Ministers’ Deputies / Rapporteur Groups

GR-C
Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport,
Youth and Environnement

GR-C(2014)12            30 October 2014[1]

 

Council of Europe 2014 Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue –

Conclusions

Item to be considered by the GR-C at its meeting on 20 November 2014

 

A.         Introduction

1.         The Committee of Ministers held the 2014 Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue in Baku (Azerbaijan) on 1 and 2 September 2014 in the framework of the Azerbaijan Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers[2].

2.         The State Counsellor of the Republic of Azerbaijan for Multiculturalism, Interethnic and Religious Affairs, Mr Kamal Abdulla, read out a message from the President of Azerbaijan. The Exchange was then opened by Mr Mubariz Gurbanly, Chairman of the State Committee on Religious Associations, on behalf of the Azerbaijan Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, together with Ms Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and Sheikh-ul-Islam Allahshukur Pashazadeh, Grand Mufti of the Caucasus.

3.         The Exchange was co-chaired by Ambassador Luís Filipe Castro Mendes, Permanent Representative of Portugal to the Council of Europe, Chair of the Rapporteur Group on Education, Culture, Sport, Youth and Environment (GR-C), and Ambassador Drahoslav Stefanek, Permanent Representative of the Slovak Republic to the Council of Europe, Chair of the Rapporteur Group on Human Rights (GR-H).

4.         The event brought together representatives of religious communities (Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Muslims), non-religious convictions (humanist and secular), interreligious groups, NGOs and youth organisations, experts and academics, media professionals and representatives of several international organisations.  

5.         The theme of this year’s Exchange was “Intercultural dialogue: interaction between culture and religion”. This 7th edition of the event was structured around plenary sessions in the form of panels on the following sub-themes:

            i) Tolerance of religion and non-religious convictions in culturally diverse societies: a social capital.

            ii) Contribution of religions and non-religious convictions to combating all forms of discrimination,             intolerance and violence.

            iii) The contribution of cultural heritage of a religious nature to intercultural dialogue and to the      respect of the universal values defended by the Council of Europe.

B.         Summary of the conclusions of the 2014 Exchange

6.         Participants stressed the relevance of the theme chosen for this Exchange at a time when a tendency towards individualism and a decline in public-spiritedness were becoming increasingly apparent in a European society marked by ever greater cultural and religious diversity.

7.         Several participants underlined the threats in parallel to these developments, in particular the worrying phenomena of xenophobia, discrimination, hatred and violence based on religious grounds.

8.         The way to counter these threats was to engage in open and constructive dialogue based on an interreligious and intercultural approach because, as one participant pointed out, “where words end, violence begins”. A question was raised in this connection: is dialogue an end in itself or a tool for achieving a specific aim?  Attention was drawn to the importance not only of interreligious dialogue but also of intra-religious dialogue, which should be conducted by religious communities themselves and, indeed, was currently under way in some of them.

9.         As the neutral and impartial organiser of the exercise of religions, faiths and beliefs, the State had a crucial role to play in ensuring public order and upholding freedom of thought, conscience and religion for all. In this connection, it was suggested that public policy and legislation should be formulated in consultation with religious communities and communities representing non-religious convictions in order to develop common approaches and prevent all political manipulation and exploitation of freedom of religion.

10.        In the course of the discussions, participants described the activities carried out by and between the communities or networks of which they were members and mentioned examples of good practices for helping to combat discrimination and prejudice. More initiatives of this kind were called for, and it was stressed that, if such initiatives were to be effective, it was essential for the parties involved to show responsiveness, empathy and patience. A range of skills and attitudes therefore had to be acquired in order to combat discrimination, and education had a crucial role in this. Emphasis was laid on the importance of the Council of Europe’s work in this area, and in particular its campaign against hate speech on the Internet.

11.        Participants questioned the appropriateness of the term “tolerance”, which might imply that the parties concerned were not on an equal footing. On a scale of value of words in this field, “tolerance” could be placed near the bottom, as compared with such terms as “mutual respect”, “understanding” or “empathy”.  Some participants proposed the term “convivencia”, which suggested “active co-existence” and a balance between “identity” and “otherness”. To create a coherent basis for dialogue, it therefore seemed important to establish a more accurate terminology.

12.        Several speakers referred to the link between the religious cultural heritage and awareness-raising to the universal values upheld by the Council of Europe, noting that the cultural dimension of the religious heritage could help to promote intercultural dialogue and foster better mutual knowledge.

13.        Some participants observed that, in a conflict situation, the religious cultural heritage was particularly endangered and was sometimes destroyed because of what it stood for, its historical and symbolic value.

14.        The general feeling that emerged was that it was important to preserve cultural and religious heritage and to enhance its value through education and by facilitating access to monuments and sites. Reference was made to the role of the State and the contribution of international organisations, in particular the Council of Europe and UNESCO.

15.        After the discussion, the Council of Europe’s Director of Democratic Citizenship and Participation put forward a wide range of proposals for possible follow-up to the Exchange, including the creation of a prize to reward innovative initiatives in the field of intercultural and interreligious dialogue (cf. appendix).

16.        Furthermore, at the end of the Exchange, a number of participants submitted a draft joint declaration on the situation in Iraq and Syria. This text could not be finalised and approved owing to lack of time.

Appendix

2014 Exchange concluding remarks:

“The contribution of the Exchanges to the intercultural and interreligious dialogue:

a perspective for the future’’

Jean-Christophe BAS

Director of Democratic Citizenship and Participation

Council of Europe

“Thank you very much Ambassadors Stefanek and Castro Mendes; on behalf of the Secretariat, I would like to express my gratitude for your presence and your leadership in running this Exchange. My gratitude goes also to the Deputy Secretary General, Gabriella Battaini-Dragoni for her involvement in the Exchange; to my colleagues who have put countless hours during the summer, under the leadership of Carole Reich; I am very pleased, as new Director, that this Council of Europe Exchange on the religious dimension of intercultural dialogue is part of the activities of this Directorate. And this for 2 reasons:

- as you probably know, the Directorate of Democratic Citizenship and Participation is about Youth and Education and I have the conviction that this Directorate is the right body to organise this event and I believe that by working with youth and focusing on education we can make a difference. The lively and thoughtful contribution of our young participants from COEXIST is a clear and telling illustration of a dedication to concrete action.

- the Council of Europe Exchange is particularly relevant: according to a recent survey from Pew Research Institute, in 3 out of every 4 countries in the world, religious groups experience harassment by individuals or groups in society. Harassment and intimidation take many forms, including physical or verbal assaults, desecration of holy sites, and discrimination against religious groups in employment, education and housing. And Europe is, with the Middle East, the region of the world where these harassments are the most frequent. We all have in mind the multiplication and escalation of tensions related to religious symbols, clothing and artefacts, their polarization in the media and their political instrumentalisation. This must be seriously addressed and this is actually the purpose of the Exchange. 

Allow me, Co-Chairs, to use the privilege of being new into this exercise to come up with fresh and candid views on how these Exchanges may evolve in the future; I would like to share a few ideas, 5 pointers, with the Committee of Ministers and with the participants.

After seven editions and the solid acquis over the years, I believe it is important for us to look together at the best effective and meaningful ways to shape these Exchanges and to take them to the next step in accordance with the views, objectives and priorities of the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe. “Living together in respect, peace and harmony” is actually one of the priorities of the Organisation. Mrs Araci elaborated eloquently on this yesterday.

1)         That is actually why we must reflect on how the content, the thoughts and the recommendations resulting from these Exchanges can more systematically and effectively irrigate/contribute to the work of the various Directorates of the Council of Europe. The idea is to mainstream, align the Exchanges in the operational work of the Organisation (implementation of conventions and charters, intercultural cities, schools of political studies).

2)         “Si l’on comprenait, on ne jugerait plus”, as stated by André Malraux. There is probably no better way to stress the importance of learning; learning about differences – be it difference of culture, religion or belief, how to respect differences and how to embrace them.  This is certainly another priority for the future. In this respect our Exchanges may adopt a 360° perspective:  learning through education and youth policies. I know that this was the theme of the previous Exchanges, but we may look at this again, with new perspectives, using accurate tools: Signposts policy and practice for teaching about religions in intercultural education.

3)         What to do? But also how to do it? This may lead us to slightly adapt the format of our Exchanges, each session ending with recommendations on what should be done and asking; how this can be done; how to create the political will; how to build possible support? And the How should also lead us to reflect further on with whom? Who are the change agents that we may bring around the table? I have learned from my time at the UN Alliance of Civilizations that the corporate world is playing a tremendously important role in fostering dialogue and understanding among religious communities by being within the workforce, with consumers, inventing innovative responses. The philanthropic sector, education sectors, cultural centres, political partners, young political leaders, local authorities, multi stakeholder platform; all this is indispensable to translate into action.

4)         Small is beautiful. Each of us knows the grassroots, small initiatives that contribute significantly in fostering dialogue among religions and living together. Many are isolated and lack resources to have a large scale impact. These Exchanges may contribute to a mapping of the most effective and innovative ones; help them to scale up and to replicate. I believe indeed that “actions speak louder than words”. It is vital to encourage grassroots innovators. In the same vein, we may consider creating an award given to one or a few of them on the occasion of the Exchange, to shed light on them.

5)         Expanding, exploring new horizons: our societies and the way we interact among people are radically changing. The new NBIC (Nano; Bio; Info; Cognitive science) is one of these new challenges. We may also want to look at interreligious dialogue’s successful and innovative experiences outside Europe.”