THE TANDEM PROJECT

UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,

FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

WHY I WENT TO GENEVA - DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE

Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.

Issue: The Durban Review Conference is on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Forms of Intolerance. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Store, gave an address to the Durban Review Conference immediately following the President of Iran.

For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs, Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society

Review: The Durban Review Conference is being held from 20-24 April, 2009 at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. It can be viewed by clicking on the Durban Review Conference Website at:

http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/

Review: Why I Went to Geneva is an article written by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Store, on his way home after addressing the Durban Review Conference. His address immediately followed the address by the President of Iran. The address by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs was a rebuke of many remarks by the President of Iran, but a positive endorsement of the Durban Review Conference and the text of the conference which was adopted on 21 April, 2009. The conference will conclude on Friday 24 April, 2009.

Readers of The Tandem Project International List Serve are encouraged to click on the Durban Review Conference website above for the live and archived web cast addresses of the President of Iran and the response by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Durban Review Conference website also includes a statement by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights praising the adopted text of the Durban Review Conference, other press releases and information on draft texts and documents. This is being sent on Thursday 23 April 2009 prior to the Friday close of the conference. Resolutions that may be passed on Friday will be reported on in another review.

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.

Excerpts: by the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs:

“So the time came for Durban II, as it came to be called-this time in Geneva. Again there was contention. Again Israel was in focus. But there were also concerns about attempts to restrict freedom of expression to limit the opportunity to criticize religion. The atmosphere was colored by the cartoon controversy. We saw a deep divide between Muslim countries and the West.

At the beginning of the year, there was considerable disagreement about the wording of the draft outcome document. Where should we set the limit? Erna Solberg, leader of the Conservative Party, initiated a thorough debate in the Storting. Basically this resulted in agreement on the following: the fight against racism and discrimination must be the main focus. We cannot accept restrictions on freedom of repression, we cannot relinquish the right to criticize religion, and we cannot accept one-sided descriptions of the Middle East conflict.”

WHY I WENT TO GENEVA

By Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Store

Let us start at the beginning. UN conferences against racism always cause controversy. The conference in Durban in 2001 was no exception. It culminated in a strong and far-reaching declaration against racism and discrimination. However, Durban is more widely remembered for anti-Semitic statements and one-sided criticism of Israel. The declaration was adopted by consensus, with the exception of the US, Israel and Canada. The previous Norwegian Government followed up the declaration in an admirable way, using it as the basis for its National Plan of Action to Combat Racism and Discrimination.

So the time came for Durban II, as it came to be called-this time in Geneva. Again there was contention. Again Israel was in focus. But there were also concerns about attempts to restrict freedom of expression to limit the opportunity to criticize religion. The atmosphere was colored by the cartoon controversy. We saw a deep divide between Muslim countries and the West.

We worked hard. We sought to influence the text, change it and build consensus. And the final draft reflected all our points of view. We now have a good text; indeed it is historic in that it moves away from a polarized approach, from “us against them”. It speaks out unequivocally against racism and discrimination. Key Norwegian and international human rights organizations have expressed strong support for the wording of the text. The US, which is not participating in Durban II, has taken the unusual step of commending the negotiators, and describes the draft as an accomplishment.

I went to Geneva because I wanted to use the UN rostrum to explain why this is important for Norway. I wanted to demonstrate our support for the broad efforts that have produced such a good result, and I wanted to acknowledge that the UN is the arena in which to forge solutions. No other Western ministers were schedule to speak that day.

Was it right to speak at the same conference as the President of Iran? Let me turn the question around: would it have been right to let the President of Iran monopolize the UN rostrum and to speak unchallenged?

The President of Iran exercised his freedom of expression to deliver an unacceptable message, including what he said about Israel. One response is to do what certain European ambassador’s did-leave the conference room in protest. On the other hand, I was the next speaker. If I was going to challenge his words, I had at least to hear what he had to say. He was given a noisy, angry reception. I think he was pleased that representatives of the West left in protest. It reinforced the demonized image of the West that he cultivates and depends on. Nevertheless, everyone else present was aware that his views did not enjoy broad support. This is why he should be met with the great weapon that freedom of speech gives us-the opportunity to speak out clearly. And that is what he was met with from Norway.

Can we talk about a European boycott? The whole of the EU had been involved in and had agreed to the final draft outcome. The first to change their minds were Italy and the Netherlands, who suddenly started calling the text anti-Semitic. They had no reason to. Their claims created uncertainty that spread to other capitals. Over the weekend we tried to persuade a number of EU countries to stay focused. I think we succeeded. Most EU countries stayed. If more had left, this would have undermined the EU’s credibility as a negotiation partner.

So, history repeated itself. The opening of the conference was tumultuous. This does not need to affect the outcome document itself. For it still stands, this text that we have been working on together. It is a good text and it deserves our attention.

All this is part of the reason why I went to Geneva. But perhaps more important is that I wanted to support the UN as the arena for finding answers to questions that are global by their very nature. We must retain out ability to reach agreement on global issues. Ahead of us are the negotiations on climate change and disarmament. This is another major reason why we cannot allow Durban II to be hijacked by hidden agendas and extremism.

ISSUE STATEMENT: 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.” Another writer in a different setting 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.”

Progress is being made in constructive and committed dialogue at local, national and international levels. Is gradual progress enough to prevent deadly conflicts in the future?

Genuine dialogue on freedom of religion or belief does not work if minds are closed. It calls for respectful and thoughtful responses, discussion of taboos and clarity by persons of diverse beliefs. Inclusive dialogue is between people of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. These UN categories were first defined in the 1960 seminal study on human rights and freedom of religion or belief by Arcot Krishnaswami.

Is it time for the UN Human Rights Council to establish a UN Working Group for a Convention on Freedom of Religion or Belief? A Working Group could provide a global focus on how to reconcile universality of human rights with worldviews of religions or beliefs, without derogating or restricting rights-based law already enacted. The UN has no consensus on such core issues as; apostasy, defamation, blasphemy, conversion, right to change religion or belief, proselytism, registration or freedom of opinion and expression. These issues concern all religions or beliefs.

The challenge may be not how but if international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief can be reconciled with the truth claims of religious and non-religious beliefs. Leaders of religious and non-religious beliefs, at local-national-international levels, safeguard truth claims of their own traditions. They are the key in finding a way to meet this challenge.

Surely one of the best hopes for 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.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

HISTORY: United Nations History – Freedom of Religion or Belief

HISTORY: Interfaith Dialogue in Norway 1739-1998

The Council for Religious and Life Stance Communities represents all religious and humanist beliefs in Norway. The History of Interfaith Dialogue in Norway is a history of dialogue from 1739 to 1998 and the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief. www.oslocoalition.org. The Tandem Project was a co-sponsor of the 1998 Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief that launched the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief in the Norwegian Institute for Human Rights.

Council Website: click on this link and scroll to the bottom of the page for The History of Interfaith Dialogue in Norway.

http://www.trooglivssyn.no/index.cfm?id=136722

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

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.

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.” Another writer in different setting 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.”

Challenge: to reconcile international human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief in tandem with the truth claims of religious and non-religious beliefs.

Genuine dialogue on freedom of religion or belief cannot work with a closed mind. It demands respectful and thoughtful responses, discussion of taboos and clarity by persons of diverse beliefs. Inclusive dialogue is between people of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. These UN categories were first defined in the 1960 seminal study on freedom of religion or belief by Arcot Krishnaswami.

Inclusive and genuine dialogue is essential as a first step in recognition of the inherent dignity, equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family, and a foundation for freedom, justice and peace in the world. Leaders of religious and non-religious beliefs sanction the truth claims of their own traditions. They are the key to raising awareness and acceptance of the value of holding truth claims in tandem with human rights standards on freedom of religion or belief.

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 use 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. Develop a model local-national-international integrated approach to freedom of religion or belief.

2. 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.

3. 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

History: 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, Asma Jahangir, Prague 25 Year Anniversary Commemoration of the 1981 UN Declaration, 25 November 2006.

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, 20 July 1993 (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4):

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.

Dialogue: 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 Piet de Klerk addressing the Prague 25 Year Anniversary Commemoration of the 1981 U.N. Declaration said; “Our educational systems need to provide children with a broad orientation: from the very beginning, children should be taught 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

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.

Documents Attached:

Why I Went to Geneva - Durban Review Conference

The Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression