2013 COUNCIL OF EUROPE EXCHANGE
ON THE RELIGIOUS DIMENSION OF INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE 

“FREEDOM OF RELIGION IN TODAY’S WORLD: CHALLENGES AND GUARANTEES”

(Yerevan, 2-3 September 2013)

PANEL I
Report by Mr Stein VILLUMSTAD, Rapporteur,

Secretary General of the European Council of Religious Leaders

Moderator: Mr. Guido Bellatti Ceccoli introduced the session by stating that this is the sixth edition of the Exchange.  He offered a short history of the Exchanges:

The process started with heads of states in Warsaw in 2005. It was the will of the 46 members to
re-enforce intercultural and inter-religious dialogue in the political context.  They proposed a political and horizontal approach: engaging all of the values of the three pillars of Council of Europe (CoE):  democracy, rule of law and human rights.  All these values are involved in the Exchanges.  Decision in May 2007 was made to have exchanges. The first Exchange was in April 2008 in Strasbourg. The White Paper on intercultural dialogue was launched in May 2008, and was important for our process.  It has a chapter on inter-religious dialogue, and mentions the Exchanges and their importance.

The title of panel I:
FREEDOM OF RELIGION, CONSCIENCE AND THROUHT AS A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT IN CONTEMPORARY SOCIETIES. 

Resource person: Professor Silvio Ferrari introduced the topic by outlining three challenges to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB)

·         There is a growing diversity of religions in Europe, including those who do not confess a particular religion or belong to an institutionalised religious group.  This group is believed to be around 25% of registered “believers”.

·         Religions are increasingly visible in the public space

·         The transformation of the religious landscape creates tensions.   Social cohesion was traditionally thought to be built on common values.  Now we need to consider how we can create unity in diversity of worldviews.

·        

With diversity we have different roots/paths towards common goals.  What are the common goals?  One goal should be to building a public space that is even handed and inclusive; fair at the one hand and inclusive at the same time. 

We need to understand what public space is:

a.         The institutional side:  systems, legal framework, and public administration.  The institutional side is normative:  fairness and even handedness; impartial treatment for building necessary trust irrespective of faith background.  Freedom of religion includes the right to not be discriminated against.

b.         The political dimension of the public space.  This is the place for discussion.  Issues of general interest are debated.  Projects are created and experiences are shared.  Media represent spaces for public debate.  Civil society is a key notion in this aspect of the public space:  associations, NGOs, advocacy groups, religious groups etc.  Freedom is fundamental to the innovation that should characterise this aspect of public sphere.  Public space should be accessible, including newcomers – as long as they accept the rules of the game.  All voices can be heard, not least of minorities.  The right to manifest my faith and world views in the society is basic.  If violence is entering the public sphere, which will limit and close the space, authorities need to intervene.

If we learn to understand the two profiles of public space:  we can build a public space that is fair (institutional) and inclusive (political).

Ferrari finally offered three questions:

a.         How can institutional separation and social inclusion be combined in a way that is able to advance freedom of religion and belief?

b.         What can be done by international organisations like the CoE and the European Union to provide a shared framework of rights where State and religious systems can coexist and interact?

c.         What role can be played by the European Court of Human Rights in balancing protection of the fundamental right and freedom religion and belief on the one hand and respect of national traditions on the other?

First speaker: Mr Giovanni Carlo Bruno stated that EU believes that dialogue is the only way to overcome misconceptions and misunderstanding.  Charter of EU from 2009 (Lisbon Treaty) is guiding the organisation’s approach.  A number of directives and provisions protect people belonging to different groups.  These include the 2000 employment directive to avoid discrimination and the 2008 provisions against racism in the workplace. 

EU Council in 2009 and 2011 stressed the importance of countering religious intolerance.  FoRB is on the top of agenda. 

The EU External Services “Guidelines on freedom of religion or belief” is an important instrument, and it invites for development of a broader framework for EU involvement in third countries, for its diplomatic service, NGOs and civil society.

The guidelines will be used together with other EU instruments and encourage partnership with other organisations.

Regular meetings with broad participation are planned in light of guidelines in order to monitor development and offer training.

Second speaker: Mrs Fatos Araci presented examples of case laws from the European Court on Human Rights.

Freedom of religion, convictions and thought has been stressed by the Court several times.  This freedom is essential for quality of lives for citizens.  Art. 9 cases have been increasing during last 10 years.  They have included FoRB, but have been broader.  All beliefs and philosophical and political ideas are protected.  Pacifism is an example of a philosophical conviction.   The Court received relatively few claims from main religions, while an increasing number from minority religions and “sects/cults”.  The principle of the Court is that all groups should have same protection.

A number of case laws were referred to.  Mrs Araci’s paper will be made available, and the cases may be studied more in detail.

The argumentation and judgements of the Court develop a precedence that will be important for states and religious and belief communities.  The examples that were mentioned illustrated the distinction between problematic and illegal behaviour, the extent to which states may intervene in internal issues in religious and belief communities, and limitation of acts of persuasion.  There is a right to make attempts to convince people, but not by coercion or harassment.  Cases related to religious expressions in the public space were also referred to, in which distinctions were made between the demand for state neutrality through its public servants, and citizens in private work places.

The discussionconfirmed the importance of the work of the Court.   Conference of European Churches has pointed out that court judgements are important for the churches. Churches should be committed to learn more about the judgements in the European Court.  Judges on the other hand need more knowledge about churches.  There is a need for more exchange with the judges. Exchange in its true meaning is learning.

The example of the crucifix case of Italy (Lautsi case, 2011) was brought up to illustrate the issue of state neutrality.  Court calls for neutrality in the state action, but not in state identity?  State identity can be particular to the respective states, but independent of this, states should always act neutrally. 

Do religious communities themselves contribute sufficiently to protecting FoRB?  Historic questions were raised. Has the Catholic Church kept to FoRB principals historically?  It was claimed that the Church has a history of infringements.  This goes for Islam as well.   There is an internal tension between good and evil in religions.  Religious institutions have not always acted in line with internationally adopted principles and regulations.  Our experiences call for a neutral framework.   It was claimed that freedom of religion is not sufficiently dealt with in the Muslim world.  Examples were however given of Magreb countries that attempt to change laws, and in some countries incorporating FoRB in their constitutions.

It seems we have satisfactory conventions and regulations.  The difficulties are with the implementation.  A Conference of INGO of CoE report examined reasons for difficulties.  Political, personal and institutional aspects were identified. 

Personal difficulties are linked to our convictions, to what we think is the truth, to our habits of living, to our conception of mankind, of the world, to the way we practice our religion, as well as the interpretation and understanding of the fundamental writings of a particular religion, its doctrine, its expression , etc…

Education, knowledge of the others, open-mindedness, attention to the others, and mutual respect are promoted through open and frank dialogues, i.e. a dialogue that respects the persons (even when strongly disagreeing with their thoughts or convictions).  We all need to be made aware of the fact that we do not ”possess” the truth, but only one aspect and that others might have other aspects of the truth that it is interesting to discover with them.

A second difficulty arises when the society allows behaviours that are against our own view. In some cases a right is not an obligation. Freedoms given to others are not necessarily against my rights and my freedoms!   Freedoms, as all the other rights, should be exercised in a responsible manner, and by leaving to the other the right to exercise their freedoms.

Religion is often portrayed as the source of problems and should therefore be controlled.  Religious and belief diversity should be regarded as an asset and not be reflected as a negative reality.  If we accept pluralism, a positive approach to religion and belief should be logical.  The emphasis would not be on tensions, but potentials.

 States sometimes have the duty to protect citizens from abuse and violation of their rights when they are belonging to particular groups.  Some people lock themselves inside spaces that seem to protect them from themselves.  People need to be free to reflect, without being locked into sectarian groups.  If necessary, States have to intervene to secure this freedom.

Potential conclusions:

a.     The increasing religious and philosophical diversity of European society represents challenges, but should be viewed as a valuable asset.

b.    While the institutional aspect of public space needs to be regulated to secure fairness and even handedness, the political public space should be open and free to provide inclusiveness and participation for all, and encourage experimentation and innovation.

c.     National identities are formed through history, and states have legitimately different identities.  How nations act in regards to freedom of religion or belief should however be impartial and independent of their identity.

d.    The introduction of the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief by the EU External Services represents a significant step forward in the global promotion of FoRB.  Diplomats need training to properly engage in the implementation of the guidelines.  Similar guidelines for national foreign services are encouraged.  A relevant example is the Norwegian guidelines issued in May 2013.

e.     Case laws on freedom of religion or belief are important beyond the particular cases.  When studying the arguments and analysis behind the conclusions/judgements, lessons may be learned.  Religious and belief communities need to study and learn from these cases. 

f.     These cases show on the other hand that judges do not necessarily know the context and the subject matter they are dealing with, e.g. knowledge about religion and how religious institutions work.  Training of judges should be intensified.

g.    Laws and practicing of laws on religions should not be based on the notion that religion is the problem, and needs to be restricted.  Concerns around unlawful acts in the name of religion should be dealt with within the framework of criminal laws and not lead to introduction of restrictive religious laws.

h.     Dialogue and cooperation across religions and beliefs is important to overcome misconceptions and misunderstandings and to mobilise the religious potentials for promoting peaceful conflict transformation and reconciliation within and between societies.

i.      No matter how legal frameworks promote freedom of religion or belief, commitments from religious and belief communities and their leaders are needed to secure this freedom.  An expression of this commitment is made in the declaration “Freedom of Religion – rights and commitments”, European Council of Religious Leaders 2013: “As religious leaders we recognise a particular obligation to speak out against threats to the religious freedom of others when they come from within our own communities.”  Religious and belief communities and their leaders therefore need systematic training in issues related to Freedom of religion or belief.