News

The Foreign Office should improve its ability to engage religious actors and dynamics by appointing a director of religion and global issues who would be responsible for developing a cross-government religious engagement strategy.

This is one recommendation from a report presented as a series of ‘policy messages’ or recommendations for diplomats and policy-makers in both the US Department of State (DoS) and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). These recommendations seek to augment existing arrangements and to help diplomats attain ‘religion attentiveness,’ involving a greater strategic understanding of the way religion intersects with foreign policy priorities.

The report summarises key insights from the project ‘Toward Better International Policy’ which was comprised of two Anglo-American dialogues organised by the Centre for Religion and Public Life at the University of Leeds, the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University, and the Institute for Global Engagement. These dialogues were funded by the British Council under the ‘Bridging Voices’ programme.

These are the recommendations in full:

1. Participants in the two dialogues noted efforts made by the State Department to improve its capacity to achieve ‘religion attentiveness’ in the diplomatic corps. These attempts began in 1998 with the establishment of the Office of International Religious Freedom and the position of Ambassador at Large. They continued with the establishment of an Office of Religion and Global Affairs in 2013. On the other side of the Atlantic, the FCO currently suffers from insufficient capacity to grapple with the complexities of these issues. The report therefore recommends:

• that the FCO improve its ability to engage religious actors and dynamics by appointing a director of religion and global issues who would be responsible for developing a cross-government religious engagement strategy.
• that in doing this work, the FCO should emulate best practice from the international development community and elsewhere in Government;
• and that the FCO should leverage the considerable expertise that already exists within the diplomatic service.

2. There are a range of conceptual issues which limit policy makers’ understanding of ‘religion’ as a foreign policy issue. The report therefore recommends that diplomats and policy makers should:

• avoid the charge of ‘instrumentalisation’ by seeking areas of mutual interest and working in a spirit of mutual respect;
• move beyond the ‘world religions’ paradigm given that the lived reality of religion is fluid and does not fit the neat delineations provided by this model;
• look for ‘lived’ as well as ‘official’ religion and in particular should move beyond engagement with official religious clerics as they may not be truly representative of the populations they claim to represent;
• be aware of problematic labels and be attuned to the ambiguity of key terms used in discourses about religion. In most cases, it is preferable to use a longer descriptive phrase than a one-word label;
• develop the confidence to know when not to engage religious actors in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives;
• recognise that ‘religion’ includes, but means more than, Islam and pay greater attention to both majority and minority religions in different contexts; it will also be important to get to grips with Christianity as it emerges as a non-Western phenomenon and to understand the various international models of religion-state relationship and the way this influences public policy;;
• recognise that religious freedom is a strategic mainstream foreign policy priority, not merely a human rights issue, as a growing body of research is finding strong positive correlations between religious freedom and social stability, political moderation, the undermining of religion-related terrorism, and economic development;
• be aware of the ambivalence of religion in its relationship to public policy goals: religion can be both a source of extremism, persecution, and conflict, as well as a positive force for democratic stability, economic growth, health, education, development, humanitarian assistance, and other social goods;
• focus on human security as well as international security, recognising that religiously inspired threats to security sometimes also emerge out of experiences of violence and disruption that generate new modes of collective action and ideological diffusion;

3. Finally, participants identified a range of ways in which the culture of the DoS and FCO might chance to increase the religion-attentiveness of diplomats and foreign policy makers. This report recommends that diplomats and policy makers should:

• recognise that ‘doing religion’ does not mean ‘promoting religion’. Engaging religious actors in pursuit of foreign policy objectives does not require diplomats to advance a theological position or any religious group. Instead, it requires diplomats and policy makers to appreciate the complex ways religion interacts with a range of factors, and they must engage with influential religious actors where appropriate;
• improve the provision of education and training and make it mandatory. A particular challenge is to reach beyond those who are already convinced of religion’s relevance by incorporating modules on religion and religious engagement into core diplomatic training and by incentivising mid- and senior-level officials to attend religion and foreign policy courses;
• continue to engage with contemporary scholarship and practice. Partnerships between scholars, policy makers and NGOs will be critical in filling the current gaps in our knowledge regarding religion in international affairs.

Read the full report

The biggest threat to religious freedom is religious extremism, argues Knox Thomas in a blog published on Foreign Policy. He continues “The world must recognise this — and act.”

Here is the full article:

There is a growing threat to religious freedom around the globe. In an earlier era, the greatest hostility to faith came from secular autocracies or totalitarian regimes. But that has changed. Today, the most active persecutors of religious minorities and dissenters are religious extremists. In this still-young century, the world has witnessed a sharp rise in the number of extremist groups who attack the religious “other” for perceived transgressions.

No longer are states the sole perpetrator of abuses, as was the case during the Cold War. In the Middle East, the Islamic State has become the chief exemplar of a terrorist organization espousing a vile, religiously inspired ideology that despises diversity of thought and belief. Its genocidal attacks on the Yazidis almost one year ago and the choice “convert or die” it offers to Christians (also documented in a recent and much-discussed article in the New York Times) are gruesome evidence of its intentions. But Muslims aren’t safe, either. Shiite Muslims or dissenting Sunnis can also find themselves facing death sentences.

The Middle East is not the only region grappling with this new trend. In South Asia, the Taliban (in both its Afghan and Pakistani versions) have struck at Christians and other non-Muslims, while also viciously attacking other Islamic sects for being the “wrong” kind of Muslim. In Burma, the 969 movement of radical Buddhist monks has incited mob attacks against Rohingya Muslims. And these extremist monks are following the same agenda as like-minded Buddhist extremists in Sri Lanka, who have targeted Christians and Muslims in that small island nation.

In Africa, too, violent religious extremism can be found in a growing number of countries. The terrorist organization Boko Haram has assaulted both churches and mosques who speak out against its ideology and attacks. In the Central African Republic, religiously affiliated militias have been responsible for mass violence in Christian and Muslim communities. Extremists in various other parts of the continent have announced the founding of Islamic State franchises.

This new reality presents a vexing challenge to the international community and its commitment to human rights and religious freedom. These groups are often outside the reach of normal diplomatic channels. They don’t care what the world thinks, as they are actively trying to upend the international order.

In response, governments need to develop fresh approaches. There is no single recipe for fighting religious bigotry. Violent religious extremism grows out of many factors and is often situation-specific. So the response must be flexible, comprehensive, and coordinated, not fragmented across different bureaus and agencies. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (of which I am director of policy and research) proposed a series of changes to U.S. law and policy last year that would better position the United States to engage on these issues. The Commission’s recommendations include expanding the “country of particular concern” designation of worst religious-freedom violators to include failed states and nonstate actors, increasing funding for fieldwork grants, and including messaging on the importance of religious freedom and tolerance in strategic communications programs.

Concerns about religious freedom are interwoven with many of the greatest foreign-policy challenges facing the United States. President Barack Obama recognized this in his speech at the Countering Violent Extremism summit in February, noting that genuine democracy and political stability require “freedom of religion — because when people are free to practice their faith as they choose, it helps hold diverse societies together.”

Better incorporating promotion of freedom of religion into American efforts to confront ISIS and others extremists can enhance efforts to fight terrorism. Religious freedom is ultimately about freedom of thought — the right of individuals to believe what they want and to act on those beliefs in peaceful and noncoercive ways. Environments that support religious freedom are therefore better positioned to reject violent ideologies. Religious freedom is certainly not a cure-all. But it can make counter-terrorism efforts more durable by protecting civic space for diversity of thought and belief.

But this cannot be the United States’ fight alone. The challenges are transnational, with extremist groups linked across borders through ideology and criminality. To respond effectively, countries that value diversity of thought and belief must, too, work in coalition. Already there are multinational efforts against extremism and terrorism, such as the Global Counterterrorism Forum. But other efforts are under way to build coalitions of like-minded governments to advance freedom of religion. A network of legislators from around the world has leveraged the political capital of its individual members to protect religious freedom in places like Pakistan, Burma, and Indonesia. The European Union’s new human rights action plan places a greater emphasis on promoting religious freedom and protecting religious minorities, more tightly focusing the 28-nation union on this issue.

And while the United States and other governments need new proactive policies, they must also discourage bad policies by partner governments that fuel extremism. Separate studies by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have shown that, while the world is overwhelmingly religious, government restrictions on the free practice of religion are increasing. This is a recipe for increased violations and instability. In many places, heavy-handed government responses have made martyrs out of extremists and created grievances that fuel insurgencies. The recently released State Department country reports on terrorism noted this dynamic, especially in reference to several Central Asian states. To name but one example, the report on Tajikistan underscored the “negative impact on religious freedoms” of the government’s efforts to stem violent religious extremism, such as banning women and minors from attending mosques. These abuses can trigger violent reactions. In 2010, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan killed 25 Tajik soldiers in response to the country’s oppressive religion law, which limits the free practice of Islam.

Extremist groups can also find inspiration from regressive laws in the nations where they operate. Take the example of blasphemy laws. When such laws are on the books, extremists often feel emboldened to enforce them through their own rough justice. In Pakistan, which leads the world in the number of people jailed for this so-called “crime,” the blasphemy law has fueled extremist violence against human rights defenders and has instigated mob attacks against Christians and Ahmadi Muslims. In an ironic twist, blasphemy laws empower the very extremists governments claim to be fighting against.

Religious extremists are killing religious minorities and dissenting members of their own faith, and they represent a clear and present danger to diversity of thought and belief. These violent groups will, for the foreseeable future, present a major challenge to the United States and its allies for reasons of national security, humanitarian concerns, and human rights. To be sure, secular authoritarian regimes like North Korea and Eritrea will continue their abusive ways, and the United States and the international community should redouble their efforts to press for authoritarian regimes to reform. But the rise of violent religious extremism requires a new approach — one where governments recognise the problem, pivot quickly, and work in concert to meet this challenge.

On 22 July the Government replied to Kerry McCarthy MP’s written question “To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what his Department’s human rights priorities are for the current Parliament”. 

Minister David Lidington delivered a ‘holding answer’: “We are currently reconfiguring our work on human rights around three pillars to promote greater focus, boost our impact, and increase our ability to respond to international developments.
These pillars are:
(i) Democratic values and the rule of law;
(ii) The rules-based international system and,
(iii) Human rights for a stable world.
These will accommodate everything our Embassies, High Commissions and multilateral missions currently prioritise, in locally appropriate ways.”

Under the previous government, the Minister regularly emphasised that freedom of religion or belief was one of the FCO’s six human rights priorities. For example, “Freedom of religion or belief is a key human rights priority for this Government” (David Lidington, 16 January 2015)

Yet on 15 July FCO Minister Baroness Anelay stated, in a written answer, “Freedom of religion or belief remains one of this Government’s core human rights priorities and we continue to support its development globally,” and FCO Minister Hugo Swire also wrote, on 10 June 2015, “Freedom of religion or belief is a human rights priority anchored in the Government’s manifesto.”

Gulf News reports that the United Arab Emirates has issued a new law against any form of discrimination on the basis of religion, caste, creed, doctrine, race, colour or ethnic origin following a Decree by President His Highness Shaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan.

It notes that “The law is intended to provide a sound foundation for the environment of tolerance, broad­ mindedness and acceptance in the UAE and aims to safeguard people regardless of their origin, beliefs or race, against acts that promote religious hate and intolerance.”

On the one hand the law includes provisions for punishing anyone for terming other religious groups or individuals as infidels, or unbelievers – but it also criminalises any acts which insult religion through any form of expression, be it speech or the written word, books, pamphlets or via online media.

The new law No 02 of 2015:

1. Criminalises any acts that stoke religious hatred
2. Criminalises any act that insults religion through any form of expression, be it speech or the written word, books, pamphlets or online
3. Punishes anyone for terming other religious groups or individuals as infidels, or unbelievers
4. Provides a sound foundation for the environment of tolerance, broad-mindedness and acceptance in the UAE
5. Aims to safeguard people regardless of their origin, beliefs or race, against acts that promote religious hate and intolerance
6. Includes jail terms of six months to more than 10 years for those who break the law
7. Includes fines of between Dh50,000 and Dh2 million for those who break the law
8. Prohibits any act that would be considered as insulting God, His prophets or apostles or holy books or houses of worship or graveyards
9. Makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals or groups on the basis of religion, caste, doctrine, race, colour or ethnic origin
10. Prohibits any entity or group established specifically to provoke religious hatred
11. Recommends stringent punishments for groups or supporters of any organisations or individuals that are associated with hate crimes
12. Prohibits any kind of events such as conferences and meetings within the UAE organised with the sole purpose of sowing seeds of discrimination, discord or hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of faith, origin or race
13. Makes it illegal to receive financial support to fund activities that propagate hate
14. Encourages anyone involved in any activity that violates the law to voluntarily submit themselves before the authorities
15. Allows courts to waive penalties where people voluntarily submit themselves to authorities
16. Dovetails with other existing laws to protect specially privileged groups such as women, children and individuals with disabilities or others

Many Middle East news media have welcomed the new law More

FCO Minister Baroness Anelay of St Johns responded to the House of Lords debate (16 July), saying “Freedom of religion or belief and the right to hold no belief is a key human right. It is under attack in almost every corner of the globe… The ongoing assault on freedom of religion or belief is absolutely unacceptable.”

She continued  “Freedom of religion or belief is not just an optional extra, or nice to have; it is the key human right. It allows each citizen to follow their conscience in the way they see fit. As this Government made clear in our manifesto: ‘We will stand up for the freedom of people of all religions—and non-religious people—to practise their beliefs in peace and safety’. We are committed to defending the full right exactly as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

“Quite apart from any legal or moral obligation, we promote religious freedom as essential to our social, cultural and economic development. That is why this Government have made freedom of religion and belief a priority, not just in the FCO but across government. It is enshrined in international law, it makes social sense and it is morally right.”

Baroness Anelay outlined various government responses, and added “I also want us as a Government to focus even more strongly on making freedom of religion or belief part of the answer to extremism. Where freedom of religion is protected, extremist ideologies are much less likely to take root. I want us to continue our focus on supporting the right of persecuted Christians, as well as those of all religions and none, to be able to stay in the Middle East, the region of their birth.”

“Over the coming months, we will continue to deepen our already strong engagement with academics, think tanks, NGOs, faith representatives and parliamentarians on how we may best develop our policies to support religious minorities in the Middle East. I was delighted to meet members of the APPG on International Religious Freedom or Belief recently, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with them as we further develop our policies.”

Read extracts from the debate

Read the full debate

Watch the full debate

 

The Archbishop of Canterbury writes in today’s Times in advance of the Article 18 debate in the House of Lords “Religious freedom should mean the right to challenge beliefs as well as the right to worship.”

The article reads:

The village, as we approached it, was the normal collection of straw-roofed huts and a school. It was only as I got out of the car that the destruction was evident. A few days earlier raiders had struck. I found one man sitting on a heap of ash, like Job. The raiders had killed his wife and six children. He had hidden down a well for three days. On a nearby hill, a raider stood silhouetted with a rifle in his arms and watched us the whole time we were there. The cause of this brutal attack? The village was a Christian community.

Acts of religious violence and the curtailing of freedom of religion are not only directed at Christians. In the Central African Republic Christians have attacked Muslims. Around the world, Christian churches are burned in south India, Muslim and Christian villages attacked in parts of Myanmar. As for the Levant and Mesopotamia, we are all too terribly aware of extreme violence by Isis and its allies against every other group.

Earlier this year I visited Egypt to offer condolences after the murder of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya, who died proclaiming “Jesus Christ is Lord”. Of the 37 Anglican provinces to which I travelled during my first 18 months in office, almost half were living under persecution. They fear for their lives every day.

Meanwhile, close to home, the firebombing of mosques in this country and the atrocious attacks on Jewish communities across Europe show that too many people, of all faiths, find their fundamental human right to freedom of religion and belief under attack.

It is therefore timely that Lord Alton of Liverpool is leading a debate on religious freedom and belief in the House of Lords today. His motion notes violations of Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights — the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion — and urges the UK and the international community to give greater priority to upholding this hard-won freedom.

As a Christian, I believe that religious freedom — the choice of how we follow God and, indeed, whether we choose to follow God at all — is given in creation, and in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Jesus gave those he encountered absolute freedom of choice as to whether to follow him or not: the thieves on either side of Jesus, as he hung on the cross, were given a choice whether to believe in him: one turned to him, the other cursed him. That is freedom. It is a freedom that should apply to people whatever their faith, or to those who are atheists.

Those of us who are followers of Jesus are called to obedience to Him. We bear witness to Jesus Christ, of course, yet we must never compel or manipulate people into faith. This is why the church’s sporadic record of compelling obedience to its teachings through violence and coercion is a cause for humility and shame.

It is all too easy to think that faith is an optional extra or a consumer choice, that choosing whether to believe in God is like deciding which type of car to buy. Humans are made in the image of God, so our religious beliefs are a core part of what it is to be human. To take away a person’s freedom of belief or non-belief is to violate the core of their humanity.

At the same time, more work needs to be done to develop the language used by political and religious leaders to talk about religious belief in their own contexts, and how well we understand the beliefs of others. Religion defines us. For me, there is quite literally nothing more important than knowing, loving and serving Jesus Christ.

This passionately lived religious life cannot be compartmentalised within our legal and political systems. We need to find the means to nurture the transformational power of religious belief while distinguishing it from the mutations of religion that do so much harm.

The village that I visited was full of people passionate about their faith, as were their enemies. The roots of the conflict were historic and complex. We must be clear about right and wrong, but also nuanced about the causes of hatred. We cannot simply apply our own unexamined prejudices, any more than we can bow to cruelty, oppression and intolerance.

Religious freedom demands space to be challenged and offended without responding destructively. The welcome penalty of freedom is to accept being told things that put us or our beliefs in a perspective we do not like. Sometimes that makes us see what God wants us to see, as we find in the prophets of the Old Testament.

Curtailing religious freedom in the name of other freedoms runs the risk of discarding one of the most important and creative forces in human beings. As societies which respect freedom guard their own freedom and flourishing in every area, with robust and respectful conversation, they become more like the societies in which we dream of living; vigorous, diverse, generous, hopeful, exciting.

 

“International religious freedom has received greater attention across the political and social spectrum,” says an analysis piece published today by Lapido Media.

One sign of this, it says, is the recent honour given to Coptic Orthodox Bishop Angaelos, appointed Officer of the Order of the British Empire by the Queen for his services to international religious freedom.

‘Greater acknowledgment of this issue,’ Angaelos told Lapido, ‘is fitting within the UK’s understanding of what it means to safeguard human rights.’

It was ‘imperative’, he added, for both individuals and nations to protect them.

There are signs the UK government is getting the message.

According to the Pew Research Center, 76 per cent of the world’s population live in countries with high or very high restrictions on religion.

The 2011 Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report on Human Rights and Democracy found that religious freedom was ‘crucial to ensuring conflict prevention and post-conflict peacebuilding.’ It has since been updated to include ‘countries of particular concern’, numbering 27 in the most recent edition.

Put negatively, the June 2015 volume of the Harvard International Law Journal noted ‘nations that criminalise blasphemy tend to foster an environment where terrorism is more prevalent, legitimised, and insidious.’

The FCO report insists it is ‘important’ to secure religious freedom as part of the government’s ‘wider security agenda’.

The APPG report  ‘Article 18: An Orphaned Right’ contains ten recommendations to the government on how to ‘mainstream’ a religious freedom approach into foreign policy.

One year later Baroness Warsi chaired the first meeting for the Foreign Office Advisory Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief, fulfilling recommendation three.

An additional three have been positively acted upon, with evidence suggesting all have been considered.

But is advice enough? Do reports translate into policy?

Lord Alton continues to push the debate. His own view is clear: ‘Countries have to make the cause of those who suffer for their religion or belief the great cause of our times,’ he wrote in GIS.

‘Christians, Jews and Muslims privileged to live in free societies have to challenge cold indifference and speak up and defend humanity.’

Read the full article

On 30 June 2015, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO), in cooperation with Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), Minority Rights Group International (MRG) and International Campaign for Tibet (ICT) convened an international conference entitled ‘Freedom of Religion? The Price of Faith’ at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Hosted by Csaba Sógor MEP (EPP), György Hölvényi MEP (EPP) and Ilhan Kyuchyuk MEP (ALDE), the conference addressed the issues arising when people’s freedom to practice their religion comes into contention with social and geopolitical forces, as well as the question of how to promote constructive relations between religious communities and cultures.

The conference opened with the reflections of Mr Csaba Sógor MEP, who stressed his strong commitment to the promotion of minority rights and freedom of religion in Europe and beyond. Accentuating on freedom of religion as a raison d’état, Mr Sógor argued that the European Union should act as an epitome and give a good example to other countries, by making sure all its Member States adhere to basic human rights. Mr Ilhan Kyuchyuk MEP then stressed that minority communities worldwide are being gradually eradicated from the geographical map, and therefore urged EU policy makers to do their utmost to prevent this tragic trend.

Mr György Hölvényi MEP and Co-chair of the EPP’s Working Group on Intercultural Dialogue and Religious Affairs addressed some of the contemporary challenges and opportunities as regards the protection of religious minorities around the world and the promotion of constructive dialogue between communities.

Mr Mark Lattimer from Minority Rights Group International opened the first panel by stressing that every country hosts a certain level of religious discrimination, if not persecution. He further argued that religious persecution has turned into a feature which can be instrumentalized by political parties as a means to serving their own agendas, so that the persecution of minority groups actually becomes a ‘’side show’’.

Dr Susan Kerr of Christian Solidarity Worldwide provided an overview of current trends, challenges and opportunities with regards to international advocacy on freedom of religion and belief for people of all faiths. In her view, international pressure and focus of mass media on the issue of religious freedom would generate wider public awareness and political will, which in turn have the potential to trigger possible solutions to existing problems.

Mr Jean-Bernard Bolvin, Desk Officer on Freedom of Religion at the European External Action Service (EEAS), emphasized the EU’s stance towards freedom of religion, defining it as a ‘’right to believe or not to believe’’. The EU’s approach is neither to defend nor to promote, but rather to advocate for this very right. Mr Bolvin added that the role of religious and faith-based communities as drivers of peace and promoters of mediation must not be overlooked.

The second panel focused on concrete case studies, giving first-hand accounts of religious persecution from the perspective of various religious minority groups around the world. First to take the floor was Mr Ameen Farhan, Leader of the Yezidi Movement for Reform and Progress and Member of the Iraqi House of Representatives. Noting that the Yezidis have been confronted with violence by various groups throughout history, Mr Farhan highlighted that since the advance of ISIS in June 2014, attacks on their physical and spiritual heritage have escalated exponentially.

The clampdown on Tibetan Buddhism in China was addressed by Mr Vincent Metten of International Campaign 
for Tibet. In particular, he explained how a new draft law on counter-terrorism currently under discussion in Beijing poses a great threat for Tibet, as its vague wording leaves room for a broad (mis)interpretation.

The last case study of the conference was jointly presented by Mr Vu Quoc Dung, Executive Director of VETO! Human Rights Defenders’ Network, and Ms Penelope Faulkner from Que Me: Action for Democracy in Vietnam. They shared their expert insights on Vietnam’s state policy and drew special attention to the issues facing the Degard-Montagnard, Hmong and Khmer Krom peoples. Due to their religious confessions, these peoples face continuous threats of persecution, imprisonment, torture and religious extortion on behalf of the state authorities.

Through the fruitful exchange of views among speakers and participants it became clear that a swift growth of religious and ideological fundamentalism has severely hindered the free practice and observance of religion and faith. Moreover, underlining an urgent need for a more comprehensive interpretation of religious freedom, the conference concluded that decision makers in the EU need fresh input to facilitate the collective understanding of freedom of religion or belief.

[report from UNPO]

Farshid Fathi has been told by prison officials that he will be released on 10 December 2015, Elam Ministries have announced. He had previously expected to remain in prison until December 2017. Farshid received the official notification on 4 July 2015.

At the same time, it has been reported that Iranian Christians Bijan Farokhpour Haghighi and Eskandar Rezaie have been recalled from bail to serve prison sentences they received in 2013.

The two men were originally sentenced in July 2013 for security-related charges. Bijan Farokhpour Haghighi was sentenced to three years in prison, while Eskandar Rezaie was sentenced to one year. Sources close to Christian Solidarity Worldwide state that Eskandar Rezaie has been imprisoned at Adelabad Prison, while Bijan Farokhpour Haghighi is likely to be imprisoned soon.

The men were part of a group that was arrested in Shiraz on 12 October 2012, when security forces raided a prayer meeting. On 16 July 2013, the group was charged with ‘action against national security’ and ‘propaganda against the order of the system’. Despite an appeal, the sentences were upheld in a decision issued on 29 March 2014.

Lord Alton writes, in a special report published by Geopolitical Information Service AG, “The Islamic State terrorist attack, in which almost 40 holidaymakers were killed in Tunisia, accompanied by atrocities in France and Kuwait, highlights again the murderous outrages the group is willing to commit. Christians have been in the firing line of the IS terrorists and other terror groups in the Middle East and the rest of the globe.”

“The international community has to be more consistent in its moral outrage rather than denouncing some countries for their suppression of minorities while appeasing others who directly enable jihad through financial support. Western powers are seen as hypocrites when business interests determine responses to human rights abuses.”

He concludes “Can the great faiths motivate their followers to be peacemakers, peace-builders, protectors of minorities, and practitioners of pluralism, tolerance, mutual respect, and the upholding of the rule of law? Could global society devote comparable energy into countering religious extremism as the energy which has been used to spread religious extremism? Countries have to make the cause of those who suffer for their religion or belief the great cause of our times. Christians, Jews and Muslims privileged to live in free societies have to challenge cold indifference and speak up and defend humanity.”

Read the full report