pakistan: extremists threaten life of Catholic minister leading the fight against blasphemy law

Pakistani Christian shall launch movement if Blasphemy Law not repealed. Nazir Bhatti

Pakistan: Extremist blames Gojra massacre of Christians on “Western conspiracy”

Pakistan Celebrates Independence, While Ignoring Religious Persecution and Intolerance

NYC: Protest at United Nations HQ against Extremist Religious Oppression and Blasphemy Laws

DC: “Black Day observation: Christians call upon the US & the EU to act against Pakistan Blasphemy Law” — Tejinder Singh

Pakistan’s Lahore: Christians took out protests and hoisted black flags to observe “Black Day”

Petition Calling for End of “Blasphemy Laws” in Pakistan

DC: Full Text of Dr. Nazir Bhatti Press Conference Statement on Pakistan Blasphemy Law and Attacks on Christians

August 10, 2009 – Washington DC: National Press Club “Black Day” Press Conference Videos Online

Pakistan: Christians remember victims of Gojra violence

Pakistan Daily Times: “Blasphemy laws once again in the limelight”

DC: National Press Club Press Conference Announcing “Black Day,” Petition Against Pakistan Blasphemy Law

Pakistan: 17,000 in Pakistan Christian Post Poll to Observe “Black Day” Challenging Religious Discrimination

Pakistan, a Catholic activist: petition for the abolition of blasphemy law

Pakistan: More “Blasphemy” Killings — Because Calendar Taken Down

Pakistan: Christians protest against deadly violence

“Pakistan Muslim Groups Threaten More Violence”

Pakistan: Hate Engulfs Christians in Pakistan — New York Times reports mob attacking Gojra estimated in the thousands, up to 20,000

Pakistan: Christians Burned to Death (including women and children), Mob Burns Houses, Church in Punjab’s Gojra — Korian Area

Pakistan — Report of Mob Burning Christian Homes for Alleged Extremist “Blasphemy”

Pakistan: Blasphemy laws, a pretext to attack Pakistan’s religious minorities

Pakistan: Mob attacks home of 60-year-old woman in extremist “blasphemy” charge

Pakistan: Christian families in Kasur hide from angry mobs — charges of extremist “blasphemy”

Pakistan — ICC Report: “Muslim Mob Burns Down 100 Christian Homes in Pakistan”

Pakistan: Extremist threaten woman with “blasphemy” charge

Somalia: Sharia Enforcers Publicly Whip Women for Wearing Bras – Women Stripped, Beaten by Extremists

Somalia: “Whipped for wearing a ‘deceptive’ bra: Hardline Islamists in Somalia publicly flog women in Sharia crackdown”
— Daily Mail reports:
— “A hardline Islamist group in Somalia has begun publicly whipping women for wearing bras that they claim violate Islam as they are ‘deceptive’.”
— “The insurgent group Al Shabaab has sent gunmen into the streets of Mogadishu to round up any women who appear to have a firm bust, residents claimed yesterday.”
— “The women are then inspected to see if the firmness is natural, or if it is the result of wearing a bra.”
— “If they are found wearing a bra, they are ordered to remove it and shake their breasts, residents said.”
— “Al Shabaab, which seeks to impose a strict interpretation of Sharia law over all Somalia, also amputated a foot and a hand each from two young men accused of robbery earlier this month.”
— “They have also banned movies, musical ringtones, dancing at wedding ceremonies and playing or watching soccer.”
— “‘Al Shabaab forced us to wear their type of full veil and now they order us to shake our breasts,’ a resident, Halima, told Reuters, adding that her daughters had been whipped on Thursday.”
— “Men were not spared the’ moral cleansing’. Any man caught without a beard was been publicly whipped.”

Indonesia: Sharia Bill Calling for Stoning, Now Officially Law in Aceh

— Jakarta Globe: “Stoning, Caning Are Now the Law in Aceh, Local Legislator Says”
— Jakarta Globe reports: “A controversial bill that includes a provision for the stoning to death of adulterers is now officially law, even without the signature of the Aceh governor, a local councilor said on Thursday.”
— “The draft of the Qanun Jinayat Code, a set of bylaws that replaces elements of the Criminal Code with Shariah provisions for Muslims, was endorsed by the Aceh Legislative Council on Sept. 14.”
— “The measures call for the stoning of adulterers and 100 lashes for anyone caught engaging in premarital sex, among its other punishments.”

A woman walks past by a sign advising people to wear Muslim attire at Baiturrahman Grand Mosque in Banda Aceh. A local lawmaker says a controverisial bill allowing Shariah-style stoning and caning has gone into effect in the province. (Photo: Heri Juanda, AP)

DC: September 30 DC Human Rights Rally Protesting OIC

On the morning of September 30, the Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) human rights group held a pro-human rights rally protesting the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)’s attempts to continue to justify their rejection of Universal Human Rights to all people of every religion, race, and national origin deserve around the world.

This protest was held in Washington DC at 1200 17th Street NW, Washington, D.C. in front of the building where the United States Institute of Peace currently resides. The U.S.-government funded NGO “United States Institute for Peace” (USIP) hosted a public event featuring the Secretary-General, OIC, H.E. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. The USIP’s event was describing as seeking to “promote peaceful coexistence between the U.S. and Islamic states” and to “advance mutual interests.”

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)’s Jeffrey Imm spoke, while another R.E.A.L. volunteer passed out a flier to the public on the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of Human Rights; this OIC Cairo Declaration demands that human rights be based on Islamic Sharia law.

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)'s Jeffrey Imm Protests OIC Outside of U.S. Institute of Peace Meeting with OIC in Washington DC

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)’s Jeffrey Imm protested that humanity’s “mutual interests” begin with recognizing and supporting our universal human rights, not a qualified version of human rights based only on Sharia. Imm stated that the “path to peace” starts with such universal human rights for all people. In his protest, Imm objected to the USIP’s invitation to the OIC, based on the OIC’s creation of the “Cairo Declaration of Human Rights”, which he described as “a rejection of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that recognizes freedom of conscience, freedom to change religion, freedom of speech, and other freedoms for all women and men that we view as universal human rights — the OIC-created Cairo Declaration of Human Rights rejects such human rights and only permits those ‘rights’ as interpreted by Sharia law.”

Imm stated “The universal human rights of women, men, people of all religious, all races, and all ethnicity must never require a caveat or a qualification. The women oppressed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Malaysia, and around the world must end. The Sharia rationalization for their oppression must end. The stonings, the abuse of women, the legalized rape, the so-called ‘honor killings’ all must end. But in every case, these oppressors of women rationalize such attacks on women based on Sharia, just as the OIC uses Sharia as a basis for denying universal human rights in its Cairo Declaration.”

Imm further stated: ” The extremist oppression of religious minorities rationalized by Sharia must end. We have seen such oppression of both non-Muslims and Muslims through religious extremism. We have seen a mob of 20,000 attack Christians, burn their homes, burn their church, and burn them alive, based of such extremist beliefs. We see Buddhists killed in Thailand, and Hindus killed and oppressed in Pakistan and throughout Asia. We have seen an endless series of mosques attacked by other Muslim sects in their intolerance against other Muslims – and daily we hear of other Muslims killed by such attacks. Such religious extremism is not just a regional or a political issue, it is a global crisis that must be addressed in considering the path to human peace.”

Imm lifted up a sign showing excerpts from the OIC’s Cairo Declaration and stated: “As you can see in the fliers we are handing out, and as you can see by this sign, the OIC’s Cairo Declaration rejects fundamental aspects of our universal human rights.”

Imm read out excerpts from the OIC’s Cairo Declaration:
— “[Article 19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’a.”
— “[Article 22a] Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’a.”
— “[Article 22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’a.”
— “[Article 22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”
— “[Article 24] All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’a.”
— “[Article 25] The Islamic Shari’a is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.”.”

Protest Sign Showing Excerpts from OIC's Cairo Declaration -- Stating Sharia as the Basis for Any Human Right

Imm stated: “Our universal human rights are not dependent on any religion, any nation, or any organization. This is why they are inalienable human rights – they can’t be taken away. And our inalienable human rights have no caveat, no qualifier, and no national boundaries as to their existence. This is why they are ‘universal’ human rights – they apply everywhere – to the women oppressed in Saudi Arabia, to the Afghanistan man threatened with apostasy by an Afghan court for changing his religion, to the Pakistan Christians being burned to death, to the women imprisoned in Iran for their religious beliefs, and to the Iraqis whose mosques and lives are regularly threatened by supremacists that oppose other sects of Islam. These are the truths that we hold self-evident – that all men and women are created equal – that all human beings have their universal human rights of equality and liberty – not with any caveats, not with any qualifications, and not dependent on any religion or religious view.”

Imm continued: “To Americans, such universal human rights are so fundamental to our identities and our lives that when they are denied, it is a national crisis, and we must demand such freedoms. This is why when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. stated on August 28, 1963, not far from here at the Lincoln Memorial that black civil rights were a part of the ‘promissory note’ that America’s founding fathers signed with future generations – there is no question that this too was a truth that was self-evident. And today, such unqualified, universal human rights should be a truth that should be self-evident to the United States Institute of Peace, funded by American taxpayer dollars.”

Imm held up the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and stated “Such universal human rights were codified in a Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations and the nations of the world on December 10, 1948. This Universal Declaration of Human Rights has no qualifiers, it has no caveats, and it has no asterisks. There are no qualifiers for equality, there are no caveats for religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and there are asterisks that state such fundamental human freedoms are only dependent on what Sharia or any other religious law decides that we have a right to enjoy. No, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is for ‘all human beings’ and for ‘everyone’ everywhere.”

“Article 1 reads: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.'”

“Article 2 reads: ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.'”

“But today on the second floor of this building, the United States Institute of Peace is meeting with the OIC to determine what our ‘mutual interests’ might be. Our ‘mutual interests’ begin with acknowledging the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for all people around the world. The United States Institute of Peace is also meeting with the OIC to find the ‘path to peace.’ But the ‘path to peace’ must begin with our universal human rights! We will never begin to tread on the ‘path to peace’ as long as we do not challenge the OIC to end its denial of the universal human rights of our fellow human beings through its Sharia-based Cairo Declaration.”

Sign at September 30 Protest at USIP Meeting with OIC

Imm continued “In America, we have historical lessons with those who have sought to reject such universal human rights. When we faced the problem of institutionalized white supremacism in America, we did not decide that some states, some governments, and some individuals had the right to have a different code of human rights than the rest of us. We did not ‘keep the peace’ in America, we did not find ‘mutual interests’ in America, by sitting down with white supremacists and accepting a white supremacist code of human rights for certain parts of our nation. We challenged those who would deny such universal human rights then, and we must challenge those who would deny such universal human rights today.”

“Just as we could not accept ‘free states’ and ‘slave states’, so we must also not accept a ‘free world’ and a ‘slave world’ today. We have only one world, one Earth. We must reject the idea that any nation, any organization, has the right to deny the universal human rights of our fellow human beings. These too are truths that we must find self-evident.”

“We challenge the United States Institute of Peace to recognize these truths and to challenge the OIC to reject its Sharia-based Cairo Declaration that denies the most fundamental universal human rights for all people. Until the OIC acknowledges and accepts such basic human rights fundamental to any ‘path to peace,’ we must protest the OIC and defy its influence in the United States Government and around the world. We support universal human rights, the OIC does not!”

R.E.A.L. Protest Sign: "We Support Universal Human Rights, the OIC Does Not"

DC Government Security Reviews R.E.A.L.'s Public Assembly Notification the Washington DC Police — DC Government Security Reviews R.E.A.L.'s Public Assembly Notification to the Washington DC Police

September 30: Human Rights Protest at Washington DC PRC Embassy

On the afternoon of September 30 in Washington DC (October 1 in Beijing), the Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) human rights group, Falun Dafa (Falun Gong), World Rights’ Timothy Cooper, and other human rights activists met to protest the 60th anniversary of the proclamation of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) at the Washington DC PRC embassy. (See Web link to DC Embassy protest photographs.)

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)'s Jeffrey Imm Leads Protest at PRC Embassy in Washington DC

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)‘s Jeffrey Imm began the protest by offering the PRC embassy a copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Chinese. As it did during R.E.A.L.’s address to the PRC embassy on June 4, the PRC embassy refused to accept the copy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, telling him to “take it away.”

R.E.A.L.’s Imm first spoke at the protest challenging the PRC to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), reading it aloud and holding up signs with the UDHR in Chinese. He noted the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including its drafting by P. C. Chang of the Republic of China, and the adoption by the Republic of China on December 10, 1948. Imm stated “the words in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not just the words of the West, these are the words of Chinese government leaders.”

Imm recognized the subsequent October 1, 1949 proclamation of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) as “a black day for Chinese freedom.” He read from Mao Zedong’s October 1, 1949 proclamation that “the people in the country have been liberated,” and Imm stated that “in fact, October 1, 1949 was the beginning of the Communist imprisonment of the Chinese people’s human rights, and we stand here at the PRC embassy today in solidarity with those who continue to seek freedom in China today.”

R.E.A.L.'s Jeffrey Imm recognizes October 1 as "A Black Day for Chinese Freedom"

Imm paused after reading key aspects of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pointing out how the PRC has refused to recognize democracy, the rule of law, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, among other human rights violated by the PRC. Imm also challenged the PRC on the Laogai “forced labor camps” as equivalent to slavery also prohibited by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (an estimated 1,100 Laogai camps imprison 6.8 million Chinese).

Imm focused on Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion,” stating that our conscience is a fundamental part of our human identity. Imm challenged the PRC to recognize that just as the PRC cannot keep the birds from flying in the sky, so also the PRC cannot shackle, chain, enslave, imprison, or kill the conscience of the Chinese people, or the conscience of humanity. Our conscience, Imm stated, was what differentiates us from other beings – and nothing any government or organization can do can silence the human conscience. Imm challenged Western governments and Western people to recognize that our “mutual interests begin with universal human rights,” and that no matter how much “easier it would be to ignore our conscience on Communist China, it is not a choice that humanity can afford.” Imm stated that “we must heed the call of our conscience regarding our 1 billion brothers and sisters in humanity whose human rights are denied under Communist China’s oppression. Our conscience must never be for sale, barter, or exchange. Our conscience is what allows us to have a human society of dignity, freedom, and human rights.”

Imm further noted Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, reading that “everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.” He stated that in the PRC, those seeking democratic reforms have continued to be oppressed, jailed, and killed for the past 20 years in the PRC. But Imm stated, this Article 21 was part of the same human rights declaration that Chinese government leaders agreed to and helped draft in December 1948. Such democratic freedoms, Imm argued, are “not a Western idea, but a fundamental part of the universal human rights shared by all people.” Moreover, Imm pointed to even the PRC’s former premier Zhao Ziyang’s support for democracy as shown by the recently published “secret journal” of Zhao Ziyang entitled “Prisoner of the State.”

Imm stated that many nations have made mistakes in their history on such human rights, including the United States. But for all of its mistakes, Imm continued, the United States has sought to recognize such universal human rights as truths that its people find inalienable, not disregard universal human rights as inconvenient international standards as the PRC government continues to do today.

Imm stated “Our protest today is to send a message to our brothers and sisters in humanity in China. You are not alone. We stand with you in your struggles for freedom. Have courage! We will continue to pressure our government and urge our people to make your human rights our first priority in dealing with China, not our last priority. We will continue to demand that the PRC recognize and support universal human rights for all Chinese people. We send our support and our prayers for you today, standing here in solidarity with your struggle for freedom. Free China Now!”

Responsible for Equality And Liberty also urged their fellow Americans to contact their government representatives to demand that such basic human rights are key aspects of our negotiations and relations with PRC in the future.

The protest was also be co-sponsored by the China Support Network, who advised World Rights’ Timothy Cooper of the event.

World Rights' Timothy Cooper at PRC Embassy Protest

Timothy Cooper stated “If there is one fundamental right we should enjoy, it is the right to self-determination, that is the will of people must be freely expressed in the government of the country. For the Chinese people, they have never known the right to self-determination. They have never known the right to free expression of their own political interests. As such, the growth of China as a democracy, as a palace of human rights, has been thwarted and the people suffer. ”

World Rights' Timothy Cooper Speaks at PRC Embassy Protest in Washington DC

Timothy Cooper continued: “Who are these people? The Falun Gong, the Christians, the Catholics, the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the Chinese Democrats, all of these people suffer because they are denied a fundamental human right. So we are here today to call on China, even in the midst of its rising economic power, to ascend to another level – to ascend to a place where the will of the people is fundamentally respected and regarded as the principal source of power and governance of the nation. These people must be free, free to express their own political will, create their own political destiny and fortune. So we stand in solidarity with them, we call for the end of human rights abuses in China, we call for the respect of rule of law in China, and we call on the Chinese government in particular, to step away from its past, and embrace a new future, a future that has about it the wholesale reflection of the wants and needs of the people of China – as embodied in their voices and by their consent. It is no easy thing to stand against a government as powerful and as all-pervasive as the Chinese government is. With our voices added to countless thousands of voices both inside China and outside China, we hope to see the day when democracy rules, self-determination rules inside China.”

Lisa Tao of the Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) also was a part of the protest at the Washington DC embassy. Lisa and other Falun Gong supporters held banners in the park gates across the street from the PRC embassy where the protesters were allowed to gather.

Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) Protests at PRC Embassy in Washington DC

Falun Dafa Activists Arrange Protest Signs Across from PRC Embassy

Lisa spoke of the PRC abuses against the Chinese people, the oppression of the Falun Gong and others, and pointed to PRC’s despicable practice of organ trafficking of prisoners. Lisa stated that she and other protesters have been coming to the PRC embassy every day. She will not call the PRC as “China,” saying “China is my home… the PRC is not China.” Lisa and her fellow activists vigilantly post banners challenging the Communist PRC government and its denial of human freedoms and freedom of religion.

Falun Dafa's Lisa Tao and R.E.A.L.'s Jeffrey Imm Discuss the Oppression of the Chinese People by the PRC Government

During the protest, a long-pending rainstorm finally came. The Falun Dafa activists and R.E.A.L. protesters continued their protest in the rain, patiently and vigilantly. They sought to mark their solidarity on this day, September 30 in Washington DC, October 1 in Beijing, by standing together with the Chinese people fighting for freedom – no matter what challenges will come.

As R.E.A.L.’s Jeffrey Imm concluded in his message to the Chinese people, “Have Courage! Know that you are not alone! We stand with you in solidarity!”

Falun Dafa Protesters Continue in the Rain at the DC PRC Embassy

Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) Protest at DC PRC Embassy — Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.) Protests at DC PRC Embassy

Sign with Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in Chinese - Preamble and Articles 1-3

(NOTE: News reporter Vladimir Kara-Murza, Washington Bureau Chief for Overseas Media Production (Russian Television), interviewed R.E.A.L.’s Jeffrey Imm regarding today’s protest at the Washington DC PRC embassy. If a weblink to that interview becomes available, we will update this posting with that interview.)

For more information, contact:
Responsible for Equality And Liberty (R.E.A.L.)
Website: https://www.realcourage.org
Email: realpublic@earthlink.net

Tennessee: White Supremacists to Get Separate Trials in February on Obama Plot

Separate trials sought in alleged Obama plot
— Jackson Sun reports on September 12, 2009
— “The attorney prosecuting the two men accused of plotting to kill more than 100 black people, including President Barack Obama, told a judge Friday that he plans to file a motion requesting separate trials for the two.”
— “Daniel Cowart, 20, of Bells, and Paul Schlesselman, 18, of Helena-West Helena, Ark., appeared briefly before Judge J. Daniel Breen in U.S. District Court in Jackson for a report hearing.”
— “The two have been held without bond since October, when they were arrested and charged with planning a multi-state robbery and killing spree, ending in an attempt to kill then-presidential candidate Obama. Federal investigators have described the two as white supremacist skinheads.”
— “U.S. Attorney Lawrence Laurenzi told Breen that the statements Cowart and Schlesselman gave agents after they were arrested implicate each other, which makes it difficult to try the two in the same trial.”
— “Breen gave Laurenzi until Oct. 31 to file the motion.”
— “The judge also set a tentative trial date of Feb. 22 for the case. If the judge rules that two trials are necessary, the second trial probably would be held the following week.”
— “Cowart’s lawyer, Joe Byrd Jr., also asked for additional time to file a supplement to a motion he filed in November. That motion argues Cowart and Schlesselman were indicted by a federal grand jury with too few white people and says the charges against them should be thrown out.”
— “Doris Randle-Holt, Schlesselman’s lawyer, has filed a similar motion.”
— “Breen set an Oct. 31 deadline for Byrd to file any supplements.”
— “Byrd said Friday he has received the court’s population data and the master list of citizens from which the jury was selected, but the additional information has raised more questions.”
— “‘We are looking to see if the method by which juries are selected in the Western District meets constitutional guidelines and represent a fair cross section of the population,’ Byrd said.”
— “Grand jury proceedings are secret, but Byrd has said he has evidence there were two white members in the 23-member jury.”
— “Federal prosecutors have called that statement a ‘reckless disregard for the truth’ and say there were nine white members on the jury. They have said the defendants are not entitled to a hearing on the grand jury issue.”
— “Breen ruled in February that the defense can question procedures for selecting jurors but can’t challenge the resulting racial makeup of the actual jury.”
— “Cowart and Schlesselman are scheduled to appear for another report hearing at 10:30 a.m. Jan. 14.”

Commercial Appeal/AP report:
— 2 trials for plot against Obama
— “A Tennessee prosecutor says he will request separate trials for two men charged with plotting to kill President Barack Obama and dozens of other black people.”
— “The Jackson Sun reported that U.S. Atty. Lawrence Laurenzi said during a federal court hearing Friday that statements made by Daniel Cowart of Bells, Tenn., and Paul Schlesselman of Helena-West Helena, Ark., implicate each other, making it hard to try them in the same trial.”
— “Authorities describe the two as white supremacist skinheads who hatched a plot for a cross-country robbery and killing spree that was to culminate with an attack on Obama, then the Democratic candidate for president.”
— “They were arrested in October and have been held without bond. U.S. District Court Judge J. Daniel Breen said that if approved, the first of the two trials would start on Feb. 22.”