THE TANDEM PROJECT
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HOPE - GEORGE
ORWELL’S 1984
Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.
Issue: U.S. President Obama’s hope and a note of caution from
George Orwell’s 1984.
For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs,
Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society
Review: On the eve of
Erich Fromm, writing an
Afterward to George Orwell’s 1984 said
“doublethink,” a term coined by the novel, means “in a successful manipulation
of the mind the person is no longer saying the opposite of what he thinks, but
he thinks the opposite of what is true.” In Orwell’s 1984 it
leads to the completely unlimited use of torture and brainwashing. Fromm ended
by saying, “Books like Orwell’s are powerful warnings, and it would be most
unfortunate if the reader smugly interpreted 1984 as
another description of Stalinist barbarism, and if he does not see that it
means us, too.”
Doublethink is when a
government at the highest level believes water boarding is not torture or a
violation of the U.N. Convention Against Torture. Doublethink is when they do
not believe they have violated the Geneva Conventions by interpreting
terrorists as non-combatants without rights. Actions based on these beliefs are
a violation of the United States Constitution. They may be war crimes as
defined by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new administration
should act against these breaches in the rule of law or lend support to an independent
truth commission.
Norms and standards on
human rights have been challenged recently by
These issues are being
debated by the UN Human Rights Council on the role of human rights. If
opponents of human rights are able to compromise and manipulate these
principles in a UN General Assembly resolution adopting their vision of the
rule of law this will be doublethink, deflecting the true meaning of standards
to promote tolerance and prevent discrimination based on religion or belief.
(See attachments).
United Nations Secretary
General Ban Ki Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “Never
in our lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and
committed dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among
and between nations.” A writer in another setting has said, “The warning signs
are clear: unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of
belief, ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the
conflicts of the future will probably be even more deadly.”
As we are all painfully
aware, religious conflict continues to escalate worldwide whether in the
Surely one of the best hopes for the future of
humankind is to embrace a culture in which religions and other beliefs accept
one another, in which wars and violence are not tolerated in the name of an exclusive
right to truth, in which children are raised to solve conflicts with mediation,
compassion and understanding.
3-14 December 2009 is the
25 year anniversary of the 1984 Geneva Seminar called by the UN Secretariat on
ways to implement the 1981 U.N. Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Excerpts: Excerpts are presented under the Eight Articles of
the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Examples of extracts are presented
prior to an Issue Statement for each Review.
2. 1 No one shall be subject to
discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons or person on the
grounds of religion or other beliefs.
4. 1 All States shall take
effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social
and cultural life.
1984
A
Novel by George Orwell
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Slogans of party newspeak from the
novel
Afterword
by Erich Fromm
George Orwell’s 1984 is the
expression of a mood and it is a warning. The mood it expresses is that of near
despair about the future of man, and the warning is that unless the course of
history changes, men all over the world will lose their most human qualities,
will become soulless automatons, and will not even be aware of it.
The question is a philosophical,
anthropological and psychological one, and perhaps also a religious one. It is:
can human nature be changed in such a way that man will forget his longing for
freedom, for dignity, for integrity, for love – that is to say, can man forget
that he is human? Or does human nature have a dynamism which will react to the
violation of these basic human needs by attempting to change an inhuman society
into a human one?
Orwell wrote 1984
before the discovery of thermonuclear weapons and it is only a history footnote
to say that in the fifties the very aim which was just mentioned had already been
reached. The atomic bomb which was dropped on the Japanese cities seems small
and ineffective when compared with the mass slaughter which can be achieved by
thermonuclear weapons with the capacity to wipe out 90 per cent or 100 per cent
of a country’s population within minutes.
The importance of Orwell’s
concept of war lies in a number of very keen observations.
First of all, he shows the
economic significance of continuous arms production, without which the economic
system cannot function. Furthermore, he gives an impressive picture of how a
society must develop which is constantly preparing for war, constantly afraid
of being attacked, and preparing to find the means of complete annihilation of
its opponents.
Orwell’s picture is so pertinent
because it offers a telling argument against the popular idea that we can save
freedom and democracy by continuing the arms race and finding a “stable”
deterrent. This soothing picture ignores the fact that with increasing
technical “progress” (which creates entirely new weapons about every 5 years, and
will soon permit the development of 100 or 1000 instead of 10 megaton bombs),
the whole society will be forced to live underground, but that the destructive
strength of thermonuclear bombs will always remain greater than the depth of
the cave , that the military will become dominant (in fact, if not in law),
that fright and hatred or a possible aggressor will destroy the basic attitudes
of a democratic, humanistic society.
In other words, the continued
arms race, even if it would not lead to the outbreak of a thermonuclear war,
would lead to the destruction of any of those three qualities of our society
which can be called “democratic,” “free,” or “in the American tradition.”
Orwell demonstrates the illusion of the assumption that democracy can continue
to exist in a world preparing for nuclear war and he does so imaginatively and
brilliantly.
Another important aspect is
Orwell’s description of the nature of truth, which on the surface is a picture
of Stalin’s treatment of truth, especially in the thirties. But anyone who sees
in Orwell’s description only another denunciation of Stalinism is missing an
essential element of Orwell’s analysis. He is actually talking about a
development which is taking place in the Western industrial countries also,
only at a slower pace than it is taking place in
The basic question which Orwell
raises is whether there is any such thing as “truth.” “Reality,” so the ruling
party holds, “is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere
else…whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth.” If
this is so, then by controlling men’s minds the Party controls truth. In a
dramatic conversation between the protagonist of the Party and the beaten
rebel, a conversation which is a worthy analogy to Dostoyevsky’s conversation
between the Inquisitor and Jesus, the basic principles of the Party are
explained. In contrast to the Inquisitor, however, the leaders of the Party do
not even pretend that their system is intended to make men happier, because
men, being frail and cowardly creatures, want to escape freedom and are unable
to face truth.
The leaders are aware of the fact
that they themselves have only one aim, and that is power. To them “power is
not a means; it is an end. And power means the capacity to inflict unlimited
pain and suffering to another human being.” Power, then, for them creates
reality, it creates truth. The position which Orwell attributes here to the
power elite can be said to be an extreme form of philosophical idealism, but it
is more to the point to recognize that the concept of truth and reality which
exists in 1984 is an extreme form of pragmatism in
which truth becomes subordinate to the Party.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The new
International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of
Religion or Belief are international law and codes of conduct for peaceful
cooperation, respectful competition and resolution of conflicts. The standards
are a platform for genuine dialogue on core principles and values within and
among nations, all religions and other beliefs.
Documents Attached:
President Obama's Hope and a Note of Caution from George Orwell's 1984
Inclusive & Genuine Dialogue on Freedom of Religion or Belief
The Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression
The Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief
Dostoevsky - Choice & Freedom of Religion or Belief
In Death's Shadow - Islam & Apostasy
STANDARDS: http://www.tandemproject.com/program/81_dec.htm
Submit information under the Eight Articles and
sub-paragraphs of the 1981 U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief by using The Tandem
Project Country & Community Database.
http://www.tandemproject.com/databases/forms/card.htm
The Tandem Project: a non-governmental organization founded
in 1986 to build understanding, tolerance and respect for diversity, and to
prevent discrimination in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief.
The Tandem Project, a non-profit NGO, has sponsored multiple conferences,
curricula, reference materials and programs on Article 18 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Everyone shall have the right to
freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and 1981 United Nations
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief.
The Tandem Project
initiative is the result of a co-founder representing the World Federation of
United Nations Associations at the United Nations Geneva Seminar, Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance
and Respect in Matters Relating to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
called by the UN Secretariat in 1984 on ways to implement the 1981 UN Declaration.
In 1986, The Tandem Project organized the first NGO International Conference on
the 1981 UN Declaration.
The Tandem Project
Executive Director is: Michael M. Roan, mroan@tandemproject.com.
The Tandem Project is a UN NGO in
Special Consultative Status with the
Economic and Social Council of
the United Nations
__________________________________________
Goal: To eliminate all forms of intolerance and
discrimination based on religion or belief.
Purpose: To build understanding and support for
Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –Everyone
shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion - and the
1981 UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Encourage the United Nations,
Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media and Civil Society to
utilize International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief
as essential for long-term solutions to conflicts
in all matters relating to religion or belief.
Objectives:
1. Use International
Human Rights Standards on Freedom of Religion or Belief as a platform for
genuine dialogue on the core principles and values within and among nations,
all religions and other beliefs.
2. Adapt these human
rights standards to early childhood education, teaching children, from the very
beginning, that their own religion is one out of many and that it is a personal
choice for everyone to adhere to the religion or belief by which he or she
feels most inspired, or to adhere to no religion or belief at all.1
Challenge: In 1968 the United Nations deferred work on an
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance,
because of its apparent complexity and sensitivity. In the twenty-first
century, a dramatic increase of intolerance and discrimination on grounds of
religion or belief is motivating a worldwide search to find solutions to these
problems. This is a challenge calling for enhanced dialogue by States and
others; including consideration of an International Convention on Freedom of
Religion or Belief for protection of and accountability by all religions or
beliefs. The tensions in today’s world inspire a question such as:
Should the United Nations
adopt an International Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief?
Response: Is it the appropriate moment to
reinitiate the drafting of a legally binding international convention on freedom
of religion or belief? Law making of this nature requires a minimum consensus
and an environment that appeals to reason rather than emotions. At the same
time we are on a learning curve as the various dimensions of the Declaration
are being explored. Many academics have produced voluminous books on these
questions but more ground has to be prepared before setting up of a UN working
group on drafting a convention. In my opinion, we should not try to rush the
elaboration of a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief, especially not in
times of high tensions and unpreparedness. - UN Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Religion or Belief,
Option: After forty years this may be the time,
however complex and sensitive, for the United Nations Human Rights Council to
appoint an Open-ended Working Group to draft a United Nations Convention on
Freedom of Religion or Belief. The mandate for an Open-ended Working Group
ought to assure nothing in a draft Convention will be construed as restricting
or derogating from any right defined in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the International Covenants on Human Rights, and the 1981 UN
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.
Separation of Religion or Belief
and State
Concept: Separation of Religion or Belief and State - SOROBAS. The First Preamble to the 1948 United Nations
Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads; “Whereas
recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human
family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. This concept
suggests States recalling their history, culture and constitution adopt fair
and equal human rights protection for all religions or beliefs as described in
General Comment 22 on Article 18, International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, UN Human Rights Committee,
Article
18: protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not
to profess any religion or belief.
The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not
limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs
with international characteristics or practices analogous to those of
traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency
to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reasons, including the
fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that
may be the subject of hostility by a predominant religious community. Article 18: permits restrictions to manifest a religion or
belief only if such limitations are prescribed by law and necessary to protect
public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms
of others.
International Human Rights Standards on Freedom of
Religion or Belief are used to review the actions of governments, religions or
beliefs, non-governmental organizations and civil society under constitutional
systems such as Separation of Church and State,
Dialogue: United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki
Moon, at the Alliance of Civilizations Madrid Forum said; “Never in our
lifetime has there been a more desperate need for constructive and committed
dialogue, among individuals, among communities, among cultures, among and between
nations.” A writer in another setting has said, “The warning signs are clear:
unless we establish genuine dialogue within and among all kinds of belief,
ranging from religious fundamentalism to secular dogmatism, the conflicts of
the future will probably be even more deadly.”
International Human
Rights Standards on Freedom or Religion or Belief are international law and
universal codes of conduct for peaceful cooperation, respectful competition and
resolution of conflicts. The standards are a platform for genuine dialogue on
core principles and values within and among nations, all religions and other
beliefs.
Education: Ambassador
1981 U.N. Declaration on
Freedom of Religion or Belief
5.2: Every child shall enjoy the right to have access
to education in the matter of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes
of his parents, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or
belief against the wishes of his parents, the best interests of the child being
the guiding principle.” With International Human Rights safeguards, early
childhood education is the best time to begin to build tolerance, understanding
and respect for freedom of religion or belief.
5.3: The child shall be protected from any form of
discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He shall be brought up in a
spirit of understanding, tolerance, and friendship among peoples, peace and
universal brotherhood, respect for the freedom of religion or belief of others
and in full consciousness that his energy and talents should be devoted to the
service of his fellow men.