THE TANDEM PROJECT
UNITED NATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS,
FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF
RECLAIMING
Available in other languages: click here if the language box does not display.
Issue: Will
For: United Nations, Governments, Religions or Beliefs,
Academia, NGOs, Media, Civil Society
Review: Review: Reclaiming
The
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.
1. 3 Freedom to manifest one’s
religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by
law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the
fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
4. 2 All States shall make all
efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such
discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on
the grounds of religion or other beliefs in this matter.
“And the only way we can
regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world,
but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that
happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.”
RECLAIMING
Op-Ed Columnist
By PAUL KRUGMAN
“Nothing will be gained by
spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” So declared President
Obama, after his commendable decision to release the legal memos that his
predecessor used to justify torture. Some people in the political and media
establishments have echoed his position. We need to look forward, not backward,
they say. No prosecutions, please; no investigations; we’re just too busy.
And there are indeed
immense challenges out there: an economic crisis, a health care crisis, an
environmental crisis. Isn’t revisiting the abuses of the last eight years, no
matter how bad they were, a luxury we can’t afford?
No, it isn’t, because
And the only way we can
regain our moral compass, not just for the sake of our position in the world,
but for the sake of our own national conscience, is to investigate how that
happened, and, if necessary, to prosecute those responsible.
What about the argument
that investigating the Bush administration’s abuses will impede efforts to deal
with the crises of today? Even if that were true — even if truth and justice
came at a high price — that would arguably be a price we must pay: laws aren’t
supposed to be enforced only when convenient. But is there any real reason to
believe that the nation would pay a high price for accountability?
For example, would
investigating the crimes of the Bush era really divert time and energy needed
elsewhere? Let’s be concrete: whose time and energy are we talking about?
Tim Geithner, the Treasury
secretary, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to rescue the economy.
Peter Orszag, the budget director, wouldn’t be called away from his efforts to
reform health care. Steven Chu, the energy secretary, wouldn’t be called away
from his efforts to limit climate change. Even the president needn’t, and
indeed shouldn’t, be involved. All he would have to do is let the Justice
Department do its job — which he’s supposed to do in any case — and not get in
the way of any Congressional investigations.
I don’t know about you,
but I think
Still, you might argue —
and many do — that revisiting the abuses of the Bush years would undermine the
political consensus the president needs to pursue his agenda.
But the answer to that is
what political consensus? There are still, alas, a significant number of people
in our political life who stand on the side of the torturers. But these are the
same people who have been relentless in their efforts to block President
Obama’s attempt to deal with our economic crisis and will be equally relentless
in their opposition when he endeavors to deal with health care and climate
change. The president cannot lose their good will, because they never offered
any.
That said, there are a lot
of people in Washington who weren’t allied with the torturers but would
nonetheless rather not revisit what happened in the Bush years.
Some of them probably just
don’t want an ugly scene; my guess is that the president, who clearly prefers
visions of uplift to confrontation, is in that group. But the ugliness is
already there, and pretending it isn’t won’t make it go away.
Others, I suspect, would
rather not revisit those years because they don’t want to be reminded of their
own sins of omission.
For the fact is that
officials in the Bush administration instituted torture as a policy, misled the
nation into a war they wanted to fight and, probably, tortured people in the
attempt to extract “confessions” that would justify that war. And during the
march to war, most of the political and media establishment looked the other
way.
It’s hard, then, not to be
cynical when some of the people who should have spoken out against what was
happening, but didn’t, now declare that we should forget the whole era — for
the sake of the country, of course.
Sorry, but what we really
should do for the sake of the country is have investigations both of torture
and of the march to war. These investigations should, where appropriate, be
followed by prosecutions — not out of vindictiveness, but because this is a
nation of laws.
We need to do this for the
sake of our future. For this isn’t about looking backward, it’s about looking
forward — because it’s about reclaiming
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
in tandem with the truth claims of religious and non-religious beliefs. Leaders
of religious and non-religious beliefs, at local-national-international levels,
safeguard the 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.
Documents Attached:
United States & United Nations Human Rights Council
George Orwell & the Right to Freedom of Opinion & Expression
STANDARDS: http://www.tandemproject.com/program/81_dec.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
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
Council Website: click on
this link and scroll to the bottom of the page for The History of Interfaith
Dialogue in
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 does not work with closed minds. 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,
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.
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
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.