European Parliament group holds conference on persecution

The Group of the European People’s Party (EPP Group) is issuing invitations to a conference organised by the Intercultural Activities and Religious Dialogue Unit on ‘The Persecution of Christians in the World’. The conference will take place on 1 July 2015 from 14.30-18.00 hrs in the European Parliament in Brussels.

The aim of the conference is to raise awareness at EU level and to provide a follow-up for the Motion for Resolution on the persecution of Christians in the world, in relation to the killing of students in Kenya by terror group al-Shabaab, adopted on 30 April 2015 in Strasbourg by Members of the European Parliament. In this Resolution, Members condemned the persecution of Christians and called on the EU and its Member States to address the persecution of Christians as a priority issue for their foreign policy.

The conference will consist of two parts: the first session will concentrate on the broader Middle East region, notably the cases of Syria and Iraq, and the second on other areas of the world, by giving examples from Asia to Africa.

For more information, including a full list of speakers, follow this link

Lord Sacks: “religion must be part of the solution”

Chief Rabbi Emeritus Lord Sacks addressed the Jewish News UK-Israel policy conference in Westminster this week. Here is the speech in full:

“I was with the great scholar of Islam, Prof Bernard Lewis, in 2003 when someone asked him to predict what would happen in Iraq. His reply was memorable. He said, I am a historian, therefore I only make predictions about the past. What is more, I am a retired historian, so even my past is passé.

With that in mind, I make only the simplest possible prediction, that the battle against Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Isis, and their myriad mutations, will be the defining conflict of the next generation. For obvious reasons. First, as Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom explained in their book, there is a difference between a starfish and a spider. A decapitated spider dies, but a starfish can regenerate itself from a single amputated leg. Radical political Islam is a starfish, not a spider, and though Al Qaeda and Isis may be defeated, they will come back in other guises under other names.

Second, despite the best endeavours of the West over the past 14 years, radical political Islam is far stronger today than it was then. As Moses Naim writes in The End of Power, asymmetric warfare has increasingly delivered victory to the militarily weaker side. The terms of conflict are changing and we have not yet found an answer to this form of disruptive innovation.

Third, we are facing a phenomenon that the West has not known since the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th century. When they ended in one place, they began in another, and they lasted for more than a century. The same factors present then are present now. [1] Discontent with an existing power widely conceived to have been corrupt: then the Catholic Church, today secular nationalist regimes. [2] Protest taking a religious form, an attempt to get back to the pristine purity of the faith as it was in the beginning. And [3] a revolution in information technology, which allowed what would otherwise have been marginal disaffected groups to outflank all existing structures of power. Then the revolution was printing, today, YouTube, Facebook, and the other social media, whose most accomplished users are ISIS.

If this prediction has even the remotest chance of coming true, then I would argue three simple points.

First, it is not clear that we have yet obeyed Robert McNamara’s fundamental rule: understand your enemy’s psychology. As Graeme Wood makes clear in his article in The Atlantic in March this year, Isis is a religious phenomenon through and through, as are all the movements of radical political Islam. We are not very good in the West at understanding theology, but without it we will not understand our opponents.

Second, wars are won by weapons, but peace is won by ideas. That is what happened in the 17th century. Thinkers like John Milton, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Benedict Spinoza sat and studied the Bible and came up with the five ideas that shaped the modern world: social contract, the moral limits of power, liberty of conscience, the doctrine of toleration, and most important of all, human rights. These began life as religious ideas, as John F. Kennedy said in his Inaugural: “The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”

The Cold War was conceived by the West as among other things a battle of ideas, and great thinkers like Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper, and Friedrich Hayek developed new and inspiring defences of freedom. Thus far the 21st century has produced few if any new ideas, and since we are dealing with a religious conflict, they must be religious ideas, precisely as they were in the 17th century. It was for this reason I wrote Not In God’s Name to at least begin a conversation of ideas.

Lastly, if religion is part of the problem, then religion must be part of the solution. And we begin with one major advantage. Most of the world’s great faiths are on the same side today. Jews are threatened by the return of anti-Semitism. Christians are being massacred or exiled or living in fear throughout most of the Middle East. Moderate Muslims are being slaughtered by the radicals. Hindus and Sikhs feel equally threatened, not just in India but also in Europe. The Bahai are being persecuted in Iran, the Yazidis in Iraq and the Druze in Syria. If we stand together we win.

Religious leaders must be recruited and brought together as a recognized element of the global response to tyranny and terror, preferably under the aegis of the United Nations. Whether this is done in the form of Track-2 diplomacy in specific conflict zones, or under the rubric of article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or simply as a body dedicated to establishing the parameters of religious education so that we can teach the world’s children not to hate those with whom they must one day learn to live.

This is a battle we can and must win for every kind of reason, political, moral, religious and humanitarian. We live, today, in a world in which people are killing in the name of the God of life, waging war in the name of the God of peace, and practising cruelty in the name of the God of compassion. There comes a time when we, whatever our faith, have to stand and say: not in God’s name, and the sooner we do so together, the better.

President Widodo urged to address religious intolerance

The International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief has written to the President of Indonesia, encouraging him to “to protect religious minorities in the Republic of Indonesia and also address rising religious intolerance.”

The letter was signed by 25 Parliamentarians from 12 different nations – including the Bishop of Coventry, Baroness Berridge, Lord Singh, Baroness Cox and Lord Alton from the UK.

The letter highlights that “Indonesia faces a number of challenges that currently restrict or otherwise violate genuine religious freedom. For example, those perceived to have insulted Islam often face trumped-up blasphemy charges, and Shi’a, Sufis, and Ahmadis are considered “deviant” for not following traditional Sunni practices. Laws and regulations such as the 2008 anti-Ahmadiyya Joint Decree and the 2006 Joint Regulation on Houses of Worship are discriminatory and contravene international standards. Religious sites, whether churches or mosques, and the followers who worship there encounter closures and violence.

“These are just some of the critical challenges to religious freedom Indonesia needs to address in order to strengthen freedom of religion nor belief. Tackling these issues will require courageous and consistent direction from the highest levels of government. We stand ready to assist you in this important work.”

Read the letter in full

The IPP has written several letters to heads of state about religious freedom issues, including the Pakistani Prime Minister, the President of Burma and Pope Francis. More

Building a Global Alliance for Religious Freedom

Rising religious freedom abuses represent a challenge beyond the capabilities of any one government or organisation. But recent collective action efforts give cause for hope, writes Knox Thames in an opinion piece on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation website.

On June 15, the international community joined together to launch a new effort to combat rising religious persecution. Led by the government of Canada, a group of like-minded countries from different regions met in Brussels and agreed to participate in the International Contact Group for Freedom of Religion or Belief. This ground breaking effort by foreign ministries joins other efforts to build international coalitions to promote religious freedom for all.

The world is an increasingly hostile place for religious freedom. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that almost 75% of the global population lives in countries where the free practice of faith is restricted or highly restricted by government and/or societal actors. In addition, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) found in our 2015 Annual Report that billions of people live in countries that perpetrate or tolerate systematic, ongoing or egregious violations of religious freedom. These meta-statistics cover the horrific abuses faced by individuals belonging to religious minorities from religious freedom violators ranging from ISIS to the Burmese government. The world is witnessing a crisis for faith.

And the opponents to freedom of thought, conscience and religion are networking. Radical Buddhist monks from Myanmar have made common cause with their coreligionists in Sri Lanka. Groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda are expanding their reach globally and expanding their narratives of grievance around the world. Authoritarian regimes share “best practices” in repression and defend each other before the United Nations and other international venues.Not everyone is standing still while the world burns.
However, not everyone is standing still while the world burns. Efforts are underway to create greater connectivity among like-minded nations who wish to protect the ability of individuals to peacefully seek truth as they wish, to change faith or hold no faith, and to express their religious beliefs alone or in community with others.

The International Contact Group for Freedom of Religion or Belief is one such effort, grounded in international standards, such as Article 18 from the Universal Declaration for Human Rights, which stipulates the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Seeing a diverse number of nations from around the world agree to participate in this network was certainly encouraging. Hopefully the verbal commitments will be followed up with concrete and collective action.

In addition, there is a parallel effort underway to connect parliamentarians who support freedom of religion or belief. The International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief (IPP) was launched in Norway in November 2014 at the Nobel Peace Center. The event ended with the signing of the Charter for Freedom of Religion or Belief by over 30 parliamentarians from across the globe, which committed them to advance religious freedom for all. Efforts are underway to have a second meeting in New York on the margins of the UN General Assembly and to expand the parliamentary network. In its short life, the IPP has been active – sending letters of intervention to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the President of Myanmar, and the North Korean Ambassador to the United Nations.

The European Union and the European Parliament have also both increased their ability to advance religious freedom. The EU issued a good set of policy guidelines in 2013 to help instruct EU missions and member states about how to engage on religious freedom in countries of concern. (Hopefully freedom of religion and belief will be highlighted in the upcoming EU human rights action plan and the Guidelines further strengthened when reviewed next year.) In addition, Federica Mogherini, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, listed religious freedom as among her three priorities when speaking before the European Parliament in late 2014. The Parliament itself has become better equipped. After the last election, the previous Working Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief was upgraded to become the Inter-Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance. It recently released its annual report at a joint event with USCIRF in Brussels, further demonstrating the strong transatlantic commitment to promoting religious freedom.

At this time of rising violations of religious freedom, these efforts are cause for hope. Today’s challenges stretch beyond the capabilities of any one government or organisation. Collective action and sharing of resources and influence can hopefully begin to bring about positive change.

Knox Thames is Director of Policy and Research at the US Commission for International Religious Freedom.

Chinese government’s Human Rights report: “fiction”

International Christian Concern claims that a dramatic increase on the persecution of Christians is missing from the Chinese Government’s 2014 Report on Human Rights.

On June 8, China’s government released a glowing report on human rights in an attempt to push back criticism of its recent crackdown on human rights activists as well as the outcry against its campaign of church destruction and cross removals. The white paper, entitled “Progress in China’s Human Rights in 2014,” was issued by the Information Office of China’s State Council in Beijing.

In stark contrast to China’s claims of ‘progress’ on the human rights front in 2014, International Christian Concern (ICC) received almost daily reports detailing the government’s destruction of churches and the forced removal of crosses from hundreds of others, despite the strong public response of local Christians.

The report makes no mention of the Chinese government targeting meetings of Chinese believers, including even services of China’s government-controlled and recognized “Three Self Patriotic Church.” Contrary to the report, persecution and harassment of Christians have increased over the last year. Many Christians have been put in jail often on trumped-up charges. The widespread breadth of the persecution indicates that it has tacit approval from the highest levels of the Chinese government. The current administration has taken a hard line when it comes to human rights.

As reported by ICC, the “Three Rectifications and One Demolition” campaign in Zhejiang Province was created to fight alleged “illegal structures,” but it has been used to justify the demolition of Christian churches and to remove Christian crosses from Chinese city skylines. According to local reports by China Aid, as many as 1000 crosses have been removed and approximately 50 churches destroyed in the Zhejiang campaign.

William Nee, China researcher at Amnesty International, says the report is a work of government fiction. “In certain areas, especially related to freedom of expression, civil society, and the protection of the rights of ethnic minorities—the white paper seems to have been written in an alternate reality,” he said in an email to AFP.

Chris Warner, ICC’s Regional Manager for Southeast Asia, laments, “If China would spend as much time on actually improving its human rights record as it does on defending itself against legitimate criticism, it could greatly improve the lives of Chinese citizens who only seek rights guaranteed to them in the Chinese constitution. In recent months, Chinese Christians have been detained and sentenced to multi-year jail sentences for daring to question the legality of the harassment conducted by local authorities. This is the reality that China does not want to accept.”

 

Recommendations to Stop Genocide of Minorities in Middle East

Policy Day - Baroness Berridge, Hon. Michael Mukasey, Hon. Alberto Fernandez (PRNewsFoto/Coptic Solidarity)
Policy Day – Baroness Berridge, Hon. Michael Mukasey, Hon. Alberto Fernandez (PRNewsFoto/Coptic Solidarity)

Coptic Solidarity hosted its 6th Annual Conference June 11-12th in Washington, DC to discuss the rising persecution of religious minorities in the Middle East.

This past February, ISIS captured and martyred 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in Libya followed by the murder of 30 Ethiopian Christians. Coptic Solidarity, host of the event, works to help Copts in Egypt and Middle East minorities achieve equal human rights.

In the past decade, religious minorities in the Middle East have experienced extreme persecution. The theme of the conference was 100 Years Later: Middle Eastern Christians Face Another Genocide. All speakers agreed that without direct, aggressive support, the future of Coptic Christians is in doubt.

The primary recommendations from the Conference are:

  • Call upon the international community to actively preserve the existence and protect the rights of the vulnerable minoritiesof Iraq and Syria, which are confronting a genocidal campaign that seeks to totally eradicate them from the region.
  • Call upon Pope Francis to convene a special summit meeting for world leaders to establish an immediate multi-faceted strategy in support of these embattled Christians.
  • Call upon all governments of the world, and especially those of the Middle East, the United States and Europe, to confront the jihadist ideology that underpins Islamist terrorist groups. More than simply defeating ISIS, the extremist ideology driving persecution throughout the Middle East needs to be confronted.
  • Support Egyptian leadership proclamations of need for reformist religious discourse, but call upon the Government of Egypt to respect, legislate and enforce articles in the Egyptian Constitution regarding citizenship rights and liberties, and to annul article 98-f of the Penal Code (related to “derision of religion”), which is being used to intimidate and stifle freedom of expression and belief in flagrant contradiction with the Egyptian Constitution and universal human rights.

The Policy Day was hosted on June 11th at the US Capitol and included: Members of Congress, the U.S. Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom, the Chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, leaders from Canada and the UK, and policy experts.

Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom David Saperstein said that the worldview of ISIS in the Middle East is “fundamentally opposed to freedom. Countering this religious oppression is my top priority.” He went on to say that the “promotion of religious freedom is indispensable to improving security and conflict resolution throughout the world.”

A common theme throughout the day was the importance of religious freedom as a critical building block to the development of democracy. Both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress affirmed the importance of religious liberty in securing human rights.

New ideas explored included a recent amendment by Senator James Lankford (R-OK) to include religious freedom as a component of trade negotiations. The amendment, initially focused on Pacific trade pacts, passed the U.S. Senate and is before the House.

Hon. Bob Dechert, Member, House of Commons, Canada described being in Parliament during the recent Canadian terrorist attack. Rt. Hon. Baroness Elizabeth Berridge, UK House of Lords, detailed her work to improve religious freedom through an International Panel of Parliamentarians.

Coptic Solidarity hosted a dinner following the Policy Day in which diplomats participated from the embassies of: Armenia, BelgiumCanada, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Russia and Slovenia. Each of these countries presented on their efforts to stop the increasing persecution of minorities in the MENA region.

Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, USCIRF Commissioner and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, was presented with Coptic Solidarity’s annual Leadership Award for his tireless and unwavering support of democracy in the region and true religious freedom and equality for all minorities.

Judge Jeanine Pirro was the keynote speaker on the second conference day. Her outspoken support for Copts and other minorities resulted in a standing ovation. Kenneth Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee, also shared lessons learned from the Armenian Genocide and provided suggestions for addressing the current genocide. Representatives from the Middle East Christian Committee (representing many of the minorities suffering in the current genocide against Christians in Iraq, Syria, and surrounding countries) shared about the plight of their communities and what can be done to help them.

In the last year, Coptic Solidarity has acted on many of the recommendations following the 2014 conference. The Annual Conference plays a vital role in providing reporting and concrete policy recommendations that Coptic Solidarity can act on with partners.

Coptic Solidarity is an organization seeking to help minorities, particularly the Copts, of Egypt and we support those in Egypt working for democracy, freedom, and the protection of the fundamental rights of all Egyptian citizens.  Its international organization has headquarters in the Washington, D.C., area in the U.S., with key branches currently in Canada, France, and Egypt.  It believes that the international community plays a key role in helping ensure the protection and upholding of the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. For more information, contact Lindsay Vessey at 801-512-1713 or info@copticsolidarity.org

SOURCE Coptic Solidarity

Lebanon: Muslim leaders condemn persecution of Christians

The leaders of four branches of Islam in Lebanon gathered earlier this month to issue a joint statement in the face of sectarianism and the rise of the Islamic State, denouncing attacks against Christians in the region, reports the Catholic News Agency.

“In the name of religious, humanitarian and national principles, the summit condemns religiously motivated attacks against Eastern Christians, including attacks against their homes, villages, property and places of worship, when in fact the Prophet had recommended that they be respected, protected and defended,” the participants said in a June 2 statement.

Such attacks, “like those suffered by other Muslims and non-Muslims belonging to other faiths and cultures, like the Yazidis, are tantamount to aggression against Islam itself,” they added, according to abouna.org, a site edited by Fr. Rif’at Bader, a priest of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The June summit included representatives of the Sunni, Shia, Druze, and Alawite communities.

The event’s coordinator, Mohammad Sammak, is co-chair of Lebanon’s National Committee for Islamic-Christian dialogue, and the Muslim leaders recommended that “the right way for intra-Muslim and Islamic-Christian relations involves justice, moderation, respect for diversity and differences among men.”

The gathering also “reiterated its faith in respect for human dignity, private and public freedoms, especially religious freedom, and its rejection of any coercion in religion or in the name of religion.”

The Muslim leaders are concerned by rising sectarianism and violence in their country, which has experienced pressure from the more than four-year civil war in its neighbor Syria: Hezbollah, a Shia militant group in Lebanon, has joined the fighting there; and more than 1.1 million Syrian refugees have flooded into Lebanon.

The Islamic State, which has established a Sunni caliphate across portions of Syria and Iraq, has persecuted all non-Sunnis – including Shia Muslims – and several of the Lebanese summit’s recommendations regard practices it has adopted.

The Muslims leaders urged their followers “to see no differences among themselves. This does not mean the absence of disagreements, but it does mean the acceptance of differences and respect for others, based on the rule of faith according to which ‘believers are brothers’. The variety of schools and interpretations does not abolish nor weaken this sense of brotherhood.”

They also noted that the Quran banns the killing of one Muslim by another and condemned “all forms of extremism and judgments of apostasy (takfir) pronounced against other believers in a God, a practice that is also a deviation from the tolerance that characterises Islam [. . .] and twists or distorts its image.”

The group also denounced terroristic behavior, and invited “Muslims from all schools in Lebanon and the Arab and Islamic world to focus on the fundamentals of faith of the Muslim doctrine and avoid misinterpretations that make Islam say what it does not say.”

Burma: ethnic minorities (Oral Questions, Lords, 18 June)

Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Burma concerning the persecution and trafficking of the Rohingya Muslims and ethnic minorities in Burma.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con):
My Lords, the United Kingdom raises the problems in Rakhine with the Government of Burma at every opportunity. The Minister of State for Asia Pacific called the Burmese ambassador to the FCO on 18 May to express concern, calling for an urgent humanitarian response and regional co-ordination. In parallel, our ambassador in Rangoon delivered the same message, with the EU and US, in a démarche to Burmese Ministers and again bilaterally on 4 June.

Baroness Berridge (Con):
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Approximately 90,000 Rohingya Muslims have been trafficked this year alone. Laws are now proposed to restrict religious conversion and to make it punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment should a Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist, and Rohingya Muslims have been stripped of their right to vote. The root cause of this is militant Buddhist nationalism, which seeks to link Myanmar’s identity to that of being a Buddhist. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made about the recent case of Htin Lin Oo, a Buddhist, who was sentenced to two years in prison earlier this month after being charged under the penal code with insulting Buddhism simply because he tried to argue that the conduct of extremist Buddhist nationalists, who were preaching hatred and inciting violence, was contrary to the teaching of Buddhism?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
My Lords, first, I recognise the work that my noble friend does so well for all of us as co-chair of the All-Party Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief. We are extremely concerned about the approach of the Burmese Government to those who wish to express their own religious identity. We are one of the most outspoken countries in the world about not only freedom of religion and belief but freedoms generally. The Burmese Government are left in no doubt. As to those who are prisoners of the regime, we make it clear that there should be proper treatment of prisoners and proper judicial process. It is wrong around the world if people are inhibited from practising their own belief.

Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab):
To be credible we have to be consistent, as the noble Baroness and her committee have always been. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom puts Burma in the worst category and states that its Government are wholly unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who are guilty of abuses against Muslims. The US puts Burma in its “country of particular concern” category. I am pleased that the Government and the EU are making representations with the US, but is it normal to make this joint démarche when, to be powerful and credible, we always ensure that we work with the EU and the US?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
Indeed, yes. We work with both the EU and the US on these matters. With UK support, the issue of Rakhine was discussed at a briefing of the UN Security Council on 28 May, where I raised the matter of Burma with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in Geneva on Monday. I will continue to do so. Later this morning, I meet the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and I will discuss the matter with him personally.

Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB):
My Lords, as one in five Rohingya has now fled since 2011, does the Minister agree that hate speech is a key issue here and that many admirable Buddhist monks and civil society actors are speaking out against this? Can we not do more to help them in what they are doing? Will she also say a word about Kachin state, which is covered by this Question on ethnic minorities, where some 100,000 people have been displaced and more than 200 villages have now been burned to the ground?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
My Lords, with regard to freedoms—or lack of freedoms—in Burma, we have made it clear that it is essential for Burma to address the dire situation not only of the Rohingya community, but of other persecuted communities, regardless of the region. We want to see improved humanitarian access, greater security and accountability and a sustainable solution on citizenship applying country-wide.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD):
My Lords, can the noble Baroness say something about the critical engagement we have with the current Burmese Government? For example, I understand that we are training Burmese military. How much leverage does the closeness of our relationship with the Burmese Government give us to make constructive criticism of this sort?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his assumption that this relationship gives us more leverage. It is not merely a matter of providing technical training to the military so that they know the proper way to behave within the confines of reacting to what they may consider to be public disorder. We are also providing technical support in advance of the November elections so that they may be carried out in a proper manner.

Baroness Warsi (Con):
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the allegations of sexual violence perpetrated by the Burmese army against a number of ethnic minorities during this conflict? I congratulate her on her new role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. What specific work do she and the Foreign Office intend to do in this area?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
I am grateful to my noble friend. It was an honour to be appointed last week by the Prime Minister as his special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. When I had meetings in Geneva, it became clear that colleagues—not only in the United Nations but in countries and NGOs around the world—are ready and willing to work with the UK on these matters. As to what happens next in practical terms, I assure my noble friend that I have already identified countries where specific action can be taken by me and those around the world with whom I am working. Burma is clearly at the top of the list, as are Syria and Iraq.

Baroness O’Loan (CB):
My Lords, the Minister is clearly aware that the new protection of race and religion laws in Burma will make life much harder for Burmese minorities to marry, start a family or change religion. Do the Government agree with Burma’s Cardinal Charles Bo that these laws represent an unacceptable and regrettable erosion of religious freedom?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
I absolutely agree.

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab):
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent disenfranchisement of the Rohingya by the withdrawal of their ID cards is a further, outrageous attack on an already severely persecuted group? Does she accept that the forthcoming elections in Burma cannot possibly be free and fair when hundreds of thousands of people are being denied the right to vote and while the military maintains its 27% stake in the Burmese Parliament?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns:
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the withdrawal of what are known as the white cards from the Rohingya was an improper act. This is the politest phrase I can think of in the circumstances. It severely imperils the appropriateness of the election results. However, we must recognise that Burma is on the cusp of having the opportunity to elect a civilian Government for the first time. This does not prevent our remaining outspoken about the fact that the Rohingya should not have had their ability to vote withdrawn.

Fading Christianity in Syria and Iraq

Knox Thames writes on a blog on MENASource:

“The quagmires of Syria and Iraq have forced millions to flee, both internally displaced people and new refugees escaping across borders. The international community is failing to meet their needs, with UN agencies announcing cuts in food programs due to a lack of funds. Ethnic and religious communities have suffered attacks from terrorist extremists, militias, and the Assad regime because of their identities. Just as media attention has alerted the world to the Islamic State’s (ISIS or ISIL) destruction of cultural heritage in Syria and Iraq, so too should it look to the human cultural dimension under threat.

“Among the suffering, Christian communities in Syria and Iraq must contend with incredible pressures. In the cradle of Christianity, Syrian and Iraqi Christians face an existential threat. On a recent visit to Beirut, Christian refugees from Syria and Iraq conveyed tragic personal stories: a sobering conversation that demonstrated the vulnerability of Christian communities. Despite cheerful dispositions, their outlook for their countries and their faith community was grim.”

Full article

Parliamentarians “determined to fight for freedom”

At a Parliamentary meeting yesterday the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief – officers, members and stakeholders – highlighted their determination to fight for freedom of religion or belief around the world.

The All Party Group is genuinely all party – its officers are cross benchers, Conservative, Labour, SNP and DUP members – and it combines MPs and members of the House of Lords committed to this cause.

Baroness Berridge, the founder of the Group in the last Parliament and now Co Chair, emphasises that “Whether it involves Shias in Pakistan, Yazidis in Iraq, Baha’is in Iran, or Christians in Syria, the fact you are ‘the other, defined by religious difference, is a factor that determines these people’s fate. There was a clear commitment in the Conservative manifesto that: ‘We will stand up for the freedom of people of all religions—and non-religious people—to practise their beliefs in peace and safety, for example by supporting persecuted Christians in the Middle East’. The Group is keen to see how this commitment will be worked out in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and DfID under this Government – and encourage and support positive steps forward.”

Vice Chair Lord Alton of Liverpool underlines that “Understanding authentic religion and the forces that threaten it is more of a foreign affairs imperative than ever before, and the resources we put into promoting Article 18 should reflect that reality. I hope that freedom of religion and belief will be a specific priority for this Government.”

Group Treasurer Jeremy Lefroy MP stated in the House last year that “It is up to the UK Government, in whatever way they interact with another Government, in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere around the world, to oppose any discrimination against and persecution of minorities simply because of who they are, and wherever that discrimination and persecution are taking place. It is for the UK Government at each and every opportunity, whether it be through development, military, diplomatic or even economic relations, to make that point. It is a duty to protect minority citizens and give them equal rights with others.”

Jim Shannon MP is the Chair of the Group. He said in Parliament “I have spoken on it many times, but it continues to be an issue, and this is a grand opportunity to underline that. I feel extremely passionate about representing those in my constituency, other constituencies and elsewhere in the world who face hardships—in this case, those who are persecuted for their beliefs.”

The meeting was addressed by Baroness Anelay of St Johns, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In the recent debate on the Queen’s Speech she said “In the coming years we will continue to champion freedom of religion or belief at the Foreign Office. Where freedom of religion or belief is protected, extremist ideologies should not be able to take root. “

The APPG took this opportunity to warmly congratulate His Grace Bishop Angaelos, General Bishop of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the United Kingdom, following the announcement in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List of his award of an OBE.

He commented on his award by saying “I am humbled by this award because I see it as my role and duty to advocate for religious freedom as part of my ministry. While I am thankful for this great honour, it also comes with a sense of sadness that in the 21st Century we still need to defend people’s God-given rights and freedoms in this way. I consider this an award to every person who has worked with and supported me along the way and pray that God rewards and blesses them for all they have done and all they will continue to do.”

Baroness Berridge said “The APPG recognises how well-deserved this honour is: Bishop Angaelos has worked tirelessly in this cause. As Parliamentarians we can echo his words: it is part of our role and duty to advocate for Freedom of Religion or Belief; we share his sadness that this becomes more pressing with every passing day.”