Tag: Sudan

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