Freedom of Belief in an Era of Radicalization

O FREEDOM OF BELIEF IN AN

ERA OF

RADICALIZATION

Published by Liberal International (LI) with the support of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party and the European Parliament.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors alone.

They do not necessarily reflect the views of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom.

Table of contents Foreword

p.3

Adam Deen

p.40

What is Freedom of Belief?

p.5

Dr. Karen Mock

p.46

LI’s Work on Freedom of Belief

p.9

Freedom of Belief: Liberal Visions

p.51

Freedom of Belief Conference

p.19

Françoise Schepmans

p.53

Overview

p.21

Lord John Alderdice

p.55

Opening Remarks

p.22

Abir Al-Sahlani

p.60

Debunking the Myth of Molenbeek

p.23

Boris Van Der Ham

p.65

Challenging Radicalization

p.29

Why Freedom of Belief Matters

p.71

Concluding Remarks

p.33

About Us

p.73

Freedom of Belief: Expert Outlook

p.35

H.E. Heiner Bielefeldt

p.37

Foreword

Markus Lรถning

Chairman of the Liberal International Human Rights Committee Vice President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party

Freedom of Belief has always posed a paradox for liberals around the world: how do we reconcile freedom of belief with freedom of expression?

In an age where religion in general is misleadingly blamed for the sharp increase in extremism, how do we as politicians, policy experts, campaigners and human rights professionals take back and reunite our fundamental freedoms of belief and 3

expression?

Providing an insight into the liberal perspective on these issues, this publication revisits important exchanges and debates with front-line practitioners and leading liberal leaders on the urgency of confronting fundamentalism while promoting the freedom to a religious and non-religious belief alongside the right not to believe.

As Mayor Francoise Schepmans said during one of the most recent study visits of LI Human Rights Committee to the Cultural Center of Molenbeek in Brussels (Belgium), fighting radicalization and violent extremism should not and must not come at the expense of compromising the rights of religious and in particular Muslim minorities. As liberals it is our responsibility to foster and encourage interfaith dialogue on the one hand and tackle religious based discrimination on the other.

I have met religious leaders and believers who were very strongly committed to the protection of human rights at times even taking a personal risk

for their stances. However, I have also come across religious leaders who perceive the exclusivity of their own religion as ultimate and reject the power of the individual to dictate his/her own right to religious and non-religious beliefs.

Liberal International and in particular its Human Rights Committee is in a unique position to find a way to bridge the gap between liberal anti-believers and liberal believers. It is however only by debating on human rights, respect for the individual and personal freedom as key liberal values that we can find the right tools to build this bridge.

4

What is Freedom of Belief?

by His Excellency Heiner Bielefeldt, United Nations Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief

Freedom of religion or belief does not — and indeed cannot — protect religions or belief systems themselves: that is, their various truth claims, teachings, rituals or practices. Instead, it empowers human beings — as individuals, as well as in community with others — who profess religions or beliefs and may wish to shape their lives in conformity with their convictions.

The reason for this focus on “believers rather than beliefs” (as it has been summed up succinctly) is not that human rights reflect a certain “anthropocentric world view”, as some observers have wrongly inferred. Instead, a main reason is that religions and beliefs are very different; often even irreconcilably so, in their messages and normative 5

requirements. Religions and beliefs reflect an abundance of diverse teachings, doctrines, ideas of salvation, norms of conduct, liturgies, holidays, fasting periods, dietary customs, dress codes and other practices.

Moreover, interpretations of what matters religiously may differ widely, not only between but also within religious communities. Hence, the only common denominator identifiable within such vast diversity seems to be the human being, who is the one professing and practising his or her religion or belief, as an individual and/or in community with others.

Accordingly, human rights can only do justice to the existing and emerging diversity by empowering

human beings, who indeed are the right-holders of freedom of religion or belief. This consistent focus on human beings as right-holders is also fully in line with the human rights-based approach in general.

Human rights are universal rights in the sense of being intimately linked to the humanness of the human being and hence of all human beings equally. In the first sentence of article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is stated that: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”.

Because of its nature as a universal human right, to which all human beings are entitled, freedom of religion or belief must be interpreted broadly.

It cannot be confined to particular lists of religious or belief-related “options” predefined by States, within which people are supposed to remain.

Instead, the starting point must be the selfdefinition of all human beings in the vast area of religions and beliefs, which includes identityshaping existential convictions as well as various practices connected to such convictions.

In paragraph 2 of its general comment No. 22

(1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Human Rights Committee corroborated such an open, inclusive understanding by clarifying that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief, and that the terms “belief” and “religion” are to be broadly construed.

The Human Rights Committee also stressed that article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. One should add that freedom of religion or belief also covers the rights of members of large and small communities, minorities and minorities within minorities, traditionalists and liberals, converts and reconverts, dissenters and other critical voices and, last but not least, women, who sadly still occupy marginalized positions within many religious traditions.

Widely-used abbreviations such as “religious freedom” or “religious liberty” do not fully capture 6

the scope of the human right at issue. Even the term “freedom of religion or belief”, which for ease of reference has generally been employed by the Special Rapporteur and his predecessors, remains a shorthand formulation. Hence, it may be useful from time to time to recall the full title of the right, which is “freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief”.

7

Legislation and jurisdiction in many States do not adequately reflect the full scope of this human right by often restricting its application to predefined types of religions while excluding non-traditional beliefs and practices. Limiting the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief to members of “recognized” religions is also in violation of the spirit and letter of universal human rights.

9

LI’s Work on Freedom of Belief Liberals have been at the forefront of the Freedom of Belief principle as one of the basic liberal values.

Liberal International (LI) – which counts more than 100 political parties and affiliates among its membership – has actively advocated this humanitarian principle.

This chapter offers a glimpse at the progress of LI activities and statements on Freedom of Belief since LI’s conception in 1947.

Ottawa Human Rights Appeal

1987 1997 47 LI Congress Noordwijk th

1947 Oxford Manifesto 1946 Declaration of Brussels

9

Oxford Manifesto

1996

1999 40th LI Congress Brussels

59th LI Congress Rotterdam

20

15

2014 58th LI Congress Abidjan

2012

LI Human Rights Committee Panel on the Freedom of Belief, Geneva & 3rd Edition of LI HRC Bulletin

53rd LI Congress Sofia

2016 2011

51st LI Congress Budapest 2005

2002

57th LI Congress Manila

196th LI Executive Committee Meeting, Tbilisi & UN General Assembly on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance

2003 52nd LI Congress Dakar

61st LI Congress Andorra

2017

10

LI Advocacy on Freedom of Belief 1946: Declaration of Brussels In June 1946 the Liberal parties of Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland were all represented in Brussels. They signed a declaration that marked the first step towards the foundation of Liberal International; the document recites: “We assert our faith in the spiritual Liberty of Man. We oppose every form of Government which fails to guarantee to all of its people the liberty of conscience, liberty of the press, liberty of association and the free expression and publication of their beliefs and opinions.”

1947: Oxford Manifesto One year later at the Conference in Oxford Liberals of nineteen countries reaffirmed their faith in liberal principles as the solution to disorders and poverty. The third point of the first section of the 11

Manifesto reads: “The State is only the instrument of the community; it should assume no power which conflicts with the fundamental rights of the citizens and with the conditions essential for a responsible and creative life, namely: […]Personal freedom, guaranteed by the independence of the administration of law and justice; Freedom of worship and liberty of conscience;” 1987: Ottawa Human Rights Appeal 40 years after the adoption of the first Liberal Manifesto and the foundation of Liberal International, Liberals from all over the world proclaimed once again: “men and women are born free, unique and of equal worth, regardless of their race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.

They further denounced “the growing fundamentalism, mostly religious, all over the world which often openly rejects basic liberal values e.g. freedom of the individual, freedom of thought and information and the open society;” 1996: 47th LI Congress, Noordwijk Following the political turmoil in Iran, the 47th Congress of Liberal International adopted the World Today Resolution that denounced the situation stating that “In Iran religious and political freedoms are outlawed”.

In the section on Peace & Liberty “The Liberal International condemns terrorist acts as crimes against human society and as damaging to the peace process in the Middle East.

The Liberal International expresses its concern on the growing danger of fundamentalist terrorism aimed against the peace process in the Middle East, and violating basic human rights.”

1997: Oxford Manifesto To celebrate the 50th Anniversary of LI its

members reunited in Oxford to sign a new Manifesto to see the challenges still standing for Liberal values: “from the violation of human rights, excessive concentrations of power and wealth, fundamentalist, totalitarian, xenophobic and racist ideologies, to discrimination on grounds of sex, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability”.

Specifically, in the fourth point, it was stated that “Individuals who believe in a religious or another faith or atheism must be protected in the practice of their beliefs so long as they are within the existing law and constitutional rights.”

1999: 40th Congress, Brussels Liberal International continued its fight for Human Rights reiterating its “firm conviction that Human Rights have universal application and cannot and should not ever be qualified according to cultures, values, traditions, beliefs, gender, race, social condition or sexual preference” especially denouncing once again the deteriorating political situation in Iran.

12

2002: 51st LI Congress, Budapest During the 51st Congress in Budapest under the second point of the Theme Resolution adopted on “Good Governance”, LI recognised “the need to promote tolerance and fight discrimination and to protect the identity of ethnic, national, religious and linguistic minorities”. In the same year, a resolution regarding the Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India was adopted where LI stated once again the importance of promoting religious harmony.

At the same Congress, LI adopted a resolution on the Rights of Minorities recognising the freedom of immigrants and refugees “to practice one’s religion in any way not infringing the rights of others”.

2003: 52nd LI Congress, Dakar LI re-emphasised “that the freedom of conscience and religion is a basic and universal right. Every human being has the right to practice his or her religion freely within the confines set by the law and human rights. Every human being has the right to choose the religion they prefer without being subject to any form of oppression, negative 13

discrimination or suppression in any part of the world.”

2005: 53rd LI Congress, Sofia The LI Theme Resolution on Freedom and Security made clear that “The liberal principles of the neutrality of the state and freedom of belief, very much the target of fundamentalist terrorism, should thus be upheld in the face of religious fundamentalism fostering terrorism”.

At the same congress, in his presidential speech Lord Alderdice denounced the challenge of the new Western policies adopted in the War against terrorism, especially in the campaigns launched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Gijs de Vries, European Union Counter-Terrorism Coordinator, stated the need for a global response to tackle the phenomenon of terrorism and underlined: “There is no such thing as a war among civilisations. Islam, like Christianity, is not a monolith. There are many strands and traditions among the one billion Muslims in the world.

The overwhelming majority of them want to leave

under conditions of peace and democracy, free to decide how to interpret Islam without fear of being branded apostates by Islamist terrorists. Many moderate Muslims have spoken out courageously against terrorism. Muslims and non-Muslims must join forces to defend the fundamental values of humanity. The European Union is determined to support and work with moderate Muslims in order to defeat terrorism, in Europe and elsewhere in the world.”

2011: 57th LI Congress, Manila During the Congress in Manila on Human Rights and Trade LI pushed for a new diplomacy with focus on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), stating also its disagreement “with the myth that Islamic societies are incompatible with democratic government” and underlining that “the wish for democracy, human rights and human dignity is globally shared by all mankind and noone should be denied on the basis of religious, cultural or traditionalist pretext.”

2012: 58th LI Congress, Abidjan In the World Today Resolution adopted in Abidjan on the theme “Promoting Private Investment, Enhancing Social Responsibility”, LI expressed “deep concern about instances of religious intolerance in many countries. […] freedom of religion is part of the inalienable human rights which Liberals have long been fighting for. Positive freedom of religion is the right to belong to any religious community, to exercise its religious practices and follow its rules and customs, as long as the rights of others are not affected.

Negative freedom of religion is the right not to belong to a particular or any religion, to leave a religious group and not to be forced to follow a certain religion’s rules and customs or exercise its religious practices, regardless of whether the state, a certain religious group or private individuals exercise pressure or force.”

During the same Congress, the Resolution on Combating Rise of Extremism Among Youth was adopted, denouncing the true causes of the phenomenon: “conditioned by replacement 14

of individual freedoms and civil responsibility by groups’ abstract interests; governments’ economizing on humanitarian development, education and culture; abolishment by some political elites and authoritarian regimes of democratic values and moral principles; transfer of political debates into confrontation and violence instead of political compromise and dialogue; use of public discontent for arousing of ethnic, religious or social hatred”.

2014: 59th LI Congress, Rotterdam After January 2014, when the Tunisian Parliament passed the country’s first constitution since President Ben Ali was ousted in 2011, Liberal International wrote in the World Today Resolution: “Liberal International is deeply concerned with developments in some countries of the Arab World.

LI deems that Tunisia’s new constitution gives new hope that such important principles as equality between man and women, freedom of religion and conscience, protection from torture and a civil state could define a functioning democracy in a 15

predominantly Arab country.

Liberal International calls on the international community to support the Tunisian political elites on their path towards economic recovery and development. Liberal International expresses solidarity with the liberal AFEK Tounes Party.”

At the same congress, in his inaugural speech LI President Dr. Juli Minoves said: “Francis Fukuyama, two decades ago, pronounced “the end of history” and liberal values victorious over communist regimes and despotic policies. It does not look like that from today’s perspective however, and especially from this liberal podium. Democracy, human rights, freedom of the press, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom to assemble, and to speak your mind, are not fruits hanging low from trees. […] Ask the participants in many movements resulting from the Arab Spring if their aspirations have been met.”

2015: LI Human Rights Committee Panel on the Freedom of Belief, Geneva In partnership with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF - LI cooperating organisation) and the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group in the European Parliament (ALDE Group - LI full-member), Liberal International hosted a fringe event on forming robust liberal strategies to counter the rise of religious extremism in Africa.

The discussions focused on tackling youth radicalisation, promoting inter-faith dialogue and balancing the role of cultural values. Key questions were posed to understand the truths and myths behind the notion of tolerance and recognition, vis-a-vis the respect for religious pluralism and the right not to believe along with the feasibility of regulating hate speech.

2015: 3rd Edition of LI HRC Bulletin The 3rd edition of LI HRC Bulletin published in 2015 focused on the promotion of inter-faith dialogue alongside the right not to believe. In

the introduction to the edition, LI Human Rights Committee Chairman Markus Löning asks “a paradox for liberals the world over: how do we reconcile freedom of religious belief with freedom of expression? In an age where religion in general is misleadingly blamed for the sharp rise in extremism, how do we - as policymakers, campaigners, and human rights professionals- take back and reunite our fundamental freedoms of expression and belief?”

2016: 196th LI Executive Committee Meeting, Tbilisi Under the theme of “Safeguarding Freedom and Security” delegates discussed the importance of freedom of belief to counter Daesh. Former President of the Arab Liberal Federation (LI Cooperating Organisation), Mohamed Tamaldou of Union Constitutionelle (LI full member) of Morocco, emphasised the need to find a coherent solution: “The question is now whether we decide to fight radicalism or terrorism. The answer is pertinent. […] This problem cannot be resolved 16

without adhering to liberal values.

That is what our parties have to spread in our societies.” Analysing the West’s efforts to combat religious fundamentalism at its root, former Prime Minister of Senegal and leader of REWMI (LI member), Idrissa Seck, argued that more should do to address global inequalities: “We have to combat Daesh with education. Funding a classroom is much less costly than buying a couple of secondhand tanks.”

2016: UN General Assembly on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance “Freedom of religion or belief does not —and indeed cannot —protect religions or belief systems themselves, which is, their various truth claims, teachings, rituals or practices. Instead, it empowers human beings —as individuals, as well as in community with others —who profess religions or beliefs and may wish to shape their lives in conformity with their own convictions.”

17

2017: 61st LI Congress, Andorra To celebrate the 70th Anniversary of Liberal International, liberals from all over the world met in Andorra to adopt and sign the latest Liberal Manifesto as an answer to the many challenges liberalism faces in the 21st century.

In the first section entitled “Our Vision: Human Progress in a Free World” LI once again reaffirms its belief that “A comprehensive set of rights, freedoms, and responsibilities allows for the pluralism of beliefs and ideas, as well as for diversity in backgrounds, that nourish this richness of difference without distinction based on gender, race, age, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, disability, or any other personal or social condition.

A liberal society is based not only on human rights but on human relationships.”

19

FREEDOM OF BELIEF IN AN ERA OF RADICALIZATION Liberal International Human Rights Committee Meeting Brussels, Belgium

19 20

21

Overview Under the theme Freedom of Belief in an Era of Radicalisation, Liberal International (LI) brought together members of its Human Rights Committee (HRC), liberal human rights parliamentarians, liberal politicians, diplomats and civil society representatives to debate radicalisation and freedom of belief and to formulate a liberal strategy for a powerful fight back for freedom.

WThe event focused on debunking the stigmatization of religious and in particular Muslim minorities when it comes to radicalization and violent extremism, while at the same time addressing the challenges this had posed to core liberal principles such as freedom of expression and freedom of belief.

One of the highlights included a rare opportunity to engage in a dialogue with those directly affected by the issue at hand with the Mayor of Molenbeek, Ms. Franรงoise Schepmans, hosting a debate 21

with representatives from the local community in Molenbeek: an area in Brussels largely associated with radicalization.

The meeting was hosted by Mr. Ilhan Kyuchyuk, Member of the European Parliament and Member of LI Human Rights Committee, on 6 September 2016 at the European Parliament in Brussels with the kind support of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE Group - LI full member) and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty (FNF - LI cooperating organisation).

It was conducted over three distinct sessions and featured a welcoming reception by the Representative Office of Gibraltar to the European Union hosted by former ALDE Party President Sir Graham Watson.

Opening Remarks

by Markus Löning

In his opening remarks, Chair of Liberal International’s Human Rights Committee and ALDE Party Vice President, Markus Löning, explained the importance of debunking the myth of Molenbeek as a hot bed for terrorism in Brussels while at the same time addressing the discrimination of Muslim residents in the municipality.

He stressed that the spread of populist and antiestablishment far-right movements around the world needs to be countered by securing basic freedoms and human rights for everyone and vowed to continue the fight for equal rights, for both religious and non-religious communities alike on behalf of LI and its Human Rights Committee.

Markus Löning Chairman of the Liberal International Human Rights Committee Vice President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party

23 22

Debunking the Myth of Molenbeek: Beyond Stigmatization of Religious Minorities Chaired by Boris Van Der Ham, LI HRC Member and Former Member of Parliament (Democrats 66, LI full-member), the first panel discussion focused on the challenges of fighting radicalization and the prevention of stigmatisation of religious minorities.

He kicked off the debate by reminding of the fact that liberals have an obligation of blocking legislation which is harmful against the non-religious or to the expression of non-religious views.

As he explained however it is not possible to “fix” this problem with new legislation alone.

Liberals should also take a stance against social exclusion which often occurs in orthodox religious environments even if there is sufficient legal 23

protection in place.

Françoise Schepmans, Mayor of Molenbeek-SaintJean (Movement Réformateur, LI full member), spoke of the importance of multi-cultural and interfaith dialogues to further integration in a community where social exclusion drives radicalisation.

She reminded of the very existence of the Molenbeek Cultural Centre which was created to encourage meetings and activities permitting to move forward with specific ideas on the elimination of radicalization.

Molenbeek became a centre of terror-related investigations following the Paris attacks in

November 2015 because of its link to at least three of the attackers, who grew up in the municipality.

As a result of the Brussels and Paris terrorist attacks, Belgian police initiated door-to-door checks where a quarter of Molenbeek inhabitants were investigated (a total of 22 668).

The discussion focused principally on the issue of second generation immigrants and the problem of

“

integration of big communities, such as the one in Molenbeek, and more broadly speaking in Belgium and France.

Mayor Schepmans affirmed that culture is an important driver of knowledge and denounced terrorism as the plague of the new century.

Belgium has been an immigration land for a long time, but integration has not been prioritised. It is a challenge which needs to be addressed by both the federal government and municipalities.

Françoise Schepmans Mayor of Molenbeek-Saint-Jean

�

24

While trying to analyse the causes for the high concentration of jihadists in her municipality Ms Schepmans considered four different aspects: 1. The history: throughout the years, the community has seen a radical transformation with a strong influx of migrants, especially from Morocco, creating a mixed local culture, which has been completely disregarded from the authorities 2. The existence of a network of criminals which act as a catalyser for radicalisation 3. The density of the population (16,000 people per km2): big families are cramped in small places 4. The mistakes made regarding integration policies: newcomers, for example, are not encouraged to learn French or other aspects of Belgian culture.

Belgium has been migration land for a long time, but integration has not been prioritised.

She further explained the different challenges in providing more economic opportunities to help 25

with the integration process: 1. Creating a strong collaboration between the federal government and the municipalities.

2. Tackling unemployment within the community 3. Attaining better quality in education, implementing bilingual education and teaching skills to young people Jo De Ro (Open VLD, LI full member), Member of Parliament and Deputy Mayor of Vilvoorde, used his experience to explain the necessity of incorporating a specialist in religious affairs into the integration work in communities like Molenbeek in order to make it more effective.

Countering the arguments presented in the debate beforehand, he pointed out that Mechelen is one of the cities with the youngest inhabitants in Belgium, and yet with the lowest rate of radicalization. In fact, no residents had been reported to have left the city in order to join terrorist hot beds overseas

since 2013.

He did remind however that there was no definitive blue print policy on terrorism prevention for use by the municipality although money had been invested in education, youth and sports centres in the past 15 years.

De Ro concluded by underlining the importance of incorporating specialists on religious affairs into community integration work and investing more resources on prevention efforts.

In his intervention, Olivier Vanderhaeghen, Local Radicalisation Prevention Officer, stressed that religion is not the main driver of radicalisation but rather the result of an ideological and identity problem stemming from social isolation and emotional fragility.

He underlined that the issue of radicalization is a complex religious, psychoanalytical and geopolitical problem. Therefore its prevention requires a multi-disciplinary approach. In the sense, lack of integration can be considered as the main cause of terror-related violence, not least because of a feeling of not belonging to the community and lack

of equal opportunities which second generation immigrants usually experience.

He also reminded of the difficulties to maintain an open dialogue in the Muslim community, especially in Molenbeek, because of the different strands of Islam.

A big part of the problem is the lack of a sense of belonging to the Muslim community along with a fear instilled by the Belgian authorities due to their complete disregard for the mixed local culture in Molenbeek community.

Vanderhaeghen further explained that radicalisation does not take place in the mosque but rather in the public space where recruiters take advantage of the fragility of young people.

Offering three different solutions to the issues of radicalization prevention and social re-integration of a formally radicalised person he put an emphasis on the following: 1. Working with the family, which is directly connected to the cultural identity felt in the youngster. Doing so means to reinforce the 26

emotional link between the radicalised persons and his/her family in order to ease its re-integration in society 2. Building a strong identity in areas where there is a big mixed cultural community, like in Molenbeek 3. Creating an environment with free and open speech with the youngsters Participants agreed that education and creating equal opportunities for all layers of the society remain key success factors in the fight for radicalisation prevention.

Regarding collaboration with religious leaders, the panellists affirmed the position highlighted earlier in the debate that explained the need of a counterpart on a local level within the structure of the Muslim religion. Dialogue on democracy and shared values was another important aspect which was raised in regards to dialogues with teachers who are part of inter-religious courses.

27

“

It is important to remember that radicalisation is not driven by a particular religious conviction but it is rather a consequence of a deeply rooted ideological and identity confliction.

�

Olivier Vanderhaeghen Local Radicalisation Prevention Officer

29

Challenging Radicalisation Respecting Freedom of Belief: Where Should Liberals Draw the Line?

The second panel of the conference debated the often misconstrued concept that somehow freedom of expression and freedom of belief are at odds with each other.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk MEP chaired the sesion at the European Parliament while speakers included Dr. Solomon Passy, Former Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Abir Al-Sahlani, LI HRC Member and Former Member of Parliament (Centerpartiet, LI full-member), Sophie In’t Veld MEP, Deputy Leader of the ALDE Group in the European Parliament (LI full-member) and Adam Deen, Managing Director at the Quilliam Foundation.

Opening the discussion, Abir Al-Sahlani spoke at 29

length about the need for democratization in the Middle East in order to address the underlying cause of fundamentalism which in turn leads to extremism.

She further discussed the politics of fear and prejudice towards young Muslim men in particular which in turn creates a sense of alienation feeding into the recruitment narratives used by the Islamic State.

One of the recommendations she offered is more intensified recruitment of religious minorities among the ranks of political parties.

Dr Solomon Passy enriched the discussions by presenting three aspects of the migration

movements from Africa to Europe:

“

As long as we have dictatorships in the Middle East we will also have fundamentalists.

Without a political change, democratisation, and the involvement of all citizens, I don’t think that we will be able to tackle the challenges with fundamentalism.

”

Abir Al-Sahlani LI HRC Member, Former Member of Parliament (Centerpartiet, Sweden)

1. The so-called push factors, which bring Africans to look for a better life in Europe 2. A cultural and social adaptation 3. Selection in issuing visas based on skills and level of integration He then introduced three suggestions for prevention considering the 17 UN Sustainable Goals: 1. Quality of Education 2. Gender Equality 3. Export of European Union’s institutional structure to Arab countries Following his intervention, Adam Deen shared his personal experience as a former Islamic extremist, providing an insight into the evolution of the Muslim 30

religion and the relationship between religious tradition and history in the modern century.

He warned that necessary reforms have to come from within the Muslim community and therefore progressive Muslim thinkers need to be provided with more support.

When asked if there is a difference between Political Islam and Islam, or if there are also exogenous forces in Muslim countries, Deen emphasized that it is not the economic situation itself which creates a sense of diffidence towards Western powers.

It is rather that the radicalisation process is an exploitative process in and of itself as it takes particular personal grievances twisting them to fit the extremist narrative.

In his concluding remarks he reminded that in the end, the only superior view which is acceptable is the adhesion to universal human values of reason, freedom, human rights and equality.

Sophie In’t Veld invited panellists and participants alike to reflect on the necessity of providing a counter-narrative to deal with extremism. She explained that the problem is that we are violating 31

our own values too often and are thus unable of removing class justice to prevent radicalization.

In addition to the issue of narrative and principles, In’t Veld brought the spotlight on political correctness and discordant voices in European politics where there is a clash between people calling for an economic boycott against the dictatorial religious powers in Saudi Arabia, and people who are readily available to do business with them.

She concluded by expressing criticism against the on-going stigmatization of Muslim minority groups in Europe and underlined the joint responsibilities of liberals to counter such populist rhetoric.

“

What we see now with ISIS and Al-Qaeda is that they are extreme manifestation of prevalent views.

These views that need to be changed but that change has to come from within.

It cannot be from non-Muslims; it must be from Muslims calling from that change.

�

Adam Deen Director, Quilliam Foundation

32

Concluding Comment

by Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck

I have followed the whole debate on the concept of radicalisation as it erupted and developed over the past few years, and more often than not the debate reminds me of a famous phrase by the French philosopher, and Nobel Prize for Literature, Albert Camus, who famously said: ‘Mal nommer les choses c’est ajouter au malheur du monde’. To misname things increases the unhappiness and misery of the world.

It seems to me sometimes that radicalisation has become what we call a container concept. We use it almost as a flag which we hoist without knowing very concretely what we actually mean.

This makes the discussion very difficult and we tend to put radicalisation, terrorism, and Islam all in one basket, when in fact they have nothing in common. Tunisia is not Morocco, Morocco is not Algeria, Libya is not Egypt and so on. Each situation 33

is different, and most often there is always more in reality that meets the eye.

When one travels from one country to another it never occurs to him/her that there might be such a thing as very powerful clans. Not all of them are Muslim, not all of them Shia or Sunni, etc.

This is true for most countries.

The brotherhood in North Africa is a good example as we generally know nothing at all about them not because they are doing illegal things but because they are part of tradition we just don’t know or understand.

Belgium has been occupied during the Second World War, from the spring of 1940 until the autumn of 1945, and during that period thousands and thousands of men, left the country to go and freely fight with the German army, which was a Nazi army at the time.

However, not all of them were Flemish nationalists, as the official history sometimes goes. There were French-speaking nationalists as well. It has taken a very long time before the phenomenon was seriously looked at. Why did they go? Why did they join the Wehrmacht?

Famously the Walloon Legion alone had between three thousand and five thousand soldiers, most of who died during the Russian campaign in 1943.

Some even continued to live and fight with the Wehrmacht until August 1945, few weeks before the final and total collapse of the Third Reich.

The Netherlands had a similar phenomenon.

Another element is the French, if we look at what happened in France, under PĂŠtain: you had young men who went to fight in Spain during the Civil War in the 1930s, and then we say it was out of idealism.

So, the phenomenon is not entirely unknown, or unprecedented, and there are lessons to be learned from what happened. Another element, which in my view we tend to neglect, is that very young people tend to think they are immortal, and

that nothing bad can happen to them.

It is only as you grow older, that you realise that your life is not infinite. I believe that this factor also plays a role in the decision of young people to go and fight, not necessarily out of idealism, but to seek adventure and game.

Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck President of Honour, Liberal International

35 34

FREEDOM OF BELIEF: EXPERT OUTLOOK

35 3636

37

His Excellency Heiner Bielefeldt UN Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Religion or Belief

Freedom of religion or belief may be the only “classical” fundamental freedom which sometimes triggers mixed emotions among liberals.

Of course, some religious traditionalists may also voice scepticism, possibly based on fear that recognizing religion as a matter of personal freedom might lead to a trivialization of faith issues.

This sort of reluctance is certainly less surprising.

The strange experience is that people who 37

otherwise feel passionate about rights to freedom – freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of associations etc. – often display some ambivalence when confronted with claims of freedom of religion.

A liberal right rejected by liberals (or some of them) – what is that?

The assassination of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris in January this year has refuelled the old

discussion about an alleged antagonism between freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

Whereas freedom of expression often figures as the epitome of political liberalism in the broadest sense of the word, freedom of religion is sometimes located in a different camp.

And while freedom of expression gives “green light” to intellectual experimentation and satirical provocation, freedom of religion seems to function more like a “stop sign” – “don’t go too far in your provocations!” Hence the impression that these two rights, in spite of the common heading of “freedom”, actually point in different, perhaps even opposite directions.

As popular as this perception may be, it is wrong.

Freedom of religion or belief does not protect religions in themselves, i.e. their truth claims, traditional identities or even hegemonies. Instead, it empowers human beings, traditional believers, as well as dissenters and critics.

Everyone should enjoy their freedom to search for an ultimate meaning in life, to come to different results (or no result) in such endeavours, to seek

and impart information on faith-related matters, to go to church or remain at home, to change their

“

Freedom of religion or belief does not protect religions in themselves.

Instead, it empowers human beings, traditional believers, as well as dissenters and critics.

”

religion or abandon it, to cherish their inherited faith or to remain indifferent, to contribute to religious community life, engage in religious education etc.

38

Right holders are human beings, as individuals and in community with others, and in private as well as in public. In this sense, freedom of religion or belief follows exactly the same logic as freedom of expression and indeed any other human right. It specifically recognizes human beings as holders of deep, existential, identity-shaping convictions.

Liberals have good reasons to commit themselves to the thorough implementation of freedom of religion or belief, in conjunction with all other human rights. At the same time, freedom of religion or belief does pose an interesting challenge to liberals.

39

It serves as a reminder that the subject of human rights, i.e. the human being, is a rather complex being, whose identity-shaping existential convictions can go in a very different direction.

Diversity is easier said than done – most certainly in the area of religious diversity.

In order to define adequate policies in our increasingly multi-cultural and multi-religious societies, political liberalism should show new sensitivity for the religious dimensions of human life.

Adam Deen Managing Director, Quilliam Foundation

In my work in countering extremism at the Quilliam Foundation which is the world’s first counterextremism organisation, what one recognises is that extremism without a doubt encroaches upon tolerance and it creates a lack of tolerance.

If it carries on unchecked it creates a deficit of tolerance and inevitably this deficit transforms into violence. If any form of extremism is not addressed very early on, be it Islamist extremism, far-right

extremism or whatever else it may be it will create a deficit of tolerance, leading to intolerance within the society and inevitably to some form of violence.

Today the threat of Islamist extremism and the many terrorist attacks in Europe have focused the public attention on the state of Islam as a religion.

The attention now is on the nature of Islam as a religion. Is there something inherently wrong with this faith? All of us here are perturbed by the sheer 40

indifference to the loss of life, to the value of life and its hostility.

All of us here are shocked by this, but for some these acts of terrorism confirm that there is a clash of civilisations.

Some of us may say that Islamic values are at odds with western liberal values and that there is a clash between individual freedom, pluralism, liberalism, liberty, and this force of despotism, authoritarianism and intolerance.

Now, this type of clashing in some of our minds is understandable, when we are dealing with the theology and ideology of the likes of Bin Laden, ISIS and sort of Wahhabis and Jihadists.

However, we have to understand that extremists are not only against Western values, but they are also against universal values.

Their views display a fanatical intolerance which is born out of isolation and belligerence. If we really want to understand a belief or an ideology we have to see what these people, the advocates, say about themselves. And this is the way they see themselves: they see themselves functioning in 41

their own rational sphere.

It is a closed system, totalitarian system, and anything outside of that system is completely trumped [up]. Any ethical, moral way of thinking is completely trumped [up], and a life devoted to compliance with this closed system is considered inherently superior to all others, and following this, any other way of living is considered to be cowardly and hypocritical.

Naturally those who are rightly guided are superior because God is on their side‌ only God is on their side for this matter. Now some of us here may argue that this type of attitude, in holding this type of belief, is not the natural consequence of firmly held systems of belief. Do we not end up like this because we are very confident, very sure about any kind of belief, and especially a belief that is grounded upon religion? Not all religious convictions and different types of religious thoughts have a particular supreme kind of thinking about them.

Is it that all of us who hold on to our own belief view it as having this kind of unique specialness, isn’t that the consequence of having a strong

belief? I say no, because the supremacist creed that we see from this kind of extremism is distinctly and uniquely dangerous.

This exclusive type of thinking about Muslims, which is strongly oriented towards a cultural and political dominance, not only seeks self-empowerment, but it aggressively seeks to disempower others and dominate and destroy them.

It is very different from having a confidence, a belief about your own system of belief.

It is different when your own system of belief is on a journey to completely eradicate every other belief as seen as diametrically opposed.

The cracks of the matter is that all lives lived outside of this totalitarian system are seen as a violation against God. And those ideas, those individuals must be resisted and fought. Now, extremism is not unique to Islam.

All religions over the years have had some forms of extremism rearing in their ugly heads throughout its history. But within the Islamic history and its present and its future we have a major shift unlike any experience before.

The traditional institutions that once sustained and propagated a kind of Islamic authenticity are no longer, and those institutions used to marginalise Islamic extremism no longer exist because the Islamic civilisation has crumbled [down].

These institutions which used to keep Islamic extremism in check are no longer there, that is what it’s unique about the Islamic civilisation or Islamic world now.

Those institutions that were vital in curbing extremism no longer exist. Now it would be wrong to say that groups like Al-Qaeda or ISIS fill this vacuum of authority within contemporary modern Islam, but they are obviously able to commit highly visible acts of violence.

These groups still remain socially and intellectually marginal, within the Islamic discourse and within the Islamic movement. Still, their extreme manifestations give rise to such organisations and such views and it is these extreme manifestations of prevalent intellectual theological currents within modern Islam which desperately needs to be addressed.

42

So if you want to understand the crisis within the Islamic faith now it is this: those prevalent ideas are not being challenged, or not being challenged enough. Now, because of these highly visible acts of terrorism in Europe there is a development of anti-Muslim bigotry, which is on the rise.

The view is: “Muslims, they are the minority, but what happens when they are the majority?

Muslims are law-binding, but they are only lawbinding until they can overthrow our laws”.

This is the view, but in an attempt to deal with the challenge of Islamist extremism, we sometimes shoot from the hip, as the English expression is, that we overreact and in an attempt to deal with these manners we sometimes cannibalise our own values, our own liberties.

For example, in 2004, everybody knows that based on the pretext of protecting the country, freedom of religion and expression in some parts of Europe was curtailed and head-scarfs in schools were banned. In Switzerland for example the constitution was changed to a degree in order to ban minarets.

Now we must not, in attempt of dealing with 43

Islamist extremism, fall into far-right trap and assume that the only good Muslims we can trust are the ex-Muslims. We must not fall into this trap and we must not implement policies in line with this view. So we covered one problem which is the Islamist extremism view of itself.

There is another challenge of how we may overreact in dealing with this problem. But there is also another problem; we have a problem with the left. Most of the extremists have allies on the right, in the sense of justifying their bigotry.

Islamist extremists also have alliances on the left.

How is that the case? Some leftists re-interpret Islamist extremism or cut up anti-Western Extremism as anti-Capitalism, and by proxy they support Islamism, out of a mistaken belief that it is an ally against government imperialism and globalisation. And this is what is played out here: my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

This is the most naïve view that one could ever have about Islamist extremism.

Do these people not know that if these people were in power they will behead them? Yet they feel

the need to defend and ally with these people. In the UK this is a major problem as individuals on the left are siding with Islamists and thus giving them oxygen which is a tragic reality.

What has developed now because of this movement is a peculiar type of tolerance: a type of tolerance which neutralises all views. I am very much against this neutralisation of ethics as it is driven by cultural relativism, which is operating in the background, and within these intellectual landscapes any type of criticism of Islam is seen as racist and imperialistic.

This is the outcome if you neutralise ethics. If you then have a peculiar type of tolerance where everything is right then this is what happens as we cannot challenge ideas which are obnoxious and clearly violate liberal values. I want to bring up Primo Levi as I think his work is evidently relevant in today’s society. Primo Levi, a survival of Auschwitz, spent forty years writing about his experiences and reflections upon the phenomenon of totalitarianism. He spoke about the danger of

“

If any form of extremism is not addressed very early on, be it Islamist extremism, far-right extremism or whatever else it may be, it will create a deficit of tolerance, leading to intolerance within the society and inevitably to some form of violence.

”

developing apathy and what concerned him was that we would become over-sensitive about labels.

Hannah Arendt said: “Judging is central to democratic politics because democratic politics involves applying reason and weighting down concrete alternatives.” Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a difference between judging and labelling: the difference between reasonable act of discernment and unreasonable act of prejudice.

44

As Levi explained the global labelling of totalitarian regimes repelled us as “these are the people that you should worry about, these are the people that are trying to take over our country, our society”.

We had too much of this with the Fascist and Nazi regimes, but then on the other hand, we don’t want to label anything, we don’t want to call out anything that we see in front of us.

So, Primo Levi said that we should be very, very concerned about apathy, especially from our own cohorts. If we can speak about superiority, the superior view is this: that all of us adhere to universal values and they apply to all of us, whether we are Muslim, Christian, Humanist, Atheist, and

45

whatever else we may be.

What separates us where there is a hierarchy is when we do not adhere to these universal values.

When someone chooses not to adhere to those universal values this creates the hierarchy, and at that point we can point the finger and pull that person aside and hold him/her to an account.

This is the only superior view… we must all adhere to universal human values, universal human rights, which the Enlightenment brought us. Anyone who chooses not to be part of that is someone who is out of the group.

Dr. Karen Mock Former National Director of the League for Human Rights, Canada

Religion is frequently blamed as a cause of violent conflict, yet dialogue between faith communities, and faith-based approaches to peace-making, have been shown to be invaluable in promoting understanding and reconciliation.

With the rise in radicalization and extremism in the post 9/11 environment, interfaith dialogue is a form of peace-making that is increasingly recognized for its relevance to 21st century conflict, in areas

where there is armed hostility, and also among ethnic communities worldwide that are impacted by those hostilities miles away.

I am pleased that over the last thirty years, I have been part of several dialogue programs, including the Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims, the Women’s Intercultural Network and an Arab/ Jewish dialogue group. It is clear that the key to the success of any dialogue program is the 46

development of trust amongst the participants, the development of ongoing relationships, and the ability of the participants to develop communication skills conducive to conflict resolution.

It has long been known by psychologists that direct contact reduces intergroup prejudices. Recent studies have even shown that just imagining a positive interaction with a member of another group can also reduce prejudice.

Another key factor that reduces prejudice and enhances understanding is empathy, or the ability to “put oneself in the other’s shoes.”

The North American Native expression “never judge a person until you have walked a mile in his moccasins” is similar to the Hebrew sage Hillel’s admonition “separate not from thy community… and judge not another person until you have been in his place.” Regretfully, many dialogue programs fail because most of the time people end up talking past each other, continue to be defensive, and fail to try to see things from others’ points of view.

People too often recognize human rights violations against their own group, and understand when 47

they (or their people) are the victims; but they fail to recognize when they (or their people) are the perpetrators of human rights abuses against the “other”, because they may be in a position of power and privilege on another dimension (e.g. gender, race, religion, sexual orientation).

Relations within our own faith groups are often so complex and challenging that many people have great difficulty in such discussions with members of their own group; so they also have difficulty in seeing how people of different faiths or ethnicities can come to love and respect those whom they see as being on “the other side”.

However, when dialogue sessions are properly facilitated, and participants have had prior preparation and practice with empathetic communication, the use of “I messages”, and active or “compassionate” listening, they become less “ethnocentric”.

When they can come to understand one another’s feelings of hurt and pain, never again will they think it is only “perception” that there is racism, antisemitism…or any other of the “isms” or

“phobias”. In dialogue, it is important to listen to what others are saying and feeling, and try to understand it.

In Canada, Dr. Victor Goldbloom, a former Liberal Cabinet Minister in the Province of Quebec, has been involved in inter-faith dialogue for almost 60 years. He urged the Christian/Jewish Dialogue (that has begun in the 1950’s) to become more inclusive, particularly including Muslims, since members of the three Abrahamic faiths continue to struggle with the rise of hatred and extremism in the Middle East.

As he put it in his recent autobiography, Building Bridges, each religion says “ours is a religion of peace.” Each religion says “those who invoke our religion to explain and justify violent extremism are perverting it” and each community says “our community should not be stigmatized and stereotyped because of a minority of extremists.”

However as sincere as these statements may be, the implication is that we are not responsible for our co-religionists.

Although we are not directly responsible, it is

the teaching of hatred that fuels the extremism that is destabilizing the world. We can all take responsibility for teaching differently and for redressing the imbalances that exist in the teaching of hatred. Interfaith and intercultural dialogue is a good place to start, and the earlier we start the better.

Increasingly, international governments have witnessed the need to understand religious sensitivities as a way to maintain international relations and cooperation with different states, and there have been several international conferences in recent years that have strengthened this point.

The importance of youth engagement in interfaith dialogue cannot be overstated – neither can the importance of turning words into action.

A specifically worthy example is the Interfaith Encounter Association (IEA) that strives to use the power of religion as a force for peace and compassion instead of conflict. They believe that if religion is part of the problem, it must – and can – be part of the solution.

Over the past 12 years, they have brought together 48

people from different faiths and cultures to build lifetime bonds through sharing their cultures, beliefs, and traditions, and by creating a “safe space” for friendly disagreement.

Reaching out to a wide spectrum of each population, they are building a broad-based, popular movement for peace, by bringing people together and breaking down the barriers of hatred toward the “other”.

“

Organizations that use interfaith dialogue need the support of liberal and progressive people everywhere, in order to counter the tendency of some faith communities to use and abuse religion to justify violence.

49

”

They believe that without this grassroots component, political efforts cannot succeed, and that religion, which so often is misused to divide and inflame, can also serve as a potent unifying force that helps to tear down walls of ignorance and fear.

There are many organizations that use interfaith dialogue to strive to provide strong foundations for a greater understanding of different religions in an effort to promote peace.

They need the support of liberal and progressive people everywhere, to maintain momentum with continuous calls for peaceful coexistence, and to counter the tendency of some faith communities to use and abuse religion to justify violence.

Interfaith dialogue serves to highlight a key role religion can play in global affairs by promoting shared values as a means to achieve peace. It is important also to take an egalitarian approach, ensuring that women, youth and other minority voices are heard within and between groups.

As my Australian colleague Jeremy Jones puts it, interfaith dialogue and cooperation is prompted

by common interests, common concerns and common passions – but above all by common sense. Religion is an essential component in the identities of so much of humanity. However, when so formulated, it is a source of antagonism and conflict.

If we want a world founded on harmony, mutual coexistence and justice, true religious leaders will be in the forefront of framing the public discourse in a way promoting positive ideals, not divisive ideologies.

The success of several interfaith dialogue programs

in hostile environments gives credence to the idea that religion, which is so often used to divide and inflame, can also serve as a unifying force to help tear down walls of ignorance and fear.

It takes courage to participate in interfaith dialogue in times of conflict; but we must continue to dialogue with compassion, empathy and hope — even at the most difficult times – putting words into action, because it is through meeting and knowing the “other” that the conflict will finally end.

50

FREEDOM OF BELIEF: LIBERAL VISIONS

51 52

53

Franรงoise Schepmans Mayor of Molenbeek-Saint-Jean Brussels, Belgium

The visit of Liberal International to the Cultural Center of Molenbeek was an important one especially after the dramatic events in Brussels.

The many delegates who came to Molenbeek Saint-Jean did so not to target the commune but rather to understand it and see what measures were finally taken to combat radicalisation.

In the municipality we acted on three axes.

First the police: it is important that the police 53

carry out operations in a precise manner against delinquency since there is a close link between this delinquency and terrorist activities.

Operations against drug trafficking, trafficking of human beings, weapons, and identity counterfeit led to the closure of several places not least shops and cafes where there were illegal activities. There is also now tighter control over dwellings and houses because there is a frequent settlement and

re-settlement on the territory of the commune making it essential to know who lives there and in what conditions.

Secondly we have an administrative axis: we detect suspicious activities of individuals based on their administrative and economic situations and not only based on active police investigations.

Thirdly we have a prevention axis: this is equally important as we have to work with schools, associations, and families to ensure that radicalization does not occur in the first place.

I am proud that Liberal International has come to Molenbeek, in the centre of the commune, to have an exchange with me as Mayor and many educational and social actors in order to really understand the situation on the ground.

This type of exchange of expertise and experience enables us to move forward with very precise ideas in the fight against radicalization.

The Cultural Centre of Molenbeek is a place where there are many activities, meetings and workshops for children and adults alike. It is a place of life here at the core of the community and we work hard to

ensure that all members of the public can use this space.

“

I am proud that Liberal International has come to Molenbeek to have an exchange with me as Mayor and many educational and social actors in order to really understand the situation on the ground.

This type of exchange of expertise and experience enables us to move forward with very precise ideas in the fight against radicalization.

�

54

Lord John Alderdice President of Honour, Liberal International

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets out the right of an individual to his or her own religious or other beliefs – to have them, to change them, to share them with others and to practice them.

Given the emphasis that liberals accord to how we as individuals think and what we believe, it is perhaps surprising that Freedom of Religion and Belief has received relatively scant attention over 55

recent decades. It has rarely been debated in Liberal International and more widely it has been described as “an orphaned right�1: a position exemplified by the fact that in the United Nations it has been one of the least developed of the fundamental freedoms in terms of international human rights mechanisms.

Member governments of the United Nations have generally been half-hearted about it and instead

we have seen an increase in anti-defamation resolutions whose purpose is to defend the position of religions, as distinct from the rights of individual people.

This is despite the fact that Article 18 admits of no right for states or religious communities to take action against individuals because they believe or behave in ways that are contrary to the dominant religious or anti-religious tradition.

Indeed it specifically stands against such actions.

Across the globe a substantial majority of people now live in countries with significant government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief and high levels of hostility against people because of their religious or non-religious beliefs or affiliations can be observed. The situation is getting worse.

In repeated declarations the United Nations has insisted that everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief, but in practice it has done relatively little to make this a reality. The increasing

1

focus on the so-called “defamation of religions”, under the guise of respect for cultures, focuses on protecting religions from criticism and has actually become a means of restricting the rights and freedoms of individuals, instead of extending them.

In many parts of the world there is denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s beliefs, religious or non-religious.

This is an extremely serious state of affairs because not only is freedom of religion or belief a fundamental right which is not to be abandoned or ignored, even in times of public emergency, it also addresses one of the most basic elements of the human condition and one that is unique to humanity - our search for meaning.

This has sometimes been described as the Information Age, but beliefs go far beyond mere information or knowledge or even of our personal

“Article 18: an Orphaned Right” – Report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom, United Kingdom

56

opinions. In Article 19 the right to freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined.

This right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. In setting these out in two separate Articles, the authors of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly saw that Freedom of Religion and Belief went well beyond Freedom of Opinion and Expression.

Our religious or non-religious beliefs, which are often associated with our membership of particular groups or communities, and are characterised by certain rituals and practices, constitute important, perhaps even essential elements of our personal and communal identities.

Such beliefs and practices, traditional or new, whether they are associated with transcendent convictions or are not , are profoundly significant pillars of our personalities and cultures, and a refusal to allow us to follow them is not only illiberal, but an assault on the essence of who we are as human beings and communities.

57

Five centuries ago, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg marking his formal dissent from the position of the Roman Catholic religious establishment.

This was a dramatic declaration of freedom of religion and belief and the succeeding centuries saw those of a liberal disposition engaging in protests, campaigns, rebellions, revolutions and wars on precisely this question.

Others were imprisoned, tortured, killed, or had to flee for their lives and seek freedom of religion and belief in new lands.

In some parts of the world we have come to take our freedoms for granted, or have assumed, as some of the followers of the Enlightenment mistakenly did, that before long we would all share a set of beliefs or attitudes that would be so universal (and most probably not religious) that standing for Freedom of Religion and Belief would be redundant, because all would enjoy it.

Such is not the case, and indeed ours may have become an even more intolerant age than we fully

appreciate.

When we think of those who have not respected Article 18, our minds will quickly turn to the antireligious massacres of leaders like Stalin and Mao Zedong, and the brutal intolerance against other religions of some who have identified themselves as Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists.

We may less easily recognize that as liberals, while we may not engage in brutality or pogroms, we can be intolerant of those who do not share our ideas of what life is about and how life should be conducted, individually and in community.

We can even regard their views as outside the boundaries of acceptable conversation and press for this to be reflected in law. However we justify this to ourselves, we are transgressing on Freedom of Religion and Belief, and if we do this to others, at another time or in another place it will be used to justify doing the same to us or others like us.

While the UN Vienna Declaration of 1993 asserts that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and inter-related, within the family of human rights Freedom of Religion and

“

Religious and other fundamental principles of living are essential elements of being a human and we need to review how we regard them in the public as well as the private sphere so that we are better able to maintain all our other rights and freedoms too.

�

Belief has remained on the margins of the debate.

As liberals, we must not allow this to continue.

It is up to us to pick up the standard and address this central human right, with all its complexities and challenges. We must find various ways in which to raise the question, first among ourselves, 58

and then in a challenge to others.

Without Freedom of Religion or Belief there eventually is no true human freedom at all.

Religious and other fundamental principles of living are not simply matters of private thought, reflection and morality.

They are the basis on which we live our lives, and

sometimes even give our lives, in devotion, in sacrificial living and sometimes in dying. They are essential elements of being human and we need to review how we regard them in the public as well as the private sphere so that we are better able to maintain all our other rights and freedoms too.

Size and projected growth of major religious groups, 2015-2060 Billion

31.8% *

3

31.1%

Estimated 2015 population (7,284,640,000) Projected 2060 population (9,615,760,000) * % of world population

31.2%

2

Due to rounding the exact figure may not come to 100% Data Source: Pew Research Center

24.1%

16.0% 12.5%

1

14.5% 6.9% 4.8%

Christians

59

15.1%

Muslims

Unaffiliated

Hindus

Buddhists

5.7% 4.6%

0.8% 0.6%

Folk religions Other religions

0.2% 0.2%

Jews

Abir Al-Sahlani Member of Liberal International Human Rights Committee

Where there is dictatorship one can also see a very fundamentalist approach to Islam and dictators and religious clerks find many synergies in each other.

I once asked a Saudi Prince as to why the Saudi royal family supports the Wahhabi school in Islam and he told me it was because it justifies their place in power as a royal family. This was a very simple and honest answer and I think it says a lot, which leads me to one of the problems I think we have to deal

with as liberal democracies: our relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

It can’t continue like this because Saudi Arabia is the country which exports Wahhabism, it is the one country which finances Wahhabism, and if you don’t know what Wahhabism is, think of a softer version of Al-Qaeda.

There was first a form of Wahhabism which took a very fundamentalist approach to Islam advocating for “clean living” or being as close to the Prophet 60

Mohammed as possible. Al-Qaeda took this approach and made it even more extreme, and now we have Daesh, which has also come from AlQaeda, and made it even more extreme.

What western countries have to do is really consider their relations with Saudi Arabia.

So, when it comes to our own national interests and making money through deals with Saud Arabia all of a sudden we don’t see any more this trend of fundamentalism and how fundamentalists are actually killing people on everyday basis.

So, this hypocrisy of Western Europe is one of the major obstacles and for me as a Liberal who comes from the Middle East this hypocrisy comes on the way of promoting liberal values.

I want to also mention the feeling of being left out, of not being accepted for who you are and of not having equal opportunities. The mayor of Molenbeek addressed this issue very well and this is another thing I think liberal politicians and liberal parties have to tackle.

It is really looking at the whole community and all of its citizens and providing everyone with equal 61

opportunities regardless of their background.

I think that as long as we have dictatorships in the Middle East we will also have fundamentalists.

Dictatorships leave people in desperation which is actually the best way for breeding a fundamentalist approach to Islam. We will therefore not be able to tackle the challenges with fundamentalism without a political change in the Middle East and democratisation; without involving all citizens and having true liberal values.

One very important thing to also have in mind is that Islam is not a homogeneous religion.

What is going on in Pakistan, what is going on in Iraq, what is going on in Saudi Arabia, what is going on in Indonesia and the Philippines, what is going on in Egypt or Morocco or Tunisia, is very different from one country to another and many different factors impact on this development.

One interesting thing though is that about three years ago the Government of Tunisia got the Nobel Peace Prize. Tunisia is one of the major exporters of Daesh and Jihadists to Iraq, so it is very nice to have a prize for peace when you get rid of all the people

who you don’t want to, or you are not comfortable with in your own country.

I think as liberals we need to encourage the change in Islam from within. We have to encourage Islamic think tanks and Islamic universities.

I am one of those who are saying that we have to have a European Imam education at the university level, creating a European Islamic Institute as an institute which can give ‘fatwa’ to Muslims.

I define myself as a Muslim and I don’t see my values reflected in the European schools today.

I want a ‘fatwa’ that says being homosexual is no longer ‘haram’, not wearing a hijab is no longer necessary and it doesn’t put you in hell, and I think it can only be done with Muslims scholars who are very progressive. However such scholars are never invited to mainstream discussions on Islam.

They are very much left out because of the Wahhabis homogeny grip over how Islam is tackled in the media. I think that as liberals we need to support every attempt for change from within the Islamic community and every attempt to develop Islam. I was actually put on an Al-Qaeda hit list

once back in 2005 when I was working in Iraq.

I actually felt bad for being only in the sixth place and not in the first place on the list. I was put on the hit list because I was saying that I need an Islam which fits Abir and an I Islam which fits the King of Saudi Arabia. I need my own Islam.

There is no continuity in the Islamic history of what is taught out. For example, there are many young Muslims who don’t know that actually there were Muslim clerks in the committee which wrote the UN Charter for Human Rights.

This is why they can often say that the UN Charter was not written by Muslims and therefore it is not for them. This of course is actually not true.

There were Muslims from all of the schools of Islam represented and this continuity is actually very dangerous because they don’t know that there were so many scholars during the history of Islam who promoted different thinking and dialogue.

Ibn Khaldun and Ibn Rushd for example were among the most prominent Muslim philosophers and if they had twitter accounts at the time they would have had intellectual debates on social 62

“

As long as we have dictatorships in the Middle East we will also have fundamentalists.

We will therefore not be able to tackle the challenges with fundamentalism without a political change in the Middle East and democratisation.

”

media all the time. Many of us who grew up in dictatorships were not encouraged to be full members of the community where we would have had rights. Not having the knowledge and not trusting yourself in being able to actually find your own path in Islam is also problematic. For example, when one goes to a Mosque he/she doesn’t have 63

any rights. In fact many Muslims don’t have the courage to demand an Islam which is fitting for them and represents their own spiritual journey.

This means having a spiritual journey according to one’s own aspirations and not those of the Imam.

It is only when you feel strong enough in your spirit, as a spiritual being, that you can question Imams or recruiters who come and say that Jihad is the only way. We all know that Islam states that “Jihad is us having a pen” and it is also writing and reading.

We also know that the first word that Allah said to the Prophet Mohamed is “read!”. It wasn’t the word “kill” or “pray”. It was the word “read.”

So there are many instruments inside the religion which can counter this fundamentalism and strand of jihadist Islam, but we need to free the individual Muslim, we need to encourage that person to make their own journey on their own private Islam.

I think that as liberals we have a great responsibility to play by the tools that I have mentioned above.

65

Boris Van Der Ham Member of Liberal International Human Rights Committee

The Freedom of Religion and Believe is one of the fundaments of our civilization.

Liberals have stood up for these rights for hundreds of years. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this freedom is protected.

Several international reports tell us that there are still huge problems affecting these rights.

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has made clear that 65

in large parts of the world people are still not free (enough) to worship the life stance of their choice.

The Christian organization Open Doors is standing up for Christians who are in danger in several Islamic and communist countries.

Muslims are also having problems where they are in a minority. In this article I want to focus on another group: the non-affiliated and the nonreligious.

At just over 16%, the non-affiliated represent the third largest global group after Christians and Muslims. Among them are atheists, agnostics and humanists, but also liberal religious people who do not feel at home in an organized religion.

This group of “non-affiliated” is probably much bigger because many people are a follower of a religious community in name only but pull their own plan. In Europe, the non-religious and nonaffiliate form the majority in many countries.

In the United States, a third of the citizens under 30 are non-religious.

The growing number of non-affiliated and nonreligious is not a pure Western-development. In the so-called strict “Muslim countries” more and more people are losing their connection with dogmatic religious views or institutions.

In a Gallup Report of 2012 in Saudi Arabia almost 19% claimed they were not practicing their religion, and 5% even called themselves atheist.

In countries like Egypt and Tunisia these numbers are even higher.

In its annual global Freedom of Thought report, the

International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) has shown how many recognised governments are guilty of the persecution and torture of these nonreligious and non-affiliated individuals.

In the worst-case scenario, non-believers are prosecuted and sentenced to death.

Apostasy and blasphemy are punishable offences in 55 countries; in 13 countries, these crimes carry a death sentence.

Despite - or perhaps even thanks to - the increasing secularisation in Islamic countries, more people have been convicted for blasphemy and apostasy.

Some countries have made their punishments even stronger. For instance, in 2016 Saudi Arabia placed atheism on a par with terrorism in its legislation.

Various death sentences were passed this year as a result.

Several cases are reported of writers critical of religion being punished for “blasphemy” or “insult” in countries such as Turkey, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Malaysia.

This calls for international attention by non-religious and religious voices alike. After all, when freedom 66

of religion and belief is threatened, every minority suffers. In Sudan, Meriam Ibrahim was sentenced to death for “apostasy” for converting from Islam to Christianity, and it was only after international pressure that she was able to flee the country.

Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian woman, still awaits the same fate: an appeal against her death sentence was rejected in October. In the extremist ideology of an Islamic State even moderate Muslims find themselves targeted as “apostates”.

In the eyes of a fundamentalist, being different is being godless and it ultimately makes you a legitimate target of violence.

These kinds of attacks on basic human rights also take place on the level of the United Nations.

For years Russia and many African nations, as well as Islamic states, have argued for the curbing of the “defamation of religion”, aiming to squash any criticism of official religions.

Thanks to counter-pressure from several Western countries and NGOs - among them humanist organisations - this argument has been tackled.

However Russia, backed by conservative Christian 67

and Islamic countries, now takes another angle on the subject and demands the protection of so called “cultural traditions” and “traditional values”. Such re-interpretations of human rights are meant to eliminate and suppress unwelcome and dissenting views as “untraditional” or “insulting.”

It is of the utmost importance to dismantle this Trojan horse, a process that is impeded by notorious human rights violators like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the UN Human Rights Council.

These countries must be stopped in their attempts to use the Council to strip down fundamental human rights.

Liberals should do the following to address this issue: 1. Acknowledge that Freedom of Religion and Belief is an individual right. Everyone can choose a personal view on life, and freely embrace, amend, mix or leave different views. People have the right to change their views and thoughts and to leave a religion. Liberals should also be very clear that the position of the non-affiliated and non-religious is

equal to the position of those with a religion. There is no privilege for religion towards the life-stances which are not worshiping a God. 2. All laws that are harming the right to freely choose your own life-stance should be abolished.

Laws against apostasy and against blasphemy are often used to harm non-religious individuals and to dwarf necessary criticism towards a religious dominance. Even in a lot of western countries antiblasphemy laws are still in the law books.

Although these laws are now more or less symbolical, it’s important to get rid of them. If we want to stand up against the use of anti-blasphemy laws in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we have to set the right example.

3. The Freedom of Religion and Belief is not only an adult right but also a child’s right. Of course parents are free to raise their children according to their worldview, but at schools children have to learn about other religious and non-religious views.

Furthermore learning about the right to change a

religion, or to have no religion at all has to be part of the curriculum.

4. Because of the violence and prosecution of nonaffiliated and non-religious groups, some of them choose to flee their country. Some of them end up seeking asylum. Liberals already support journalists, religious minorities and LGTB+-refugees.

However, we also have to be aware of the growing number of humanists, atheists and free thinkers who are seeking refuge in safer countries.

Britain, Sweden and The Netherlands have already acknowledged the situation of these individuals.

One of the problems that these people are facing in the refugee camps is bullying and threats by orthodox Muslims. We as liberals have to stand up for them.

Besides this top-down form of human rights violation, the absence of “horizontal” religious freedom - the freedom that people should also extend to each other as individuals – is also a growing problem. Even in countries where sufficient 68

legal protection is in place, individuals and groups experience problems in informal situations.

Many of them decide not to express their “real” beliefs for fear of social exclusion by their family and friends. This happens mainly in orthodox religious environments. At the current time, attention needs to focus on Islamic environments in particular. It will not be possible to “fix” this social problem with new legislation alone.

In a lot of communities, social exclusion is often accompanied by physical violence. The last couple of years, atheist bloggers in Bangladesh were literally hacked to death by members of an extreme Islamic group. The appalling attacks in Paris, Nice and those in Beirut, Turkey and Egypt fall in the same category.

It is true to say that non-state networks in virtually every part of the world are using brute force to try to impose their interpretation of the Quran on “non-believers”. To them, non-believers include atheists and humanists, but also Muslims with views different to those of their own and the supporters of other religions.

69

How should we respond to this violence towards “non-believers’” in all parts of the world? In these situations, some platitudes are expressed.

“

As liberals we should take a united stand across borders to draw public and political attention to the outright human rights violations perpetrated against the non-religious and the non-affiliated.

The fight for secular values is not a fight between religion and humanism, but between authoritarianism and individual freedom.

”

For example, calling on “moderate Muslims” to take the lead in this situation inside the Islamic community is a must.

One good example often used to encourage them to do so is the letter that 126 Islamic spiritual leaders from around the world wrote to ISIS. It immediately became a sensation among progressive users of social media. In this letter, ISIS was asked to respect Muslims with views different than their own, including the “brothers of the Book” being Jews and Christians.

However, the letter did not mention any other religions or the right to apostasy or to criticise religion. The letter fell far short of being the Islamic version of the Dignitatis Humanae, for example, in which the Roman Catholic Church recognised freedom of belief - for believers and non-believers alike - in 1965.

It’s a sign of politically correct anxiety to leave the debate on religious tolerance to the moderate Muslims. In fact this is a debate which affects everyone. Liberals should not only focus on debating in parliament, but also seek dialogue with

Muslim communities and Mosques.

As liberals we should take a united stand across borders to draw public and political attention to the outright human rights violations perpetrated against the non-religious and the non-affiliated. The increasing demographic of atheists, humanists, and others not affiliated with any religious institution should no longer be ignored.

By protecting the right to be non-religious, we are also taking a strong stance for religious diversity.

Religious people, too, need the right to be “nonbelievers” in the perception of the other. The fight for secular values is not a fight between religion and humanism, but between authoritarianism and individual freedom.

70

Why Freedom of Belief Matters Latest Trends in Religious Restrictions and Hostilities

Worldwide, social hostilities involving religion declined somewhat in 2013 after reaching a six-year peak the previous year.

Government restrictions on religion stayed roughly the same from 2012 to 2013. The share of countries in this category was 27% in 2013, compared with 29% in 2012.

71

As in previous years, Christians and Muslims – who together make up more than half of the global population – faced harassment in the largest number of countries.

Christians were harassed, either by government or social groups, in 102 of the 198 countries included in the study (52%), while Muslims were harassed in 99 countries (50%).

In 2013, 120 countries (about 61%) experienced at least one of these hostilities, which include attempts to impose a particular perspective on religion on the rest of society

Among the 59 countries with at least one of the government restrictions aimed primarily at religious minorities, 43 (73%) had high or very high scores on the GRI in 2013.

Social hostilities involving religion dropped from 33% in 2012 to 27% in 2013, the most recent year for which data are available.

A quarter of the world’s countries are still grappling with high levels of religious hostilities within their borders.

Overall levels of restrictions – whether resulting from government policies or from hostile acts by private individuals, organizations and social groups –were high or very high in 39% of countries.

Restrictions include prohibitions or bans on specific faiths; attempts to control or intimidate religious groups through the use of force; and efforts to eliminate a group’s presence from the country or a particular area. As of 2013, nearly a third of the countries in the world (59 countries, or 30%) had at least one of these restrictions.

72

About us

Liberal International (LI) is the world federation of over 100 liberal and progressive democratic political parties.

LI was founded in 1947 to strengthen liberal protection from totalitarianism and communism.

The founding “Oxford Manifesto� is widely considered as one of the most important political documents of the 20th century. It has since become the pre-eminent network for promoting liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, equal opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy.

73

OUR SUPPORTERS

Published by: Liberal International 1 Whitehall Place London, UK SW1A 2HD www.liberal-international.org With the support of: ALDE Party Rue d’Idalie 11 - box 2 1050 Brussels, Belgium www.aldeparty.eu

European Parliament Rue Wiertz 60, 1047 Brussels, Belgium www.europarl.europa.eu Edited by: Liberal International Layout and design by: Fabio Lippi All rights reserved

European and Transatlantic Dialogue Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom Avenue de Cortenbergh 71 1000 Brussels Belgium www.fnf-europe.org 74