Religious Freedom: A New Europe Special Edition

New Europe

Religious Freedom |November 2010RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

by Alexandros KoronakisAlexandros Koronakis is the Director of New Europe, and the Editor of New Europe’s Religious Freedom Special Edition

Let there not be darkness

Let us not argue with one-another, on whether andwhich God said “Let there be light”, but rather agreethat if we do not protect the fundamental rights of

religious freedom, we will but remain in the dark.With the holocaust, the crusades, massacres, genocide,

burning people at the stake, terrorist attacks, and wars la-sting from moments to generations, all in the name of reli-gion, it is no wonder that local families, local communities,and even governments have often not been entirely impar-tial to different religions remaining sunk in a historical andcontemporary darkness.

Freedom of religion is the absolute freedom; the free-dom to choose the core of your being, the philosophy bywhich you live your life. Religious texts come into conflictwith one another when it comes to defining the cosmos, itscreation, its creator, the essence of life, the afterlife or lackthereof, and the guidelines through which we live our lives.

There can be many truths, or at least beliefs which wehold to be true. The insistence that there is but one abso-lute truth is the root of conflict.

But if history has taught us anything, it is that if we try,we can all coexist peacefully and harmoniously, no matterwhat God, if any, we believe in. And in my personal belief,if we can coexist peacefully for a moment, we should be ableto perpetuate that moment into an eternity.

The contribution of religion to humanity is not aboutabsolutes; it is about enabling structured peaceful living incommunities, and giving people morals through which theylive their lives. As religions develop and some might saymodernise, conflict will indeed become less of an issue. Ourjob is to help the development process, guide it into a po-sitive direction.

In the same way, governments, institutions, and religi-ous bodies themselves owe it to humanity to respect the fre-edom of religion, the freedom of thought; the freedom todefine our own humanity.

Religion has both internal and external components. In-ternally, moral values, patterns of thought, and philosophicalperception of life itself is shaped by the religion you choose tobelieve in. Externally there are traditions, rituals of prayer orotherwise, and qualities of society, from social norms, to legalinfrastructure and framework, which are and have been sha-ped by dominant religions of any given society.

All of the above differences, in the cases of societies do-minated by one religion, lead to very different social net-work characteristics and way of life. A predominantlyChristian society is fundamentally different to a predomi-nantly Muslim society.

More than any other single factor in any nation’s struc-ture, in any family’s relations, religion shapes, colours andnurtures them.

When we accept that nations, towns, families, and individuals can develop and change over time, we will have embraced religious freedom. It s not only the nature but also a fundamental component of the democratic process.

It is an honour to host more than 30 visionaries in ourspecial edition on Religious Freedom. Our contributorshave participated in a dialogue process that will pave theway to mutual understanding between nations, politicalgroups, individuals, and more importantly between reli-gions.

Together, word by word, we add a small brick to thebridge of religious freedom.

Together, word byword, we add a smallbrick to the bridge ofreligious freedom.

“EDITOR

Dennis [email protected]

SENIOR EDITORIAL TEAM

Kostis Geropoulos (Energy & Russian Affairs)

[email protected]

Andy Carling (EU Affairs)

[email protected]

Cillian Donnelly (EU Affairs)

[email protected]

Ariti Alamanou (Legal Affairs)

[email protected]

Alexandra Coronakis (Columnist)

[email protected]

Louise Kissa (Fashion)

[email protected]

CONTRIBUTING PHOTOGRAPHER

Spyros Paloukis

[email protected]

DIRECTOR &

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM EDITION EDITOR

Alexandros [email protected]

EXECUTIVE LAYOUT PRODUCER

Suman Haque

[email protected]

MARKETING & ADVERTISING

Ania Lara

[email protected]

SUBSCRIPTIONS & DISTRIBUTION

Christina Kapranou

[email protected]

Subscriptions are available worldwide

INDEPENDENCE

New Europe is a privately owned independent publication, not sub-

sidised or financed in any way by any EU institution or other entity.

BRUSSELS HEADQUARTERS

Av. de Tervuren/Tervurenlaan 96, 1040 Brussels, BelgiumTel. +32 2 5390039 Fax +32 2 [email protected]

PUBLISHERS

NEW EUROPE S.A.

Blvd Napoleon I, 66 2210 Luxembourg Tel. + 352 2637 5959 E-Mail: [email protected]

EXTERNAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Signed Contributions express solely theviews of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of thenewspaper.NE is printed on recycled paper.

NE

WE

UR

OP

E

© 2010 New Europe all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or otherwise, without the permission of New Europe.

ISSN number: 1106-8299

Spyros Paloukis | www.spyrospaloukis.com



Flickr - Dullhunk

New Europe

Religious Freedom | November 2010RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Archbishop Demetrios of AmericaFrom unimaginable darkness to freedom and light

Poul Nyrup RasmussenFreedom of religion: Social justice breeds tolerance

Wilfried MartensReligious freedom in Turkey and the role of religion in European politicsEgemen BağışSeeking for the “Circle of Justice” (Daire-i Adliye)

Renate SommerEndangered Species: Religious minorities in Turkey

Amanda PaulEU membership and religious freedoms in Turkey

Jay Sekulow and Grégor PuppinckBetween Islamism and secularismIs there room left for religious freedom in Turkey?

Pieter OmtzigtTurkey, freedom of religion and the Council of Europe

Otmar OehringIssues and concerns of religious minorities in Turkey

Sencer AyataDemocracy and religious freedoms in Turkey

Mine YildirimSubstantial change is necessary

Emre ÖktemInterfaith understanding and dialogue: A way to cross the bridge

Robert EllisSeparate but unequal citizens

Thomas HammarbergMuslims also have the right to

practice their religion

Rodi Kratsa"Freedom of Religion" Intercultural

and interreligious dialogue in Europe

Heiner BielefeldtLimitations on religious freedom

have ‘chilling effect’

Mario MauroFreedom of belief must be a

freedom to co-exist

Fiorello ProveraPakistan: persecution in

the name of Islam

Charles TannockSudan: a political solution

to religious persecution?

Konrad SzymanskiPersecution against Christians

remains unnoticed

Sophia in ‘t VeldThe need for a secular voice

in the European Union

Nicolas BergerHuman rights: the basis of harmony

Greg AustinMuslims living in fear

George ReadingsReligious freedom and extremism

Willy FautréFull veil, burqa, niqab, hijab…

a challenge to ‘European’ values?Andy Darmoo

Assyrian Christians face destruction in Iraq

Francisco Jaime QuesadoThe new frontiers

TURKEY

Johny MessoThe Sincerity of Turkey’s Democracy?The Case of the Indigenous Aramean (Syriac) People

Dionyssis KefalakosReligious freedom; economy and politics

Andy CarlingWhat’s so funny about peace,love and understanding?Alia PapageorgiouWho goes to church on Sundays ?

56789

1011121314151617

32333435

2223242526272829303117b

181920

Cillian DonnellyGod or not – freedom is freedom 21N

EW

EU

RO

PE

WORLD

Our coverpage photo is a photo from user spaceamoebaon Flickr. A�er brainstorming for hours, searching everyphoto agency for the perfect picture, and even a�emptingour own photoshoot (the Brussels weather didn’t help), the‘perfect’ picture came from a Flickr user.

HAH Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew:

Bridgebuilder and Peace-Maker

Born Demetrios Archondonis in 1940 on the island ofImvros (today, Gokceada, Turkey), and elected 270thsuccessor to the 2000-year-old Church founded by St.

Andrew as well as Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome,and Ecumenical Patriarch, His All Holiness Bartholomew Ipresides among all Orthodox Primates as the spiritual leaderof 300 million faithful.

As a citizen of Turkey, his personal experience provideshim with a unique perspective on religious tolerance and in-terfaith dialogue. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew hasworked for reconciliation among Christian Churches andacquired an international reputation for environmental awa-reness and protection. He has worked to advance reconcilia-tion among Catholic, Muslim and Orthodox communities,such as in former Yugoslavia, and is supportive of peace-buil-ding measures to diffuse global conflict inthe region. He hasalso presided over the restoration of the autocephalous Ch-urch of Albania and the autonomous Church of Estonia,proving a constant source of spiritual and moral support tothose traditionally Orthodox countries emerging from de-cades of wide-scale religious persecution behind the IronCurtain.

The current Ecumenical Patriarch's roles as the primaryspiritual leader of the Orthodox Christian world and a trans-national figure of global significance continue to become morevital each day. He co-sponsored the Peace and Tolerance Con-ference in Istanbul (1994) bringing together Christians, Mus-lims and Jews. Most noted are his efforts in environmental

awareness, which have earned him the title "Green Patriarch."These endeavors, together with his efforts to promote religi-ous freedom and human rights, have placed him at the fore-front as an apostle of love, peace and reconciliation, earninghim the Congressional Gold Medal by the United StatesCongress in 1997.

After completing his undergraduate studies at the Theolo-gical School of Halki (1961), he pursued graduate studies atthe Pontifical Oriental Institute of the Gregorian Universityin Rome, the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, and the Uni-versity of Munich. Ordained to the Diaconate in 1961 and tothe priesthood in 1969, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomewserved as personal secretary to his predecessor, the late Ecu-menical Patriarch Demetrios (1972-1991), and was electedMetropolitan of Philadelphia (1973) and, later, Metropolitanof Chalcedon (1990). His tenure has been characterized byinter-Orthodox cooperation, inter-Christian and interreligiousdialogue, as well as by formal trips to other Orthodox countriesseldom previously visited. He has exchanged official visitationsand accepted numerous invitations with ecclesiastical and statedignitaries.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I holds numerous ho-norary doctorates, from the universities of Athens and Thes-saloniki (Greece), Georgetown and Yale (United States),Flinders and Manila (Australasia), London, Edinburgh andLouvain, as well as Moscow and Bucharest (Europe). He spe-aks Greek, Turkish, Italian, German, French, English andLatin.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Benedict XVI after the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of St Andrew at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Nov 30, 2006.

PROFILE

New Europe


In recent months our wholeworld was transfixed with theplight of thirty-three men trap-

ped in a mine in Chile. Day by daythe newspapers reported on theircondition, and when at last a rescuewas in progress, television and in-ternet news sources provided con-tinuous coverage. The entire globalcommunity watched and cheeredas one by one the men were pulledup from a prison of unimaginabledarkness and welcomed back intothe world of freedom and light.

The world responded withopen arms and prayerful hearts forthe thirty-three men in the SanJosé mine in Copiapó, Chile andfor the agony of their families.From every continent, govern-ments and corporations reachedout with offers of equipment, sup-plies, and technical knowledge tohelp liberate the miners or givecomfort to their loved ones. It wasa beautiful testament to the powerof international cooperation andunity of purpose. So much is pos-sible when the humanity speakswith one voice and acts with acommon purpose in love! Truly,miracles can happen.

Thirty-three have been savedand now breathe the pure air of fre-edom.

But many more in our worldtoday need to breathe that same air

of religious liberty. They are im-prisoned—not in a copper mine inSouth America—but in the restric-tive and oppressive atmospheresurrounding religious minoritiesaround the globe.

They might be hindered in theopen practice of their beliefs, ortheir churches and religious insti-tutions might be confiscated oreven vandalized and destroyed.Like the miners in Chile, those de-nied religious freedom feel suffoca-ted in narrow, confinedcircumstances that are beyond theircontrol, beyond their power toescape.

Unfortunately, this continues tohappen in our world today. But inmost newspapers, there are no dailyheadlines, and on the cable newschannels there is no round-the-clock coverage. Out of sight andout of mind, our brothers and si-sters suffer in silence and endure inobscurity.

The world spoke and acted onbehalf of the brave thirty-three.Who will rouse the global commu-nity to show itself strong on behalfof the millions whose inalienableright to worship God as they ch-oose have been so sharply curtai-led?

Thanks be to God for the workof the Archons of the EcumenicalPatriarchate, both of the Order of

Saint Andrew in America and ofthe Pammakaristos Brotherhood inEurope. Working together, theyhave envisioned a bold move toshine the light of day on long-stan-ding issues of human rights and re-ligious liberty. This action is all themore timely with the petitions ofthe Turkish government for the in-clusion of that country in the Eu-ropean Union.

The International ArchonConference on Religious Freedomin Turkey is a monumental event:it is an unprecedented effort tobring together scholars and advo-cates from Turkey, Europe, andAmerica, and to have them discussopenly and candidly our commonhuman values of rights, responsibi-lities, and liberties, with specificapplication to the status of religi-ous minorities in Turkey. This me-eting will help forge a path towardsmutual understanding, respect, andawareness.

Moreover, it will be a discussionthat is truly beneficial to the enli-ghtened self-interest of the entireTurkish nation and of the Euro-pean Union as they look forward to

new prospects of friendship andcooperation.

Not only so, the InternationalArchon Conference on ReligiousFreedom in Turkey establishes forthe rest of the world a paradigm onhow to open up the way to freedomfor religion in all parts of the globe.It is my prayer that this conferencewill offer an effective template forother countries and communities.In offering this model of peacefulengagement, the Archons truly liveup to the meaning of their name, asleaders in the forefront of changeand progress.

Imagine the joy that will beours when we see the rescue, not ofthirty-three, but of thousands uponthousands of men, women, and ch-ildren around the world raised upand standing once more in the bril-liant light of religious freedom!

May the Lord our God blessthe labors of the representativesand attendees of the InternationalArchon Conference on ReligiousFreedom in Turkey, and may theLord grant peace to all the peopleof Turkey, Europe, and our wholeworld.

by Archbishop Demetrios of AmericaArchbishop Demetrios of America Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

From unimaginable darkness to freedom and light

HU

GO

INFA

NTE - G

OVERN

MEN

T OF CH

ILE

Who will rouse the global commu-nity to show itself strong on behalf ofthe millions whose inalienable right toworship God as they choose havebeen so sharply curtailed?

“Nicholas ManginasEcumenical Patriarch Bartholomew celebrating Easter at the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Apr 4, 2010.

New Europe

Religious Freedom |November 2010 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

by Poul Nyrup RasmussenPoul Nyrup Rasmussen is President of the Party of European Socialists, and former Prime Minister of Denmark

Freedom of religion: Social justice breeds tolerance

Europe, with its examples and experience,history and traditions, is obligated to leadon the issue of religious freedom. All but

the most extreme except that this leadership sh-ould start from the bedrock principle of church-state separation. In 2010 this obligation hasmoved from the realms of academic debate to apractical test of our shared European values. It isa conversation that has acquired a real sense of ur-gency as political developments reveal, across thecontinent, the fragility of these principles. Therise of religious and ethnic intolerance is beco-ming more and more prevalent. Extremist partiespromote a distorted image of Islam. Extreme Is-lamists exacerbate the problem with inflamma-tory statements which are then amplified in themedia. They promote stereotypes and they deli-berately blur the lines between myth and reality.The debate becomes increasingly polarised.

Our challenge in the PES is to confront thesedistortions. Our responsibility is to be the calmvoice that separates the rhetoric and the fear-mongering of these extremists from the reality.European Socialism has a strong rich tradition inEU Member States. This tradition and our suc-cess over the years, has been based on the realisa-tion that the broad majority of Europeans,irrespective of beliefs, ethnicity, or value systems,are tolerant and moderate.

However one core belief of the PES remainscentral to the debate – our commitment to socialjustice. Today Europe is wracked by the crippling

effects of austerity measures. Conservative-ledprogrammes are chipping away the pillars of thewelfare state. The PES has long called for a morerational and balanced economic approach. Howe-ver our way does not just make economic sense.It is also true that security, both economic and so-cial, promotes tolerance. Social justice is a longterm investment that facilitates respect for religi-ous freedom. The EU and its political and socialforces can play a key role in defending religiousfreedom if an integrated approach is applied andcourageously defended both in and out of Europe.The PES is committed to leading this drive to-wards tolerance.

The last decade has been portrayed as a diffi-cult one for the European Union. That is certainlythe perception. But the reality is that many posi-tive achievements have been secured. In the con-text of Religious Freedom, one of the mostheartening steps was the drafting and the agree-ment of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Thecharter as a whole remains to some extent a ‘slee-ping giant’.

It is, in other words, a collection of articlesthat are laudable but wait to have bestowed uponthem a full legal personality. EU jurisprudencemust signpost the practical application of the ch-arter, case by case. However the significant stepof articulating and committing to these principlesshould not be dismissed.

One principle that should be celebrated forbeing reflected in the EU Treaty, but which still

awaits such ‘road-testing’ is Article 10.1: Freedomof thought, conscience and religion.

This article states that; “Everyone has theright to freedom of thought, conscience and reli-gion. This right includes freedom to change reli-gion or belief and freedom, either alone or incommunity with others and in public or in pri-vate, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, te-aching, practice and observance”.

The Party of European Socialists (PES) seesthe issue in terms of how to make sure that bothindividuals and communities are given rights.Making human rights the founding principleupon which the debate is framed, provides the an-swer. In true European style this should of coursebe done in an integrated way. But what does thismean in practice?

The answer brings us back to the Charter ofFundamental Rights.

Article 14.3: Right to Education, Article 21:Non Discrimination and Article 22: Cultural, re-ligious and linguistic diversity all point the waytowards this integrated approach. Put simply, itemphasizes the fundamental European principlethat religious freedom is built on the rock ofhuman rights.

The freedom to express religious beliefs andthe richly diverse way in which these beliefs canbe communicated, are manifestations of a robustand vibrant society. The success to which thesebeliefs respect and enforce fundamental humanrights is the sign of a healthy society.

AN

A/EPA

/KERIM O

KTEN

A Turkish Shiite Muslim pupil runs past a line of Shiite women, dressed in black for a mourning ceremony, during an Ashura procession in Istanbul, 19 January 2008.

New Europe


by Wilfried MartensWilfried Martens is the President of the European People’s Party and the Centre for European Studies, and former Prime Minister of Belgium

Religious freedom in Turkey and therole of religion in European politics

For us Christian Democratsand many like-minded par-ties on the European Cen-

tre Right, the Christian conceptof Man has been the point of de-parture in developing politicalideas for one and a half centuries.This Christian concept says thateach person is unique and irrepla-ceable, that people are both freeand interdependent and that eachman and woman have both theright and the duty to be fully re-sponsible of their acts. Based onthis, we have defined our funda-mental values such as freedom, re-sponsibility, equality, justice andsolidarity. And based on this, wehave worked out ideas like subsi-diarity and a strong and integra-ted European Union. But wewould never consider the Bible apolitical document, or doubt thenecessity of structurally separatingthe state and religious communi-ties.

Having said that, we recognisethe positive contribution thatfaith-based concepts can make towise and humane policy-makingin other parts of the world. Tur-key is such a case. We recognisethe enormous progress Turkey hasmade on the way to EU member-ship since the European Councildecision of 2000 to grant this co-untry the status of candidate.Especially in the first years of therule of Turkey’s Justice and Deve-lopment Party (AKP), this pro-gress referred not only toimproved economic stability andenhanced economic growth rates.It also concerned the rule of lawand the situation of ethnic and re-ligious minorities. We believe thatthis progress is due to the factthat the AKP, which has observerstatus in the European People’sParty, has managed rather well todraw positive inspiration fromfaith for the development of poli-tical ideas, without compromisingthe secular character of the Tur-kish state.

But in recent years I have gai-ned the impression that the dyna-mism for reform, and theeagerness to strengthen the rightsof minorities, especially religiousminorities, have somehow dimi-nished. It is still far easier to builda Mosque in any current EU

member state than to build a Ch-urch anywhere in Turkey. Turkey’sover 60.000 Christians, most ofthem Armenian Orthodox, stillface considerable hardships. De-spite some recent progress in thepossibility of creating Christianfoundations that may own land, itis still very difficult to open up th-eological learning centres or totrain priests in seminaries. Thisunequal status is not limited toChristians and Jews but also con-cerns the Alevite denomination(with several million members)within Islam which has no officialrecognition at all.

On all these points, tangibleprogress is possible. And it is ne-cessary, in fact, if the EU accessionnegotiations are to advance. Sureenough, the question of the equalstatus of Christians and other re-ligious minorities may not be themost pressing obstacle for themoment – the issue of NorthernCyprus, for example, is probablymuch more urgent and also moredifficult to solve. But religious to-lerance is particularly importantto us Christian Democrats of theEuropean Union.

This article would be incom-plete without looking at the Eu-ropean Union itself, and thequestion of religious tolerance vis-à-vis the growing number of im-migrants from Muslim countries.There is an intense debate onsuch phenomena as burqas, poli-tical radicalisation in some mo-sques, forced marriages and otheraspects of what has come to becalled “parallel societies”: collecti-ves in which the central values ofour societies, such as equal rightsfor men and women, are systema-tically disregarded. It is true thatin recent elections in Sweden andthe Netherlands, extremist politi-cal parties have used xenophobicarguments and impermissible ge-neralisations about Muslims inorder to attract votes. This is re-grettable but cannot easily orquickly be changed within our de-mocracies. All democrats mustpatiently and determinedly rejectsuch ideas. But they must alsomake an effort to take the fears ofour citizens seriously.

Two things are clear to me:first, the vast majority of Muslims

in the EU does not live in “paral-lel societies”, and has no desire todo so. Second, societal discrimi-nation of Muslims exists, just likethere is hardly a country on earthwithout any de facto discrimina-tion. But what is crucial here isthat our governments are seri-ously trying to do somethingabout this. That they are enteringinto structured dialogues withmosque organisations and faith-based Muslim NGOs. That theyare developing schemes on how tointegrate imam training and Isla-mic theology into European aca-demia. And that they are, at thesame time, becoming more deter-mined in prosecuting criminal be-haviour such as forced marriages,or incitement to violence by someimams.

I am deeply convinced that re-ligion is and remains an excellentinspiration for the values onwhich political programs are built– no matter whether we speakabout the member parties of theEPP in the European Union, orabout the AKP in Turkey. But thisonly works if all existing religionsin a given society can thrive anddevelop in a spirit of toleranceand mutual respect.

It is true that in recent electionsin Sweden and the Netherlands,extremist political parties haveused xenophobic arguments andimpermissible generalisationsabout Muslims in order to attractvotes. This is regrettable but can-not easily or quickly be changedwithin our democracies. All demo-crats must patiently and determi-nedly reject such ideas. But theymust also make an effort to takethe fears of our citizens seriously.

“Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew leading the VII Symposium:

The Arctic - Mirror of Life, Coast of Greenland, September, 2007.

New Europe


Acontinent witnessing the bloodiest wars of thehuman history has turned itself into a symbolof peace through mutual understanding and

dialogue under the motto of ‘Unity in Diversity’. Ho-wever, especially recently, it is questionable whetherEU really is successful at realizing its motto.

On the top of the iceberg, there are many rules andregulations aiming at preventing all types of discrimi-nation against different cultural and religious groups.What about the discrimination in minds? The down-wards part of the iceberg reflects a different picture ofwhat exists in reality throughout Europe.

Samuel Huntington's highly disputed theory of‘clash of civilizations’ reinforced by the 9/11 terroristattacks, have turned religious freedom and toleranceinto an intensely debated topic. In the last decade,especially Islamophobia has raised ominously in Eu-rope and USA. In an unfair manner, a large section inthe Western world has kept Islam and Muslims re-sponsible for those cursed attacks. Sadly, the situationis exploited by the extreme-right and racist fractions.The extreme right-wing parties particularly in somenorthern European countries have obtained politicalsupport from the public and have even taken part ingovernments. Resting on the election results in theirindividual countries, they have further tempered theirdiscourse against Muslims.

At that point one wonders what European valuesare? Aren’t we talking about cultural pluralism, tole-rance, respect to diversities etc. Then let me quotefrom Mevlana (Rumi), one of the most importantSufis of eastern philosophy and humanism:

‘Come, come, whoever you are.Wanderer, Worshipper, lover of leaving.

It doesn’t matter.Ours is not a caravan of despair.

Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundredtimes.Come, yet again, come, come’

It is the doctrine embodied in this quotation thatindicates the perspective of Anatolia and in fact theideological foundation of the Ottoman Empire. Thisideology facilitated the peaceful co-existence of vari-ous religious and ethnic groups in harmony for centu-ries. In the classical sense of the Ottoman state setting,the system that enabled different groups to live toge-ther was called Daire-i Adliye (Circle of Justice). Cir-cle of Justice was the backbone of the system. It wasthe philosophy and ideology of the Empire providingjustice to ensure that every culture had its own way ofliving guaranteed by the state.

No surprise, the Ottoman Empire provided its pe-ople with a free and more tolerant atmosphere thantheir contemporary European counterparts. SultanMehmet the second, after the conquest of Istanbul hadpermitted the independent functioning of the GreekOrthodox Patriarchate.

More interestingly, he let the conditions for the fo-undation of the Armenian Church, which was not al-lowed in the Byzantine era. I am proud to express thattoday; both churches are still actively functioning after600-700 years. Again, it was not a coincidence that theJews exiled from Spain in the 15th century have takenshelter under the Ottoman Empire.

The most striking point here is that it was not thewestern originated idea of modern human rightswhere the system had not been based on. Rather, it wasdeveloped within the framework of universal justice.At a time when Muslims are excluded or discrimina-

ted against in Western societies on the grounds thatthey destroy Western values, it is worth rememberingthe background.

One might ask the current situation in Turkey.Turkey has had a democracy experience of ups anddown for the last 80 years. Speaking about freedom ofreligion Turkey faced some difficult times whateverthe reasons might be. In line with the common prac-tice in the European countries as well as with our se-cular constitutional system, religious and spiritualcommunities practice their beliefs on the basis of theequality of citizens and on the principle of the free-dom of religion. Nevertheless, there had been timeswhere some shortcomings occurred in the implemen-tation of these laws. However, Turkey is changing withgreat pace and becoming a more liberal and open so-ciety.

Our government has put enormous efforts into thesocio-economic transformation of the country. Go-vernment is giving priority to the issues of non-Mus-lim minorities by meeting them quite frequently. Mostrecently, the Akdamar Church and Sümela Monasterywhich were closed worship for decades were resona-ted with the sounds of prayers once again. The Aleviopening that launched new mechanisms to handle ourAlevi citizens’ issues had been a significant step withinthe framework of institutionalizing religious freedomsin Turkey.

Turkey is pursuing a Roman initiative to resolvethe problems of its Roman citizens. This is happeningat a time when some Member countries are deportingRoman people who are even EU citizens.

As the Government, one of our primary goals is tofurther sustain this mutual understanding by enablingour citizens to live in harmony and practice their reli-gions freely. The recent developments in Turkey toge-ther with its historical heritage will contribute to thecreation of ideal society in Europe.

Turkey is becoming closer to what Europe Unionstands for. At this point, there is one question that sh-ould be answered honestly by our European friends:

“What kind of Europe do you want to live in?” Theanswer to this question will also indicate a precise at-titude towards Turkey’s possible EU membership. IfEurope wants to restore a social order where ‘unity indiversity’ happens for real, it has to incorporate Turkey.I believe that our European friends have the will andpower to create a modern ‘Circle of Justice’ in the 21stcentury Europe.

by Egemen BağışEgemen Bağış is the Minister for EU Affairs and Chief Negotiator of Turkey

Seeking the “Circle of Justice” (Daire-i Adliye)

One might ask the current si-tuation in Turkey. Turkey hashad a democracy experience ofups and down for the last 80years. Speaking about freedomof religion Turkey faced somedifficult times whatever the re-asons might be ... There hadbeen times where some short-comings occurred in the imple-mentation of these laws.However, Turkey is changingwith great pace and becominga more liberal and open society.

“Egemen Bağış

New Europe


by Renate SommerRenate Sommer is a Member of the European Parliament with the European People’s Party from Germany. She is also a member ofthe Delegation to the EU-Turkey JPC and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs

Endangered Species: Religious minorities in Turkey

It is time to stop this deception!Freedom of religion is a funda-mental principle of the communityof values in the EU and cannot benegotiated.

“

In his recent visit to Turkey, German presidentChristian Wulff correctly stated that Chri-stianity belongs to Turkey. In the Turkish city

of Antakya, Jesus` devotees for the first time cal-led themselves as Christians. Anatolia was theheartland of the Christian Byzantine Empire andmillions of Christians and other religious mino-rities lived in the Ottoman Empire.

In light of this history, the situation of Chri-stians and other religious minorities in Turkeytoday is alarming. Having suffered genocide, di-splacement and discrimination, the number ofreligious minorities from Christian and Jewishdecent has diminished significantly. Today, only1% of the Turkish population is Christian or Je-wish constituting only 92.000 citizens of Arme-nian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox or Jewish belief.In addition, the Muslim minority of the 15 to 20million Alevis in Turkey faces major impedi-ments with regard to the exercise of their belief.

While Atatürk`s foundation of a modernTurkish nation is based on the principle of lai-cism, placing religion in the private sphere, thedefinition of the "Turkish" nation was alwaysequated with a "Muslim" nation. Accordingly,devotees of an alien religion were considered asdanger to national unity. Although the Treaty ofLausanne grants special legal minority status to"non-Muslim minorities" and even the TurkishConstitution enshrines freedom of belief, wor-ship and prohibition of discrimination on religi-ous grounds, these principles were invalidated bycontradictory articles and the adoption of pro-blematic laws, such as the law on foundations.

As a consequence, religious minorities in Tur-key experience significant hurdles in exercisingtheir religion: Up until today, churches do nothave a legal status. They are considered as foun-dations, whose rights are strictly regulated by theGeneral Directorate for Foundations. Despite ofthe amendments on the law of foundation, mi-nority foundations still face problems in the ac-

quisition of properties and the building of newchurches. Many congregations, monastery MorGabriel being the most popular example, stillstruggle with unlawful expropriations. The reli-gious affiliation is clearly stated in the I.D. cardopening the floodgates to harassment by state of-ficials and policemen. Furthermore, the prohibi-tion of the training of priests by non-Turkishcitizens accompanied with the closing of severalseminaries makes it almost impossible to trainyoung priests.

The Turkish government does not only ac-cept these hindrances in silence, but openly con-tributes to the process. Despite of all awovels toimprove the situation of religious minorities,there is continuing reluctance to guarantee theposition of these minorities in the law. The re-form of the law of foundations, which is a cor-nerstone for the economic survival of religiouscommunities, falls short of the expectations: itfails to address the issue of restitution for pro-perties sold to third-parties and does not expli-citly abrogate the status of "confiscated"foundations.

Furthermore, there are no government pro-grammes that address the prejudice towards reli-gious minorities in Turkish society. The growingamount of misinformative and contemptuousmedia coverage stirs social harassment and vio-lence. Muslims, who convert to another religion,increasingly become targets of violence. The kil-ling of Hrant Dink and the three Protestant Ch-ristians in Malatya in April 2007 are sadexamples for the excesses of violence.

Given this situation, it does not come as asurprise that more and more Christians andmembers of other religious minorities decide toleave the country. If the delaying tactics of thegovernment continue, religious minorities inTurkey might even become extinct. The behavi-our of the Turkish government and public auth-orities casts serious doubt on their willingness to

avert such a situation. The state controlled auth-ority on religious affairs, Diyanet, which pays thesalaries of all imams and other mosque officials,has no interest in sharing its 1.3 billion USD go-vernment funds with other religious groups. Fur-thermore, the ruling AK-party has undertakenseveral steps that are a sign of subtle islamiza-tion. Proposals such as the criminalization ofadultery, the lifting of the age limit for childrenin quran schools or the establishment of sepera-ted beaches for women and men are only someexamples. Currently, the AK-Party is successfulin lifting the headscarf ban in public buildingsunder the disguise to preserve individual basic ri-ghts.

The disrespect for the EU demand to gua-rantee religious freedom is also evident in state-ments and actions by many government officials.The establishment of a new EU-Center in abuilding, that was unlawfully expropriated fromthe Greek-Orthodox church foundation, was aslap in the face of the EU and religious minori-ties in Turkey. The recent authorizations of Ar-menian and Greek Orthodox church services inSümela-monastery and in Van, which have beenintensly solicited by Egeman Bagis in Turkishand EU-media, is nothing more than a clumsyattempt to butter up the European Commissionbefore the release of the upcoming progress re-port.

It is time to stop this deception! Freedom ofreligion is a fundamental principle of the com-munity of values in the EU and cannot be nego-tiated. The mere mentioning of shortcomings inthe Commission progress reports is not suffi-cient. If the Commission and the member statesdo not bear clear consequences, the exodus ofminority groups and the destruction of some ofthe oldest archaeological evidence will make Ch-ristian and Jewish heritage in Turkey disappear. Ifwe accept this, we betray our own principle of"Unity in Diversity!"


New Europe

Religious Freedom |November 2010RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

by Amanda PaulAmanda Paul is an analyst for the European Policy Centre in Brussels

EU membership and religious freedoms in Turkey

Freedom of religion is considered to bea fundamental human right. It is alsosomething that the EU places great

importance on and therefore those coun-tries that are looking to join the Club needto meet EU standards on this.

The EU should recognise that whilemuch remains to be done in Turkey, the co-untry is taking the necessary steps to tacklepast deficits. Clearly, Turkey is not the co-untry is was ten years ago; it recognizes theneed to change and its process with the EUis acting as a vehicle to nudge the processalong. Therefore the EU needs to keeppressure on Turkey.

Turkey has been negotiating member-ship with the EU since October 2005. Fre-edom of religion has been quite aproblematic area with Turkey having some-thing of a patchy record - principally the re-sult of the rather restrictive and oppressivepolicy carried out for decades following thebirth of the Republic in 1923. Indeed underthe Ottoman Empire (particularly duringlate 19th century), freedom of religion wasfar less restrictive for many of the Empire’sminorities than under the Kemalist regimethat followed

For decades demands for greater religi-ous freedoms fell on deaf ears. Only as Tur-key began negotiations with the EU didchange start to occur.

The anchoring of Turkey to the EU hasfacilitated changes in the country with An-kara coming under pressure to improve thesituation and urgently boost religious tole-rance and expand rights, particularly fornon-Muslims (Syriac, Catholic, Greek, Je-wish and Armenian communities in parti-

cular) but for others too including the Ale-vi’s (a Muslim sect numbering some 20 mil-lion).

Each year the situation is assessed by theEuropean Commission. The Commission’s2009 Progress Report contained quite a lotof criticism including continuing difficul-ties in relation to places of worship – nonMuslim communities frequently reporteddiscrimination with applications for alloca-

tion of places of worship with Protestantchurches and Jehovah’s witnesses prayerhalls often facing court cases; the Alevi’splaces of worship (Cem houses) also hadpending court cases even though many mu-nicipalities had recognized Cem houses asplaces of worship; personal documents suchas ID cards, still included information onreligion, leaving potential for harassment;judicial proceedings continued against con-scientious objectors on religious grounds;

the continued closure of the Greek Ortho-dox seminary on Heybeliada; non-Muslimcommunities – as organized structures ofreligious groups – still facing problems dueto lack of legal personality; restrictions onthe training of clergy; the Ecumenical Pa-triarch was not free to use the ecclesiasticaltitle ‘Ecumenical’ on all occasions.

Furthermore many members of mino-rity religious groups claimed that their wor-

ship activities were monitored and recordedby security forces, the Armenian Patriarch-ate’s proposal to open a university depar-tment for the Armenian language andclergy continues to be pending and the Sy-riacs can provide only informal training, ou-tside any officially established schools.Turkey also fails to recognize and protectthe Syriac people as a minority, which is in-digenous to south-east Turkey, in confor-mity with the Lausanne Treaty including

developing their education and carrying outreligious services in their Aramaic nativelanguage. The list could go on.

It would be naïve to believe that changewould happen overnight and the process ofgranting further religious freedoms has beenslow with many of the above issues remai-ning unresolved. Nevertheless progress isbeing made although the ruling Justice andDevelopment party (AKP) faces stiff oppo-sition from many circles including from thenationalist opposition which believe it isagainst "Turkishness and the Turkish-Mus-lim nature of Turkey".

They believe that by opening up in thisway, particularly to non-Muslim minorities,it will quickly snowball into demands forTurkish territory. These day non-Muslimminorities represent only 1% of the popu-lation so this could hardly constitute amajor threat.

2010 has seen some groundbreaking de-velopments. Firstly the historic service atthe Sümela Monastery in the Black Seaprovince of Trabzon. Three-thousand Or-thodox Christians gathered for the mass.Although allowed only one day in the year,the service was the first in Turkey’s republi-can history.

A second big moment took place atLake Van when the first Armenian Ortho-dox ceremony in nearly a century was held.The church, which has been closed for ser-vices since the 1915 Armenian genocide be-coming a symbol of Turkey’s troubled pastwith Armenia. And after years of opposi-tion the government has recently agreed toreturn a Greek orphanage to the OrthodoxPatriarch. It took courage to take thesesteps which should be viewed as part of theprogress of the opening up of the country.

Efforts are also underway to improve re-lations with the Alevi’s and AKP initiatives,such holding meetings to discuss the Aleviproblem and Prime Minister Erdogan at-tending an Alevi Iftar dinner – the first everTurkish Prime Minister to so – should beviewed very positively. However there isstill some way to go with many Alevis be-lieving their demands are not being met. InOctober there was a sit-in organized by theAlevi community protesting against the“constitutional mandated religious cultureand moral knowledge classes” which theyview as a state sponsored assimilation pro-cess.

Turkey is slowly shredding its old skinand breaking the taboos of the past. Thefact that people can debate the issues openlyis already a huge step forward. Turkeyneeds to ensure that everybody has all oftheir religious freedoms and is able to exer-cise their religions properly. There should beno need to fear different cultures and reli-gions, rather they should be seen as enrich-ing and therefore be embraced. What isimportant is that these steps are followed bymore and that the EU plays a strong role incontinuing to support and push Turkey onthis issue.

“

Flikr - David Spender

Haghia Sophia, one of the greatest surviving examples of Byzantine architecture.

It would be naïve to believe that change wouldhappen overnight and the process of grantingfurther religious freedoms has been slow withmany of the above issues remaining unresolved.

New Europe


By Jay Sekulow and Grégor PuppinckJay Sekulow is Chief Counsel to the American Center for Law and Justice, Washington D.C. and to the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg,Grégor Puppinck is Director of the European Center for Law and Justice

Between Islamism and secularismIs there room left for religious freedom in Turkey?

Turkey is the only Member

State of the Council of Eu-

rope where, in peace time,

assaults and assassinations motiva-

ted by religious hatred is not un-

common, as was witnessed in the

recent ritual murder of Msgr Luigi

Padovese, the personal representa-

tive of the Pope in Turkey. Anti-Se-

mitism and Christianophobia are

widespread in public opinion. Many

people are questioning whether

there is room in Turkey for religious

liberty as it is torn between isla-

mism and secularism. These ex-

treme approaches of the role of

religion in society seem to be omni-

present in Turkey and to occupy all

political space to the point where

moderation seems impossible. The

European Institutions such as those

in Brussels and Strasbourg have

been increasingly attempting to

promote religious moderation in

Turkish politics for over ten years.

Because of the sociological and cul-

tural specificity of Turkey, the Eu-

ropean Institutions have not always

required the same standard of pro-

tection for the rights of minorities

that is required in European coun-

tries. This low level of requirement

from the West can be explained by

different factors: the geopolitical

importance of Turkey, the low num-

ber of non-Muslim minorities re-

maining in Turkey, and finally, the

hidden belief that religious modera-

tion might not be in the nature of

the current Muslim culture.

The European Court of Human

Rights has been led to adopt a dif-

ferent approach depending on whe-

ther the case before it is aimed at

religious minority or not. Because

these religious communities cannot

constitute a threat to the secularism

of the State and are inherently vic-

tims simply by being a minority, the

court accords them a certain atten-

tion if not a special protection.

Thus the Court is effective in

this regard. The Court rules regu-

larly on important issues, particu-

larly relating to property rights, and

it is the jurisprudence of the Court

that has led to reform the law go-

verning associations and founda-

tions in order to provide the

beginning of a legal framework for

the churches properties. However,

the non-Muslim minorities of Tur-

key still not have a legal personality.

The consequences of this are many

and well-known. Communities that

have had land and buildings for

centuries cannot still be registered

as their direct owners. This situa-

tion, justified in the name of the

principle of secularism, also has a

symbolic meaning: if one cannot le-

gally own the land, they remain a

foreigner. This is a way to keep the

minorities in a condition of subjec-

tion.

The religious context is so sen-

sitive in Turkey that it had, in some

extent, destabilised the jurispru-

dence of the European court of

human right. In attempting to pre-

serve the social and institutional ba-

lance of Turkey, the Court of

Strasbourg has adopted a jurispru-

dence of exception for them. This is

exemplified by well-known Leyla

Şahin and Refah Partisi cases ac-

knowledging teh legitimacy of the

dissolution of a religious political

party and the prohibition on wea-

ring the head scarf.

The impact of this destabilising

effect reaches far beyond the initial

problem from where it originated.

Thus, it is through the case law on

Islam and Turkey in particular that

the Court has gradually raised the

principle of secularism to heights

never before achieved, making it

one of the principles underlying any

democratic and pluralistic society.

Thus, the Turkish specific situation

contributes to shaping in a quite ra-

dical way, for all of Europe, the juri-

sprudence of the European Court in

the matter of State and Religions.

This phenomenon is increased by

the Turkey’s wave of immigration

across Europe. The Turkish diaspora

exports its religiosity within We-

stern culture. The response of We-

stern legislatures and of the Court

of Strasbourg to the risk of ‘islami-

sation’ of western society has been

again to strengthen secularism, so

that in certain respects, Turkish se-

cularism could be a foreshadowing

of an increasingly secularised Eu-

rope.

Thus, Turkey is a real cause of

concern for religious freedom¸ both

in Turkey and in Europe. The

ECLJ, as an NGO dedicated to the

promotion of Religious freedom, we

believe secularism is not the appro-

priate response to contend with Is-

lamism and Pluralism.

An empty public space has no-

thing to propose and even less to

oppose. In this regard, the promo-

tion of the European spiritual and

moral and morals is essential, and

the advocacy for the rights and of

Turkish religious minorities is a real

duty, especially for Europe.

Flickr - yuecelnabi

Muslim inhabitant of Andrinople (Edirne) (L) Muslim horseman ofAndrinople (Edirne) (M) and Christian partisan of Andrinople (R).

Anti-Semitism and Christia-nophobia are widespread inpublic opinion. Many peopleare questioning whetherthere is room in Turkey for religious liberty as it is tornbetween islamism and secularism.

“

New Europe


by Pieter OmtzigtPieter Omtzigt is a Member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly from the Netherlands

Turkey, freedom of religion and the Council of Europe

Right after World War II, in 1949, 10European countries founded theCouncil of Europe, the human ri-

ghts watchdog of Europe with teeth. Tur-key joined later in the same year. This is afundamental choice of Turkey to be judgedby the new and very high European stan-dards on Human Rights. It was a choice tobe involved with Europe and not with theMiddle East and its standards. Right afterprobably the darkest episode in Europeanhistory this was a courageous choice.

The States went far: the European Con-vention on Human Rights, signed in 1950,gives every person present in one the states– not only its own citizens – the right to ch-allenge any final court decision on the basisof Human Rights. Article 9 of the conven-tion gives a very clear definition of freedomof religion:

“ARTICLE 91. Everyone has the right to freedom of

thought, conscience and religion; this rightincludes freedom to change his religion orbelief, and freedom, either alone or in com-munity with others and in public or private,to manifest his religion or belief, in worship,teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion orbeliefs shall be subject only to such limita-tions as are prescribed by law and are ne-cessary in a democratic society in theinterests of public safety, for the protectionof public order, health or morals, or the pro-tection of the rights and freedoms of oth-ers.”

Article 9 is far reaching. One examplesuffices. According to large schools of thou-ght apostasy in Islam is punishable, even bydeath. Yet article 9 clearly states the free-dom to of religion and the freedom to ch-ange religion.

The most important institution of thecouncil of Europe is the Court. Yet this ar-ticle will focus on the Parliamentary As-sembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).All 47 Member States (basically all Euro-

pean States but Belarus, whose human ri-ghts record is awful) send members of Par-liament to this assembly. Since this does notonly include the 27 EU countries, but alsoRussia, Turkey, the Ukraine, Switzerlandand may Balkan countries and small states,this is far more inclusive Assembly than theEuropean Parliament.

It has the power to investigate, recom-mend and advise. Especially on human ri-ghts and fundamental freedoms, itsrecommendations carry weight within Eu-rope.

In the committee on Legal Affairs andHuman Rights, Swiss senator Dick Maryled the investigation into secret US prisonsin the battle against terrorism. There is verystrong indication that these prisons werehosted in Poland, in Romania and in Lith-uania (this last country was not in the re-port), as soon as the investigation was wellunder way.

PACE has limited resources and rarelyinvestigates on the freedom of religion inparticular countries as a theme of a report.Yet exactly the “Freedom of religion andother human rights for non-Muslim mino-rities in Turkey and for the Muslim mino-rity in Thrace [Eastern Greece],” wassubject of an investigation and discussed inthe assembly in January 2010.

The January 2010 session was a memo-rable session for one other reason: for thefirst time, the Assembly had elected a Tur-kish MP and founding member of the ru-ling AK-Party, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, itspresident for a two year term.

In this report, Mr. Hunault, a FrenchMP, had tried not to rock the boat toomuch. He gave a number of advises to bothcountries. On the Turkish side, the recom-mendations only extended to the Jewish,Armenian and Greek Orthodox churches,the three religions, which according to theTurkish government enjoy protection underthe treaty of Lausanne. The treaty of Lau-sanne was the treaty, which in 1923, establi-

shed the modern republic of Turkey and itsborders. It contains provisions for the pro-tection of Muslim minorities in Greece andthe non-Muslim minorities in Turkey. Itfollows the large scale mutually agreed po-pulation exchange, whereby Greek Ortho-dox citizens in Turkey were transferred toGreece and Muslims living in Greece wereresettled in Turkey.

The debate itself was remarkable, beca-use a number of parliamentarians brokewith the tradition to follow the rapporteurin these delicate issues and toughened upthe resolution for Turkey. Religious groupsshould not only be protected, when reco-gnized by the government, but all groupsshould be protected.

I tabled a number of amendments withregard the Syriac minority. The Turkish au-thorities have started several cases of expro-priation against the Mor Gabriel monastery,built in 397. The Syrian Orthodox Church,one of the oldest Christian Churches, is slo-wly disappearing. Many have left Turkey(and are now leaving Iraq) for the West. InTwente, a small region in the Netherlands,

their number may now be larger than in thewhole South East of Turkey.

Yet, they do not have the liberty tofound a school or to teach in their own lan-guage, Aramaic, which was the native lan-guage of Jesus Christ. The resolution nowclearly states that they should have those ri-ghts and that they should enjoy the protec-tion of minorities foreseen in the treaty ofLausanne and in the Framework Conven-tion for the protection of National Minori-ties. Turkey should sign and ratify thatconvention, but it does not show signs ofdoing that.

It was very unfortunate that all TurkishMP’s, MPs from Azerbaijan and two otherMP’s (one of whom comes originally fromTurkey), voted against this resolution andall other in favour.

The last line of the resolution is themost important: Turkey and Greece mustreport back by February 11 2011 how theyhave implemented the resolution 1704. Thisreporting back procedure is rare, but neces-sary. This will be a key test for freedom ofreligion in Turkey.

A number of parliamentarians broke withthe tradition to follow the rapporteur inthese delicate issues and toughened up theresolution for Turkey. Religious groups sh-ould not only be protected, when recognizedby the government, but all groups should beprotected.

“The entrance to Mor Gabriel Monastery, the oldest

surviving Syriac Orthodox monastery in the world.

New Europe


by Otmar Oehring Otmar Oehring is Director of the Human Rights Office of Missio Society

Issues and concerns of religious minorities in Turkey

When we speak of religious minori-ties, we are referring to religiousgroups that distinguish themsel-

ves from the majority when it comes to thefoundations of their religious belief andwhose membership is smaller than that of thelargest corresponding population group. Ho-wever, when one speaks of ‘azınlık’, the Tur-kish word for minority, within Turkey itself,the term refers solely to the non-Muslim mi-norities as defined by the Treaty of Lausanneas interpreted by the Republic of Turkey,which is to say it refers to Armenians, Greeks,Jews and, based on the Bulgarian-TurkishTreaty of Friendship of 18 October 1925, theBulgarians as well. In de facto terms, thenon-Muslim minorities are no more closelydefined than ‘minorités non-musulmanes’,‘non-Moslem minorities’ or ‘Müslüman ol-mayan azınlıklar’ in the French, English andTurkish versions of the Treaty. Hence the Re-public of Turkey’s restrictive application of therelevant regulations in the Treaty of Lausannerepresents a clear breach of the wording of theTreaty. This policy discriminates not onlyagainst numerous non-Muslim minoritiesthat existed in Turkey at the time the Treatyof Lausanne was concluded – e.g. Syrian Or-thodox or Roman Catholic Christians – butagainst all minorities affiliated with Islam,particularly Turkey’s largest religious mino-rity, the Alevi.

The discussion on the situation of religi-ous minorities in Turkey, which has onlybegun in the recent past, i.e. since the Treatyof Lausanne – with these minorities inclu-ding the Jehovah’s Witnesses, various evan-gelical free churches and the Baha’i – makesit clear that while the exclusive reference tothe Treaty of Lausanne may well be signifi-

cant from the point of view of the Armenians,Greeks and Jews, who are regarded as non-Muslim minorities as defined by the Treatyof Lausanne, it is evident that references tothis treaty are in no way appropriate when itcomes to resolving fundamental issues facingall religious communities in Turkey in regardto the realisation of individual and collectivereligious freedom.

Such a solution can only occur on thebasis of the relevant binding internationalconventions, to which Turkey is a party, spe-cifically the European Convention onHuman Rights, which Turkey signed on 4November 1950 – some sixty years ago – andratified on 18 May 1954.

The political discussion among interestedcircles in the European Union remains stron-

gly focused on this treaty when it comes tothe problems of those non-Muslim minori-ties in Turkey that the Republic of Turkey re-gards as minorities as defined by the Treatyof Lausanne. This fact has contributed to asituation where relevant legislative develop-ments in Turkey in recent years – those per-taining to foundation law, for example – areregarded as being highly positive, both in th-emselves and within the relevant context, andthey have been treated in such a way as ifthese legislative measures had already brou-ght about basic positive changes regarding thelegal status of the corresponding Christianchurches and/or Jewish communities.

In fact, nothing whatsoever has changedin regard to the fundamental problems affec-ting the legal situation of the non-Muslim

Turkish minorities in question as a result ofthe changes in the relevant foundation law re-gulations as they impact the community fo-undations. The Greek Orthodox EcumenicalPatriarchate, the Armenian Patriarchate aswell as the Grand Rabbinate, like all othernon-Muslim minorities to whom certaincommunity foundations have been allotted,still have no legal personality and are thus le-gally non-existent. As a result, there are stillno legal relations between the community fo-undations in question and the Christian ch-urches and/or Jewish communities.

The fundamental problem facing boththe previously named churches and the Je-wish communities, as all other Christian ch-urches as well – whether they already existedin Turkey before 1923 or only established th-emselves here in the recent past – is the lackof legal recognition, of a legal personality.

However, in this context it must be em-phasised that this problem is also shared byIslam in Turkey. It is true that a quasi state-sponsored Sunni Islam is supervised, organi-sed and promoted by an office that is underthe authority of the prime minister. In prac-tice, however, the officially banned but stillexisting Islamic orders, the new Islamic mo-vements, and also the vast minority of theAlevi, who are also affiliated with Islam, havebeen left just as much up in the air as the non-Muslim minorities.

However, one should not ignore the factthat, due to fundamental changes in the lawsgoverning associations and foundation law inaccordance with efforts to harmonise theselaws with European Commission guidelines,religious communities now have the possibi-lity of establishing themselves as associationsor foundations. Individual evangelical free ch-urches have taken advantage of this possibi-lity, as have individual Alevi associations,although it remains unclear whether these arereligious or cultural bodies.

Nevertheless, the underlying problemscan only be fundamentally solved if Turkeycontinues to develop its understanding ofwhat it means to be a secular state in accor-dance with Article 9 of the European Con-vention on Human Rights. For this tohappen, it is first necessary to revise the con-stitution in accordance with Article 9 of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights andto pass the necessary subordinate legal regu-lations that regulate the legal existence andthe basis of the activities of religious commu-nities. Turkey must give up seeking Turkishsolutions for Turkish problems. A Turkey thatconceives of itself as a European Turkey mustseek European solutions for Turkish pro-blems. There is no doubt that this will remaindifficult. Within this context, it is not only amatter of harmonising legal regulations withthe relevant regulations of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights. Instead, whatis at stake is a new way of thinking that makesit possible for people to experience the indi-vidual and collective unfolding of their reli-gious needs independent of their religiousaffiliation.

AN

A/EPA

/KERIM O

KTEN

Nothing whatsoever has changed in regard to the fundamental problems affecting the legal situation of the non-Muslim Turkish minorities in questionas a result of the changes in the relevantfoundation law regulations as they impactthe community foundations.

“Greek Orthodox followers light candles during the epiphany day cere-

mony at St. George Church in Istanbul, Turkey, on Epiphany Day.

New Europe


by Sencer AyataProf.Dr. Sencer Ayata is the director of the Science, Governance and Culture Platform of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) of Turkey

Democracy and religious freedoms in Turkey

It has been eight years since the Ju-stice and Development Party (AKP)has come to power in Turkey. It is

today unfortunate to see that after twoterms of single party rule by the AKP,the situation concerning religious free-doms have not improved in the country.On the contrary, most domestic and in-ternational observers are alarmed morethan ever concerning the current stateand direction of fundamental rights andfreedoms in Turkey. The EuropeanCommission, for example, stated in its2008 progress report that “Turkey needsto make further efforts to create an envi-ronment conducive to full respect for fre-edom of religion in practice.” Similarconcerns can also be heard in reports ofthe European Commission against Ra-cism and Intolerance and the Internatio-nal Religious Freedom Report of the USDepartment of State. The vocal criticismthat can be heard in numerous monito-ring reports deeply concerns friends ofTurkey about the direction that the co-untry is heading with regard to rightsand freedoms.

It is indeed difficult to comprehendthe full scale of the problem in Turkey, ifone limits his or her analysis to the levelof religious freedoms. What we are ob-

serving in Turkey, even more acutelysince the referendum of September 2010,is that democracy and the fundamentalrights and freedoms associated with it,are coming under attack. Turkish citizenscan no longer feel safe, whether concer-ning their political rights or religiousfreedoms, as the rule of law and checksand balances are gradually eroded. Eachday, we see yet another move by the AKPthat will lead to further concentration ofpower in government hands. It is onlynatural that religious freedoms are ero-ded in a country where the judiciary, themedia, and civic associations no longerhave the ability to limit and restrain go-vernment’s power. As Turkish citizensincreasingly refer to the Turkish politicalsystem as “the society of fear”, there isgrowing worry about government intru-sion into everyday life.

This alarming situation is preciselythe reason why the Republican People’sParty (CHP) has made “democracy” and“freedoms” the central pillars of its di-scourse and policy under the new leader-ship of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Today, CHPis recognized by those on the left as wellas the right of the Turkish political spec-trum as the most credible democratic op-position with the potential to end AKP’s

increasingly authoritarian rule. In itsquest for democratic reform and fullmembership in the European Union,CHP has strengthened its alliance withthe most progressive segments of theTurkish public to push not only for reli-gious freedoms but also for women’s ri-ghts and freedom of expression andassociation. It is our conviction that awider mobilization for democracy is theonly way to ensure religious freedoms.CHP, therefore, is committed more thanever to building the widest possible de-mocratic coalition that will ensure thathuman rights and freedoms are respec-ted in Turkey. We are fully aware ofthe challenges and difficulties that awaitCHP in the pursuit of greater democra-tic freedoms for all. AKP’s discrimina-tory communitarian policies havefragmented the Turkish society morethan ever. Conservatism, patriarchy, andintolerance seem to be the dominant va-lues of the last eight years of AKP rule.Hate speech and hate crimes targetingreligious minorities are on the rise. It isregrettable to observe that there is gro-wing feeling of concern and insecurityamong different religious communitiesaround the country. Turkey’s foreign po-licy priorities and goals closely resemble

the policy at home. Prime Minister Er-doğan and his colleagues continue toperceive the world through the lens of“civilizations”. As religion becomes thedetermining pillar of Turkish foreign po-licy, the country no longer seems to becommitted to the universal values thatunite us all as human beings. Friends ofTurkey are increasingly alarmed to seethat the “axis shift” of the country sepa-rates it from the Western world and va-lues.

CHP, fully aware of the difficultiesand obstacles it faces, is ready more thanever to stand up for the challenge. As thepolitical party that initiated Turkey’s in-tegration to the European community,we pursue fundamental rights and free-doms not simply to receive favourable re-views in various monitoring reports, butbecause these values are the defining ele-ments of who we are as social democrats.CHP’s party cadres and electorate sharethe same strong commitment to respec-ting and embracing diversity, fully kno-wing that these are the fundamentalvalues that make us all Europeans. Wewill continue to pursue unity in diversityin aiming to sustain Europe as theworld’s beacon of light concerning reli-gious freedoms.

ANA/EPA/MURAT KABAN TURKEY OUT

Ecumenical Greek Orthodox Pa-triarch Bartholomew I (top L), thespiritual leader of the world's Orth-odox Christians, leads a service atthe ancient Sumela Monastery inthe Black Sea coastal province ofTrabzon, Turkey on 15 August 2010.Thousands of Orthodox Christianshold a rare Mass at an ancient mo-nastery in Turkey after the govern-ment allowed worship there once ayear in a gradual loosening of re-strictions on religious expression.

New Europe


by Mine YildirimMine Yildrim is a Researcher at AAbo Akademi, Institute for Human Rights and Member of the Committee on Religious Freedom and Legal Affairs of the Association of Protestant Churches (Turkey)

Substantial change is necessary

Change and democratization havebeen part of political discourse forsome time and eagerness and deter-

mination for a new civil constitution in2011 excite everyone in Turkey. The timesahead seem full of potential for better pro-tection of human rights and realization ofrule of law. Yet, serious challenges to full re-alization of freedom of religion or belief forall remain. Some basic demands of religiouscommunities, actually, do not require a newconstitution and could/should have beenaddressed within the existing legislation.Turkey has made clear commitments to fre-edom of religion or belief, as evident in Tur-key’s human rights commitments. Thesemust be reflected in the domestic level withimpr ovements for the realization of, interalia, neutrality and impartiality of the statebeing fully and clearly reflected in policiesconcerning religion, equality for all citizens,interpretation and implementation of rele-vant legislation in compatibility with inter-national standards of human rights andjurisprudence. A paradigmatic mentalityshift towards securing pluralism is required.Sadly, a particular form of mentality perva-des state institutions as well as society so asto convey a message that there is no roomfor members of certain religions or beliefs.

It is very important to set the standardright for religious freedom in Turkey. Whilemany people in Turkey would consider th-emselves tolerant and affirm they respectthe right to freedom of religion for everyonethere would be problems in agreeing onwhat this right would entail. For instance,according to a survey conducted by SabanciUniversity (Religiosity in Turkey, 2009)66% of those surveyed, believed that thoseof other religions should not be allowed tohold meetings open to the public in whichthey express their ideas. Clearly, there is

need to understand and promote freedomof religion or belief in Turkey in line withthe standards set by international law andjurisprudence. It is imperative that legisla-tion and practice in this field be subject toscrutiny for compliance with internationalstandards. Public decision makers and jud-ges need to be trained for this purpose. Po-licies on pluralism in the fields of education,justice and state administration as well aslocal government level need to be formula-ted and implemented without delay. Thelatter is crucial for a change in mentality.Capacity building for religious communi-ties will greatly increase their potential formonitoring their human rights situationand engaging in dialogue with authorities.

The situation of the Protestant commu-nity is a case in point, demonstrating thatthe steps proposed above are indispensiblefor improvement of religious freedom. The

intolerant attitudes towards them and theirperception that they are not viewed as equalcitizen, the problems in obtaining legal per-sonality, the restrictions on establishing pla-ces of worship as well as discriminatorypractices in the fields of education and em-ployment and other problems illustrate thecomplex and comprehensive nature of theirproblems. The Protestant Community inTurkey numbers around 3,000-3,500 per-sons with around 100 church congregations.The only way the Protestant Communitycan obtain legal personality is by establish-ing associations. This has become possibleafter 2005. However, the procedures follo-wed by the police and civil authorities inthis sphere have been far from predictable,transparent or consistent.

An important need of the Protestantcommunity is to be able to establish placesof worship. Yet, this need seems destined to

remain unmet, due to inadequate regula-tions and the inconsistent and restrictivedecisions rendered by many civil servants.The fate of existing churches is left entirelyto the discretion of local governments andlaw enforcement officers thus increasing thevulnerability of the community.

There is no legal basis for Christians totrain their clergy in an official educationalinstitution. Christian and Jewish studentshave the right to be exempt from compul-sory religion classes. However, some schoolprincipals are not sufficiently knowledgea-ble about the exemption and are not helpful,hence some children have to sit in the class-room during the class and are subjected tobad treatment from classmates and, in somecases, teachers. Exemption cannot be pro-perly implemented due to the lack of plu-ralistic values. Sadly, being discriminatedagainst is considered a normal part of eve-ryday life. Discriminatory practices are en-countered both individually and collectively.

It is widely thought by Protestants thatthe state, the media and the society in ge-neral harbor negative, skeptical and dispa-raging attitudes towards Protestants. It is awidely- held conviction among Protestantsthat the government does not view them asequal to other citizens. Although less innumber compared to former years, broad-casts and programs presenting incorrect, ne-gative material about Protestants continueto be produced. In the face of rhetoricabout missionary activities, Protestants tryto respond but feelings of hopelessness andpowerlessness dominate.

Members of all religions as well as un-believers encounter problems related to fre-edom of religion or belief in Turkey and acomprehensive strategy addressing all ofthese problems needs to be formulated withparticipation of all belief communities.

An important need of the Protestant com-munity is to be able to establish places ofworship. Yet, this need seems destined toremain unmet, due to inadequate regula-tions and the inconsistent and restrictive de-cisions rendered by many civil servants.

“

AN

A/EPA

/TOLG

A BO

ZOG

LU

Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

New Europe


As a notion, interfaith dialogue en-compasses scientific debates betweentheologians and other scholars; but

also simple exchange of ideas, or sharing offeelings between ordinary people. In its broadsense, interfaith dialogue has an immemorialhistory. Today, interfaith dialogue is a sophi-sticatedly organized activity. Once upon atime, it was a natural, and probably unnoti-ced part of the social life.

Dialogue was always warmly welcome onAnatolian earth, qualified as the “religious re-conciliation space”. Spiritual leaders such asMevlana Jelaleddin Rumi and Saint GregoryPalamas, or monarchs such as the SultansOrhan and Mehmed II the Conqueror, andthe Emperors John Cantacuzenos and Ma-nuel Paleologos were involved in interfaithexchanges by political necessity, intellectualcuriosity or spiritual vocation. There has al-ways been a mystical affinity between Orth-odox monks and Muslim Sufis, who, in laterperiods, welcomed orientalist scholars fromEurope. Not surprisingly, music was and isstill a particularly inspiring ground of dialo-gue and collaboration.

Whilst religious dignitaries, scholars, mu-sicians and statesmen discussed about intel-lectual subtleties, popular layers of the societywere in contact also in the daily life. In today’sIstanbul, the holy springs of the Orthodoxchurches are still impressively active and lar-gely frequented by Muslims.

The dialogue went on in early republicanera and was particularly flourishing with theCatholic Church. Mgr. Roncalli, the HolySee’s “Apostolic Delegate”, established excel-lent relations with the republican authorities.Elected as the Pope with the name of JohnXXIII in 1958, Mgr. Roncalli became the ar-chitect of interfaith dialogue, encouragedhenceforth by the Vatican II Council. Tur-

key was one of the first Muslim states to esta-blish diplomatic relations with the Holy See,in 1951. Reciprocal visits by Turkish state-smen and Sovereign Pontiffs contributed tothe development of Turco-Vatican relations.

In parallel to the Turkish « overture »abroad by mid-1980’s, the interfaith dialoguedeveloped considerably and institutionally,with frequent interfaith meetings, reactivationof Christian holy shrines in Anatolia, interre-ligious prayers attended by the representativesof believers of three monotheistic religions.Governmental bodies, and particularly theDirectorate of the Religious, gave their sup-port to the promotion of such activities.

A crucial event in the history of interfaithdialogue in Turkey was Pope Benedict 16th’svisit on November 2006. The Sovereign Pon-tiff was welcomed by the Prime Minister andhad meetings with civil and religious autho-rities, in particular with Patriarch Bartholo-mew. When back to the Vatican, the HolyFather expressed his gratitude to all thosewho organized his journey and addressed his“special thought to Turkish authorities and tothe friendly People of Turkey, who reservedfor me, a welcome worthy of his traditionalhospitable spirit.”

Academic collaboration has become anintegral part of the interreligious dialogue inTurkey since mid-1980’s with the exchangeof scholars and students as well as the orga-nization of joint conferences. Turkish civil so-ciety too is getting deeply involved ininterfaith dialogue.

His All-Holiness Bartholomew hasplayed a prominent role in the developmentof interfaith activities. The Patriarch had al-ready manifested his desire of dialogue: “Ch-ristians, -and particularly OrthodoxChristians should ally with the authenticIslam in order to surpass modernity ‘from in-

side’, by a new cultural mutation. Together,Ensemble, they would remind the irreduciblecharacter of the human person, ‘image ofGod’ for Christians, His khalifa for Muslims”.

Governmental entities as well as privateactors are also promoting “faith tourism”which provides a favorable ground for inter-faith dialogue activities. Many Muslims jointhe pilgrimage processions “on the footstepsof Saint Paul” as an opportunity of dialoguewith their Christian friends and to share theirspiritual experience. At the occasion of FaithTourism Days II, held in Izmir in 2004, HisAll Holiness Bartholomew declared: “Faithtourism aims at strengthening and deepeningthe bonds between believers and the placesthey visit and the religious personalities of thepast. Faith tourism has not only geographi-cal significance but also cultural significance”

Despite innumerable obstacles and oppo-nents, the current landscape of interfaith dia-logue in Turkey is colorful, rich andpromising. Interfaith dialogue is not only anethical obligation, it is a practical necessity. Inthe nowadays world that is being called the“global village” no nation has the luxury toshut itself at home.

In its persistent ambition to join the EU,Turkey cannot ignore the Judeo-Christianroots of European civilization. But these rootshave no cultural monopoly in Europe. Islamis a part of both historical and current Euro-pean culture. The numerous Muslims com-munities living in almost all EU countries arenow an integral part of today’s Europe’s plu-rality. In its European vocation, Turkey is pre-destinated to play a crucial role in therelations between religions, especially bet-ween Christianity and Islam.

The irresistible temptation to meet theother may lead to the discovery of a rich le-gacy of common values and concepts, which

eclipse preconceived differences and diver-gences. Muslim and Christian scholars andreligious men may disagree on many issues ofabstract theology. When engaged in a sincereand genuine dialogue, they are always surpri-sed to discover more and more convergencesin the daily understanding of the relationshipbetween the Creator and the created.

Dialogue and mutual understanding arecommon values of ours; and we often com-mit the naïve mistake of thinking that thesevalues enjoy overall sharing. The raison d’êtreof some political and social movements isconflict, friction, polemics. They are fed backby violent discourse end enmity. Dialoguehelps solve problems, paves the way to un-derstanding and reconciliation: therefore, nosurprise that dialogue is not welcomed bythose who benefit from the persistence ofproblems. Our nations’ respective historiesoffer bad examples to avoid and good onesthat inspires us when we are called to builtour common future. History should instillwisdom, not revenge. We should not forgetthat we belong to our respective nations forthe fraction of second that is our lifetime, andwe remains morally responsible for the eter-nity. At this point, be it allowed to a Muslimto quote Pope John Paul II: “There is nopeace without justice and there is no justicewithout forgiveness.”

Dialogue is a challenge for accepting re-ligious, denominational and cultural plura-lism, as a source of richness, that cannot berenounced to, an opening towards the exter-nal world and a means to enrich human ex-perience or the bases of a democratic society.Christians and Muslims have much to learnfrom each other. They can challenge eachother to live in rectitude and to realize inpractice the great spiritualities and ethics thatthey continually preach.

by Emre ÖktemDr. Emre Öktem, Associate professor of public international law, University of Galatasaray, Istanbul. Member of the Advisory Councilfor the Freedom of Religion and Belief (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)

Interfaith understanding and dialogue: A way to cross the bridge

Despite innumerable obstaclesand opponents, the current land-scape of interfaith dialogue in Tur-key is colorful, rich and promising.Interfaith dialogue is not only anethical obligation, it is a practicalnecessity.

“

Flickr| Center for A

merican Progress

AN

A| EPA


merican Progress

New Europe


by Robert EllisRobert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs and advisor to the TurkeyAssessment Group in the European Parliament

Separate but unequal citizens

Almost 1200 years of Christian civilisation inwhat is now known as Turkey came to an endwith the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople

in 1453. The much lauded millet system which follo-wed, by which the religious communities were allowedto rule themselves, was in fact a system of ‘separate butunequal’. Sharia law prevailed, and the status of theChristian or Jewish dhimmi (“protected people”) wasinferior both legally and in everyday life.

The Christian presence in Turkey was effectivelyterminated with the First World War.

Both the Greek and Armenian populations weredepleted through massacres and deportation as well asthe 1923 population exchange between Greece andTurkey.

The Greek inhabitants of Istanbul and two Greekislands, totalling 200,000, were exempt from this ex-change, but restrictions imposed by the Turkish go-vernment in 1932 on their commercial activities, apunitive wealth tax imposed on non-Muslims in 1942and the Istanbul pogrom in 1955, have reduced theGreek population of Turkey today to between threeand four thousand. The Lausanne Treaty (1923), whichprovides the legal basis for the establishment of theRepublic of Turkey, guarantees religious freedom fornon-Muslim minorities and, furthermore,”an equalright to establish, manage and control at their own ex-pense, any charitable, religious and social institutions,any schools and other establishments for instructionand education”. Nevertheless, the Ecumenical Patriarchof Constantinople, the spiritual head of 300 millionOrthodox Christians round the world, feels beleague-red and, as he put it in an interview with CBS, some-times crucified. Turkey has refused to recognise hisecumenical status and the legal personality of the Pa-triarchate, which makes it difficult to administer its

own property. However, the European Court ofHuman Rights has in a ruling determined that the or-phanage on the island of Büyükada (Prinkipos), whichwas confiscated by the Turkish state, should be retur-ned to its legal owner, the Patriarchate.

Furthermore, since 1971 the Greek Orthodox se-minary on the island of Heybeliada (Halki) has beenclosed after a law banning private higher education. Asa result, it is no longer possible to train Greek Ortho-dox priests, as they must have Turkish nationality. Inan interview with the Turkish daily Milliyet PatriarchBartholomew said the Patriarchate was dying from lackof oxygen.

There are now 60,000 Armenians and 25,000 Jewsremaining in Turkey, and in addition 24,000 ChristianSyriacs, who suffered the same fate as the Armeniansduring the First World War. The Syriac Orthodox Ch-urch is fighting a legal battle against the Turkish auth-orities, who are trying to confiscate part of the landbelonging to Saint Gabriel’s monastery, founded in397, which is among the oldest in the world.

Although the Copenhagen criteria for EU mem-bership include respect for and protection of minori-ties, which Turkey defines on a religious and not anethnic basis, the gestures Turkey has hitherto made aremore of a token nature. For example, allowing a massto be held once a year at the Sümela monastery on theBlack Sea coast, or the recent mass held at the Arme-nian Church of the Holy Cross in Van (but still with-out a cross on its dome).

In a study conducted by Istanbul’s Bahcesehir Uni-versity last year, half the Turks polled said that theydidn’t want Christian neighbours, and it must be ad-mitted Christians are not popular in Turkey. Witnessthe three Christians who had their throats slit in Ma-latya three years ago, Father Andrea Santoro who was

murdered in Trabzon (where Hrant Dink’s killer alsocame from) and Bishop Luigi Padovese, who was mur-dered in Iskenderun in June. And according to the in-dictment in the ongoing Ergenekon case, TurkishSpecial Operations planned to terrorize and attack thenon-Muslim population in order to incriminate theAKP government.

Cyprus

Turkey’s foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, hasexplained that Turkey’s multifaceted foreign policyrests on four pillars, one of which is cultural harmonyand mutual respect. When it concerns Cyprus, whereChristianity was already established in 45 AD, Turkishpractice falls short of Professor Davutoglu’s ideal.

As has been well documented, for example, in the2009 report by the Helsinki Commission, Christianchurches and monasteries in the occupied areas in thenorth have been devastated, vandalized and looted, notonly with the cooperation of the Turkish army but also,on occasion, with the connivance of the UN authori-ties.

Over 500 churches, chapels and monasteries havebeen confiscated and put under

the control of Evkaf, the Moslem religious trust. Their former congregations and priests have been

reduced to the role of supplicants and, subject to thewhim of the Turkish authorities, are on occasion allo-wed to worship at their holy shrines. In 1971, when theformer Swedish prime minister Oluf Palme visitedZambia, he referred to the Zambezi river, which sepa-rated Zambia from Rhodesia (where the white mino-rity regime had unilaterally declared independence), as“the border of human decency.” The same could be saidof the Green Line in Cyprus.

AN

A/EPA

/TOLG

A BO

ZOG

LU

Turkish riot policemen walk in front of Hagia Sophia .

Christian chur-ches and monaste-ries in the occupiedareas in the north(of Cyprus) havebeen devastated,vandalized and lo-oted, not only withthe cooperation ofthe Turkish armybut also, on occa-sion, with the con-nivance of the UNauthorities.

“

From the outside, today’s Turkey appears as ifit differs markedly from yesterday’s Turkey.However, one should always bear in mindthat not everything that shines is gold. As aresult of the decision made in December2004 by the European Union (EU) to startthe accession negotiations with Turkey, therecent years have witnessed a series of widelyacclaimed reform packages and constitutio-nal amendments in this ever more de-Chri-stianized, Islamified state. Despite these developments, most expertsagree that Turkey still has a long way to go inorder to achieve “stability of institutions gua-ranteeing democracy, the rule of law, humanrights, respect for and protection of minori-ties.” In the case of the Aramean people, thispart of the Copenhagen criteria, which formthe basis in the negotiation process with can-didate countries since 1993, exposes Turkey’sapparent lack of commitment to Europe’s va-lues.

1. The Aramean (Syriac) People of Turkey Most politicians, journalists, writers and

activists are not familiar with the Arameanpeople and their historical presence in Sou-theast Turkey. Briefly, five facts are worthstressing:

1.1 Indigenous: Contrary to the Turks andthe Kurds, who as latecomers are foreign toSoutheast Turkey, the Arameans and theirAramaic language are indigenous to this co-untryside, as corroborated by written evi-dence dating back to the 12th century B.C.

1.2 People: Rather than a religious com-munity, the Arameans are a people or state-less nation, and this is how their vast majorityincreasingly perceive and call themselves. InTurkey, the ethno-religious Arameans histo-rically consist of the Syriac (Orthodox, Ca-tholic, Protestant), Chaldean and Nestorian(or: ‘Assyrian’) communities.

1.3 Name: The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchaptly wrote about the synonymy of theirnames: “The Syriac language is the Aramaic

language itself, and the Arameans are the Sy-rians themselves. He who has made a di-stinction between them has erred.” Thereexists an academic consensus on this issue, asthere also is one that states that ‘Assyrian’ is ahistorically unfounded and politicized namethat was invented in the 19th century.

1.4 Diaspora: As a result of systematicethnic cleansing, land theft, persecutions anddiscrimination by the Turkish State, oftenwith the help of Kurdish auxiliaries, the Ara-means fled from their homeland. Today some25,000 Arameans reside in Turkey, amongwhom circa 2,500 souls have remained inSoutheast Turkey. The number of ArameanEuropeans substantially exceeds the numberof Arameans in this region.

1.5 Leadership: In the diaspora, particu-larly in Europe, the Arameans have tasted thedelights of true democracy, freedom and equalcitizenship. In the secularized and free West,secular organizations emerged in addition tothe churches and monasteries aiming at or-ganizing, defending and representing theAramean people and their rights.

2. The Aramean Question in TurkeyThe Aramean Question in Turkey consists

of past and present cases of many human ri-ghts violations which have never been ad-dressed by Turkey or the internationalcommunity. Due to limited space, only foursub-questions will be mentioned. Ratherthan elaborating them, as experts have donemany times before, it has been decided to askTurkey reasonable questions which representthe voice and the desire of the Aramean pe-ople. It is hoped that this will initiate an of-ficial dialogue with the Turkish Government,conceivably coordinated by the EU.

2.1 Lack of Recognition & Legal Status1. What is Turkey’s position on recogni-

zing the Arameans as a ‘minority’, in confor-mity with international law and theLausanne Treaty from 1923, much like theGreeks, Armenians and Jews, so that they are

allowed to establish their own schools, teachtheir Aramaic language and freely practicetheir Christian faith?

2. What is Turkey’s view on recognizingthe Arameans as an ‘indigenous people’, inkeeping with the UN Declaration of the Ri-ghts of Indigenous Peoples signed by Turkeyin 2007 and explicitly stated in Resolution1704 of the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe?

2.2 Illegal Land Occupation3. What is Turkey’s stance towards the

continuation of the illegal expropriation bythe State of huge amounts of land histori-cally and legally belonging to the Arameans,as affirmed by the European Union and theParliamentary Assembly of the Council ofEurope?

4. When will Turkey end the delays ofcourt cases, noted by the European Court ofHuman Rights Annual Report 2009, thatAramean monasteries, villages and proprie-tors are facing?

2.3 Endangered Aramaic Cultural Heritage5. Is the Turkish Government willing to

take any responsibility in restoring, safeguar-ding, developing and promoting the endan-gered Aramaic cultural heritage of SoutheastTurkey?

6. Is the Turkish Government prepared toassist and facilitate the Arameans who origi-nate from Turkey in preserving their threate-ned language, culture and identity?

2.4 Return Migration: The Future of Tur-Abdin

7. Is Turkey ready to invest structurally inits south-eastern terrain, above all in impro-ving the security, infrastructure and facilitiesfor normal life circumstances there that maydraw Aramean refugees back to the land oftheir ancestors?

8. Can Turkey ensure that the Tur-Abdinregion in Southeast Turkey remains popula-ted by its original Aramean inhabitants inthe next decades, if not centuries?

3. The ball is in Turkey’s courtThe Arameans have an ancient history in

Turkey and are one of the oldest Christianpeoples in the world. Despite genocide, mi-streatment and discrimination, they have al-ways remained loyal and peaceful citizens.Noting that the Christian Arameans havefled from their homeland and in the past de-cades have frequently expressed the desire tobe officially recognized by the Turkish Go-vernment as a ‘minority’, according to the La-usanne Treaty, in order to obtain a legal statusso that they can start building up a future intheir ancestral land, Turkey can now demon-strate how sincere its commitments to the va-lues and principles of the EU truly are.

The Arameans, above all, ask forequal citizenship, based on a new constitutionthat meets the standards of the EU andwhich laws will effectively be implemented.They strife for the recognition of their peopleand historic presence in Southeast Turkey.They ask not to be treated as foreigners or asa fifth-column by Turkish society, led by themainstream media and biased textbooks. Infact, Turkey should embrace and integrate thenative Arameans as an ambitious people whocan enrich it culturally, intellectually, spiri-tually and economically. With their expe-rience in the Western diaspora, the Arameansmay even become beneficial to Turkey in as-sisting Turkish society in the continuing pro-cess of democratization.

Between the seventh and tenth cen-turies A.D., the Arameans brought the Me-sopotamian and Greek sciences to the Arabswho later exported this knowledge to Europe.Perhaps with their Christian background andas a people that has integrated most succes-sfully in European countries, the Arameansmay once again form a bridge between twocivilizations, this time between Turkey andthe EU. In any case, the ball of democratiza-tion is in Turkey’s court.

New Europe Page 17_b


by Johny MessoJohny Messo is President of the Syriac Universal Alliance

The Sincerity of Turkey’s Democracy?The Case of the Indigenous Aramean (Syriac) People

Flickr | Senol Dem

ir

Syriac-Orthodox St. Akhsnoyo church at Midyat, Turkey

The Arameans, above all, ask for equal citi-zenship, based on a new constitution thatmeets the standards of the EU and which lawswill effectively be implemented. They strife forthe recognition of their people and historic pre-sence in Southeast Turkey. They ask not to betreated as foreigners or as a fifth-column byTurkish society, led by the mainstream mediaand biased textbooks.

“

New Europe Page 18


by Dionyssis KefalakosDionyssis Kefalakos is the Editor-in-Chief of New Europe

Religious freedom; economy and politics

Over the past centuries the de-mand for religious freedomhad spearheaded in Europe a

long battle for other freedoms, whichon many occasions was tantamount tonational emancipation.

Europe has paid its dues to religi-ous confrontations. It took the Hun-dred and the Thirty Year War alongwith a number of other bloody con-frontations, to settle the matter; andthe two main Christian dogmas inWestern Europe, Catholicism andProtestantism, finally found a “modusVivendi”, which lasts to this day. Incountries like Germany and Belgium,the coexistence of those two Chri-stian dogmas has set the standard forthe rest of Europe. In Eastern EuropeChristian Orthodoxy prevailed, whileJudaism has flourished all over Eu-rope, east and west alike, despite theatrocities before and during WW II.

Religious freedom though is notonly a matter of the open staging of anumber of ceremonial procedures. Itis also about freedom to follow one’sethical convictions in everyday life.Given that economic activities con-stitute the major part of people’s lives,ethical principles towards work andwealth play a crucial role in the waysocieties function. At the end of theday, religious freedom may open the

way to economic freedom. For onething the specialization of the Euro-pean Jewish community in the tradeof money (banking), has to be accre-dited to religious reasons.

More generally speaking religiousconvictions play an important role inthe way certain societies develop theireconomic ideology. For example, Ca-tholics, Orthodox and Protestantsdiffer in the way they approach theideas of work and wealth. Protestantshave come to be more prone to hardwork than the people of the other twoChristian convictions.

The same is true for the accumu-lation of wealth. Those of the Jewishand Protestant faiths tend to favorwealth more than Catholic and Or-thodox believers. As a result, marketeconomies flourish more freely inProtestant societies, which also favormore than others the idea of personalresponsibility in view of the difficul-ties of life.

Today however those differencestend to diminish drastically in theJudea-Christian world. Globalizationhas helped the development of acommon liberal economic ideologyall over the western world. By thesame token differences between theChristian dogmas tend to disappear.

In any case Christianity is now al-

most free of prejudices towards otherreligions. The latest attempts to ban“the scarf ” worn by Muslim womenin public places to, is the result of aneurotic European reaction to Mus-lim militantism. Nothing more thanthat.

Invariably, however, terrorist ac-tions by small groups are being dres-sed with a religious cover, in a waythat it is denied by the mainstreamsocieties. Those militant groups arejust exploiting a variety of economicproblems in the populous Muslim so-cieties or their religious convictions,to support their cause.

The truth is that their real targetsare very political and not at all religi-ous. The outcome is however thatMuslim societies appear today muchless tolerant to other convictions thanChristianity.

In any case, both the Christianand the Muslim worlds appear less li-beral than some twenty years ago.Unfortunately this new separation ofour world does not appear to be rece-ding.

On the contrary is gaining mo-mentum mainly in the Middle East.And it is not all clear if the right th-inking people on both sides are goingto win the game or rather if the war-mongers on both sides are to prevail.

Flickr - Greg W

estfall

The latest attempts toban “the scarf” worn byMuslim women in publicplaces to, is the result of aneurotic European reac-tion to Muslim militan-tism. Nothing more thanthat.

“

New Europe Page 19


by Andy CarlingAndy Carling is a New Europe EU Affairs Editor

What’s so funny about peace, love and understanding?

In 1775, just before the birth ofthe United States, and two yearsafter the Boston Tea Party, British

lexicographer Samuel Johnston decla-red that “Patriotism is the last refugeof the scoundrel”. Today, after hearingthe modern day Tea Party, it appearsthat religion may the first refuge ofthe scoundrel.

The problem is that nobody ac-tually knows the thoughts of the Al-mighty, but some people fancy thatthey have privileged access to this in-formation.

Take the invasion of Iraq. GeorgeBush and Tony Blair, were guided byGod to invade, whilst, those more tra-ditionally considered to be on the re-ceiving end of the Holy hotline werespeaking out against such an attack.This included a cross-schism allianceof the Pope and the Archbishop ofCanterbury.

The obvious conclusion is that, ei-ther the Creator of All has a strangerand darker sense of humour than pre-viously suspected, or some people con-fuse their own desires with divineinstruction.

The latter is the more plausible. Ithas been said that the problem withreligion isn’t that God made Man inhis image, but that Man has the ten-dency to make God in his image. So

often, people, especially those in thepolitical sphere, find that they aredoing God’s work, and that they arealso living in God’s own country.

Who can argue with that? Not asinful voter who went for the othercandidate.

There can be nothing more dange-rous than a political figure who belie-ves they are doing God’s will. Or arethings slightly more complicated thanthat? The puzzle is that people reactto faith in different ways. Martin Lu-ther King Jr’s faith enabled him to actwith great courage, not on his behalf,but on a moral crusade, the rightnessof which is accepted by all but the lu-natic fringe.

Is this the same faith that produ-ced Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker or evenSarah Palin? A God who believes inbig guns and small taxes? It appearsthat the religious sentiment, that onceproduced great reformers has nowswitched sides.

We can look at the main branchesof the Christian faith in the West.Both the Catholic Church and theChurch of England have spent the lastfew decades tearing themselves apartover... women priests.

The justification for this is an ar-cane reading of theology, derived frominterpretation of scriptures. The rest

of the world has moved on from thesemedieval injunctions.

In recent years various atheists, in-cluding leading top God botherer, Ri-chard Dawkins, have argued the caseagainst religion. How these books, orin some cases, polemics, are received isusually down to the reader’s religiousbeliefs.

However, most of these booksshare a certain perspective.

The real target of the author’s ireis not the existence of a divine being,but how religions, sects and cults haveplaced a rigid interpretation on spiri-tual teachings and then imposed themon others, frequently by using violenceor psychological manipulation.

For religious tolerance to thrive,what needs to happen is for those whoclaim to be pronouncing God’s judge-ment to learn a little humility and tounderstand that they could be wrong.After all, they have been provedwrong on many issues already, just askGalileo.

As Martin Luther King jr said,“There is some good in the worst ofus and some evil in the best of us.When we discover this, we are lessprone to hate our enemies.”

When we understand this, the spi-ritual journey becomes something thatunites us, rather than dividing us.


The obvious conclusionis that, either the Creatorof All has a stranger anddarker sense of humourthan previously suspected,or some people confusetheir own desires with di-vine instruction.

“

New Europe Page 20


by Alia PapageorgiouAlia Papageorgiou writes New Europe's Eurocentrique column, and is former EU Affairs Editor of New Europe

Who goes to church on Sundays ?

Do we come back to Democracyand the separation of powers?And how can this possibly apply tocountries like China, Iran or evenTurkey today?

“ Last Sunday morning, run-ning through the Cin-quantenaire Parc in

Brussels I came around to theRue de la Rennaisance where itmeets with Rue De L’Yser, onthat spot there is a small churchand some commotion capturedmy attention.

Quite a few people were en-tering, so I sneaked in to have alook at what goes on in a littlechurch in what claims to be avery Catholic Country in Eu-rope, (despite the alarming sta-tistic of an 80 percent divorcerate) to see who was followingthat mass.

To my surprise (I had expec-ted little old ladies fussing aro-und charitable donations) thecongregation was filled withyoung couples, young familiesand the best of all was the youngorgan player, not too far fromthe pews, playing her Sundayhymns and stopping to checkher mobile phone in betweensheet music changes.

In Europe today, it wouldseem that religious freedom is anon-event – a democratic clusterof nations, with common goalson human rights would obvi-ously allow for freedom of reli-gion. Doesn’t it?

There are some slight exce-ptions but they are widely docu-mented, (see the mosquebuilding saga in Greece or the

minarets not allowed to surfaceany longer in Switzerland and itwould take another 10 columnsto describe what is going on inFrance so let’s leave that aside)so, despite the growing conser-vatism which is not unusual intimes of economic instability, asa whole Europe is a tolerant so-ciety. In an op-ed penned by Le-onard A. Leo and Dr. ElizabethH. Prodromou of the UnitedStates Commission on Interna-tional Religious Freedom theChair and Vice Chair of theCommission respectively, pointout that Germany is playing akey role (yes, in this too) in kee-ping our religious freedoms ali-gned with international treaties(despite having a strong pre-sence of Religion within theState via the Christian Parties inthe Bundestag).

“Chancellor Angela Merkeldeclared before a Protestant par-liamentary working group inJune that protection of religiousfreedom is an important part ofits foreign policy and human ri-ghts efforts and stated that Ger-many "must act on behalf ofhuman rights in all parts of theworld." She also noted that, "Wehave no right to sit down afterour own dignity has been pro-tected and to no longer carewhat happens to the dignity ofothers."”

This past week alone the

same commission asked of Se-cretary of State of the US Hil-lary Clinton to not sidelinequestions on religious freedomwhen dealing with China andtheir annual report and to main-tain the importance of religiousfreedom.

The Sticking PointOther nations across the

globe tend to view religion assomething that cannot be talkedabout in any negative way, a pathwhich also seems dangerous asshown by the UN’s stance to amore balanced approach whenpassing the “Defamation of reli-gions” paperwork through theSecurity Council in 2009.

At the time, Germany spea-king on behalf of the EuropeanUnion said that, "The EuropeanUnion does not see the conceptof defamation of religion as avalid one in a human rights di-scourse.

The European Union belie-ves that a broader, more balan-ced and thoroughly rights-basedtext would be best suited to ad-dress the issues underlying thisdraft resolution."

So how to counter the issue?Country by country? Region byRegion? Or internationally? Dowe come back to Democracyand the separation of powers?And how can this possibly applyto countries like China, Iran oreven Turkey today?

Flickr - Randy OH

C

Mass in progress inside Santa Maria Maggiore.

New Europe Page 21


by Cillian Donnelly,Cillian Donnelly is a New Europe EU Affairs Editor

God or not – freedom is freedom

The European Union is anamalgamation of indivi-dual beliefs and philoso-

phies insomuch as it is anamalgamation of nation states;and theology, the basis for thefoundation for one or other reli-gion, has to be understood as abranch of philosophy. Therefore,we must content that religionconstitutes a legitimate part ofthe philosophical make-up ofthe EU. It can be opposed; but itcannot be dismissed.

Religion, for want of a betterphrase, is a man-made concept.That is, religious tenets are con-stantly being reappraised and in-terpreted by learned councils,such as the Vatican and the Ge-neral Synod, and are as much aproduct of a continuing shift inpolitical and societal changes asanything else. This is not to un-dermine religion as somehow su-bordinate to secularism, butinstead a testament to the thosewho chose to not to follow thefundamentalist path, and whowish to see their own belief ada-pted and made relevant to con-temporary society. There is anincreasing trend to see secula-rism, agnosticism or atheism assomehow opposed to the domi-nant beliefs of the established re-ligions that exist in Europetoday: you are either one of themor one of us. It's the new kind ofsectarianism.

Jonathan Sacks, the UK'sChief Rabbi, once said in a BBCtelevision interview that (andthis is a paraphrase) being a reli-gious person is not a necessityfor today's living, but it helps.What Lord Sacks was getting atis that day to day moral or philo-sophical decisions, be they atwork, home or out on the street,are best made by those who havebeen touched by some sort ofspiritual upbringing. These th-oughts can be private, and neednot be intrusive on public life.Religious belief can be a perso-nal thing; it helps the believercope with the traumas and strug-gles of day-to-day living.

Sacks, of course, was standingup for his own particular spiri-tuality. Crucially, he never de-nied that opposition to beliefshould be put down, and per-

fectly put secularism into thephilosophical realm of theologyas opposed to the dogmatictrend of certain Christian belie-ves. Sacks acknowledges atheismonly to repudiate, but not deny,it.

His point is debatable of co-urse – but that is the point; th-eology is arguable, and whetheryou want to talk about a particu-lar interpretation of the scriptu-res, Talmud or Qur'ān, or aboutthe existence of a supreme being,the freedom has to be there to doso. Religious freedom goes bothways. Not everyone is as funda-mentally religious as they oncewere, but the upswing towardssecularism should not be an in-vitation to an all-out war bet-ween believers andnon-believers.

But it is true that the religi-ous grip is departing from poli-tics and society in the westernworld; theocracy is out, secula-rism is in. But those enemies oforganised religion who want toprod away at the chink in the ar-mour, hoping to subject the beastto a humiliating and elongateddeath assume they are part of athem-and-us dichotomy. Religi-ous fundamentalists as well asmilitant atheists perpetuate thisstand-off; one is used to thedogma of the other. Reasonablemen in the middle, such as De-smond Tutu, Martin LutherKing, Jonathan Sacks or RowanWilliams (whose reconciliationwork has often gone misunder-stood) are too often being squee-zed out.

The trap that some of the se-cular-humanists appear to havefallen into is the same as that astheir age old opponents. Belie-ving that they are right, and ha-ving faith in the importance oftheir own particular message,they are, like the religious dog-matists, set in their ways, closed-minded and incapable ofentering into a debate with thosewho do not agree with them, le-ading to what has been called “adialogue of the death”.

They have a point in thatJudea-Christian philosophies andmorals still dominate the EU, butthe creeping fear that religiouslaw (despite in some cases) will

continue to engulf and emascu-late Europe is unfounded.

Atheism, humanism, secula-rism or however it is to be cate-gorised, has its place in modernEurope. When the EU constitu-tion (the precursor to the LisbonTreaty) was been prepared anddebated, one of the early argu-ments was whether or not godshould be mentioned in the pre-amble. It was a ridiculous idea.Religion and politics shouldnever be lumped together; and areligious Union does not speak toall people, in the same way that areligious member state cannot beall inclusive to its own citizens.

Whether or not god exists isa continuing philosophical de-bate. That morality should be apersonal thing, tied to a religiousbelief or not, should not be in thehands of the state. Religion sh-ould never be dictated by a sha-dowy religio-political cabal. Thatdoes not mean that secularismshould pounce on the opportu-nity to take down state structuresonly to replace them with theirown set of assumptions. If reli-gion has no place in politics; thensecularism should not be allowedto assume it is the heir to a philo-sophical vacuum.

The trap that some of the secu-lar-humanists appear to havefallen into is the same as that astheir age old opponents. Belie-ving that they are right, and ha-ving faith in the importance oftheir own particular message,they are, like the religious dog-matists, set in their ways, closed-minded and incapable ofentering into a debate with thosewho do not agree with them, le-ading to what has been called “adialogue of the death”.

“Spyros Paloukis | www.spyrospaloukis.com

New Europe Page 22


by Thomas Hammarberg Thomas Hammarberg is Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg

Muslims also have the right to practice their religion

Should the religious practices forMuslims in our country be “seriouslylimited”? This question was asked in

a public opinion survey in Germany re-cently. The reported result was that no lessthan 58 per cent of the respondentsagreed with the statement.

This is worrying. To be able to prac-tice one’s religion is a human right – aright with no distinction between diffe-rent faiths, for instance Christianity, Ju-daism or Islam.

Interestingly, there were huge regionaldifferences in the responses to the Ger-man survey. In the eastern parts of the co-untry – with a much smaller Muslimpopulation - support for the statementwas as high as 76 per cent. Distance andignorance tend to increase suspicions.

This appears to be a general pheno-menon: lack of knowledge feeds prejudi-ces. Here the political leaders have aparticular responsibility – too many ofthem have failed to counter Islamophobicstereotypes.

Of course, this became more difficultafter the terrorist attacks in New York,Madrid, London, Amsterdam and alsoBeslan and Moscow.

However, the emotions caused bythese horrible crimes called for systema-tic efforts to establish a distinction bet-ween the evildoers and the overwhelmingmajority of Muslims. These efforts wererarely made.

Neither has sufficient priority beengiven to analysing what makes some peo-ple listen to hateful propaganda againstMuslims. Part of the explanation appearsto be the same ignorance, fear and fru-stration which have caused bigotry againstRoma and immigrants in general.

Unemployment and other consequen-ces of the economic crisis appear to haveprovoked an increased insecurity.

We have learnt that minorities are so-metimes turned into scapegoats by people

who feel alienated and ignored by those inpower. There are certainly other reasons aswell and it is essential to seek the relevantexplanations.

Recent elections have seen extremistpolitical parties gaining ground after ag-gressively Islamophobic campaigns. Evenmore worrying is the inertia or confusionwhich seems to have befallen the establi-shed democratic parties in this situation.Compromises are made which tend togive an air of legitimacy to crude prejudi-

ces and open xenophobia.The anti-Muslim rhetoric tend to be

combined with racist attitudes – directednot least against people originating fromTurkey, Arab countries and South Asia.Muslims with this background are discri-minated in the labour market and theeducation system in a number of Euro-pean countries.

Reports from the EU FundamentalRights Agency and others have shownthat persons with this background tend tobe targeted by police in repeated identitycontrols and intrusive searches. This iscertainly a human rights problem.

The diverse groups of Muslims arenow also blamed by politicians in somecountries for not “assimilating”. However,integration is a two-way process based onmutual understanding.

Anti-Muslim bigotry has in fact be-come a major obstacle to respectful rela-tionships.

Indeed, the Islamophobic atmospherehas probably been a factor enabling extre-mists in some cases to recruit young andembittered individuals who lack a senseof belonging.

Instead of discussing such problemsseriously, we have had a debate about me-thods to penalise women wearing theniqab and to prevent the building of mi-narets. This is hardly the way to givedepth to our European values.

Flickr - Viktor Nagorny

September 11th, 2010 marked 9th anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. Events included 9th Commemorationceremony and the Emergency Mobilization Against Racism and Anti-Muslim Bigotry rally.

New Europe Page 23


by Rodi KratsaRodi Kratsa is vice-President of the European Parliament, from Greece, member of the European People’s Party

"Freedom of Religion"Intercultural and interreligious dialogue in Europe

The EU has been a community of cultures and valuesbuilt on the principle of respect of human rights andthe diversity of its people ever since its establishment

50 years ago. As the founding father Jean Monnet stated inhis memoirs «Nous ne coalisons pas des Etats, nous unis-sons des hommes.» (We are not joining states together, weare uniting people). In the frame of this project, intercultu-ral dialogue will always retain its importance for the Euro-pean Cohesion for the successful enlargement. This idea liesbehind the motto of the EU “United in Diversity”.

The growing cultural and religious diversity of our so-cieties, as a result of migratory movements to Europe, theeffects of globalisation and the growing exchanges of Eu-rope with the rest of the world have resulted in more fre-quent and deeper interactions between cultures, languages,ethnic groups and religions and in different perceptions.

It is undeniable that freedom of religion is a valuablesubstance to democratic society and the European integra-tion. This right is being officially mentioned at Europeanlevel in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights ofthe European Union embodied in the Lisbon Treaty, on Fre-edom of thought, conscience and religion. Moreover, Arti-cle 22 of the Charter states that “The Union shall respectcultural, religious and linguistic diversity”.

However, respect to religion and the freedom of religiondoes not go without saying. At the article-by-article expla-natory note of the Charter, limitations to the right of article10, in accordance with article 9(2) of the European Con-vention on Human Rights of the Council of Europe, areprovided for: “Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefsshall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed bylaw and are necessary in a democratic society in the interestsof public safety, for the protection of public order, health ormorals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms ofothers.” This European stance is further supported by the

Council of Europe White Paper mentioned above, whichstates as one of the conditions of intercultural dialogue that“ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic affiliations or tradi-tions cannot be invoked to prevent individuals from exerci-sing their human rights or from responsible participating insociety...Religious practice is part of contemporary humanlife and it therefore cannot and should not be outside thesphere of interest of public authorities…”. These limitationsexpress the core European values and principles and havebeen at the centre of the debate in Europe during the recentyears, leading some to talk about a ‘clash of civilizations’, forthose who are not aware or do not wish to understand Eu-rope and its values.

Recent debates arising within European societies on is-sues like the application of Sharia’h law on family and inh-eritance law as well as on divorce claims, the practice offemale genital mutilation, "honor killings", the use of theburqa and niqāb and, even further, the building of minaretsand issues involving freedom of expression are issues de-monstrating the link among religious freedom, gender equa-lity, Human rights and European values. However, therespect of these values seem to be non-negotiable if the Eu-ropean Union wants to remain faithful to the official andlegal obligations and the core of inalienable human rightsprovided for in the European treaties and legislation, appli-cable to all European citizens and immigrants present onEuropean soil.

The European Parliament and especially the EPP (Eu-ropean People's Party) has a long experience in interculturaland interreligious dialogue. During the "European Year ofIntercultural Dialogue" in 2008, the EPP organised severalevents, such as the Hearing on Cultural Diversity, Religionsand Dialogue (10 January 2008), the Hearing on Womenand Spirituality (13 November 2008) and the Hearing Eu-ropean Values, Regional Identity and Intercultural Dialogue

(11 December 2008). Also, in the framework of the above-mentioned European Year, Official Visitors to the Plenarysessions included high-level religious personalities such asPatriarch Bartholomew, Sir Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi ofthe United Hebrew Congregations of the British Com-monwealth, Sheikh Ahmad Badr El Din El Hassoun,Grand Mufti of Syria and also Asma Jahangir, UN's SpecialRapporteur on the Freedom of Religion or Belief.

The European Parliament in its inter-parliamentary re-lations with all Parliaments of the world, and with its dele-gations' attendance in regional parliamentary assemblies,highlights the importance of intercultural and interreligiousdialogue in its political agenda.

Cultural diversity, European, national and regional iden-tity, religious tolerance, human rights are interlinked con-cepts and values in our unique Europe. Intercultural andinterreligious dialogue are essential tools in bringing theseconcepts together and in forging closer links among peopleliving in Europe and with people beyond our borders. Theharmony of these concepts is a condition sine qua non toachieve freedom and prosperity in Europe and in the wholeworld.

It is undeniable that freedomof religion is a valuable sub-stance to democratic societyand the European integration.“

AN

A/EPA

/TOLG

A BO

ZOG

LU

The minaret of a mosque and a church with a crucifix are pictured in downtown Istanbul.

New Europe Page 24


by Heiner BielefeldtHeiner Bielefeldt is the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief

Limitations on religions freedom have 'chilling effect'

Freedom of religion or belief has abroad scope of application. It pro-tects theistic, non-theistic and ath-

eistic beliefs, as well as the right not toprofess any religion or belief. It also in-cludes members of newly establishedcommunities, minority groups as well asminorities within minorities. In addition,protection must also be accorded to thosewho have exercised, or wish to exercise,the right to change their religious affilia-tion, which constitutes an inherent andessential part of everyone’s freedom of re-ligion or belief.

Unfortunately, there are many exam-ples of exclusion of people from the en-joyment of freedom of religion or belief.In some countries recognition of religi-ous practice is by definition limited to aparticular list of religions, with the resultthat members of other religions or beliefsface problems, for instance when ap-plying for official documents.

Small communities, such as Jehovah’sWitnesses, Baha’is, Ahmadis, FalunGong and others are sometimes stigmati-zed as “cults” and frequently meet withsocietal prejudices which may escalateinto fully fledged conspiracy theories.Moreover, those who have exercised theirright to convert to another religion or be-lief are not only confronted with negativereactions from society at large; in somecountries they are also exposed to crimi-nal prosecution. Further, as a result of aconversion, marriages have been nullifiedagainst the will of the concerned coupleand persons have been excluded from theright to inheritance.

Equality constitutes a cornerstone ofhuman rights in general, also derivingfrom their universal nature. Thus article 1of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights stresses that “all human beings areborn free and equal in dignity and rights”.As a result of this egalitarian spirit un-derlying human rights, States are obligedto combat all forms of discrimination. Inthe context of freedom of religion or be-lief, I would like to briefly refer to twoforms of discrimination: discriminationagainst religious minorities and gender-based discrimination.

Members of religious minorities, in-cluding atheistic and non-theistic mino-rities, typically live in situations ofincreased vulnerability. In many coun-tries, religious minorities face discrimi-natory obstacles in the education system,labour market or when accessing the pu-blic health infrastructure. The formal ex-clusion of minorities from certainpositions within the State apparatus is awidespread phenomenon, sometimeseven enshrined in legal statutes or theState’s constitution. According to nume-rous reports, members of minorities alsobear an additional risk of falling victim topolice harassment or profiling. This isespecially likely if societal stereotypes

brand members of certain religious com-munities as “dangerous”, “hostile” or evenpotential “terrorists”. In some countries,religious minorities regrettably face in-surmountable obstacles when trying toconstruct or renovate visible places ofworship, such as churches, mosques, pa-godas, synagogues or temples.

As Special Rapporteur on freedom ofreligion or belief I also address genderperspectives.

In the context of religion, gender-based discrimination has at least two di-stinct dimensions. Women belonging todiscriminated communities often sufferat the same time from gender-based di-scrimination. Equally, religious traditionsor interpretations of religious doctrinesometimes appear to justify, or even callfor, discrimination against women.

One example of the former constella-tion is the ban on the headscarf which

adversely affects Muslim women who,from a religious conviction, decide towear the hijab. In some countries thismay lead to expulsion from schools anduniversities or discrimination in the la-bour market.

However, freedom to publicly mani-fest one’s religious conviction by di-splaying visible symbols constitutes aninherent part of freedom of religion orbelief. Any limitations to the freedom topublicly manifest one’s religion or beliefmust be prescribed by law and necessaryto protect public safety, order, health, ormorals or the fundamental rights and fre-edoms of others. The fundamental objec-tive must be to protect both the positivefreedom to manifest one’s religious con-viction as well as the negative freedomnot to be exposed to any pressure to di-splay religious symbols or perform religi-ous activities.

The second constellation of genderrelated discrimination follows from theexperience that religious traditions are attimes invoked to deny or dilute the equa-lity in rights of men and women. Somemembers of religious communities claimthat traditional justifications of genderrelated discrimination stem from culturalcontexts rather than belonging to thesubstance of the religious teaching.

Whatever the justification, all practi-ces contrary to women’s rights should becondemned and combated. Ample evi-dence indicates that women frequentlyface discrimination in the application ofreligious laws. It can no longer be tabooto demand that women’s rights take prio-rity over intolerant beliefs that are usedto justify gender discrimination.

States are obliged not merely to re-spect freedom of religion or belief butalso to actively protect such a freedomagainst undue interference from thirdparties. They should also promote anatmosphere of tolerance and appreciationof religious diversity, for instance by en-couraging inter-religious dialogue as wellas by dispelling prejudices which oftencause particular harm to members of mi-norities. Such initiatives could serve thepurpose of conflict prevention and havean early-warning function.

Unfortunately, pernicious stereotypes,often amounting to full fledged degrada-tion of religious minorities, continue tobe a reality in many States. Moreover, in-citement to religious hatred frequentlydraws on actual or perceived religious dif-ferences. International law requires Sta-tes to prohibit any advocacy of national,racial or religious hatred that constitutesincitement to discrimination, hostility orviolence. Hence States are obliged to takeappropriate action. At the same time, itis important that any limitations on fre-edom of expression deemed necessary toprohibit incitement to religious hatred bedefined with the utmost diligence, preci-sion and precaution.

The threshold for any limitationsmust be very high in order not to have achilling effect on the exercise of freedomof expression or other human rights.Such precaution is also in the interest offreedom of religion or belief, because asocietal atmosphere of openness enhan-ces the chances of dispelling stereotypesand prejudices.

At the same time, freedom of religionor belief does not include the right forone’s religion or belief to be free from cri-ticism or all adverse comment.The inter-relatedness of all human rights does notonly represent a normative insight; it alsohas an empirical dimension. Hence pro-moting freedom of religion or belief isvital for building a holistic system ofhuman rights protection, based on duerespect for the inherent dignity of allmembers of the human family.

Flickr - Aprilzosia

New Europe Page 25


by Mario Mauro Mario Mauro is a member of the European Parliament from Italy, in the Group of the European People’s Party,and a member of the Committee of Foreign Affairs

Freedom of belief must be a freedom to co-exist

Religious freedom is the conditionthrough which all the freedomspass: freedom to express and pro-

fess the religion in which we believe is thepossibility to escape the abuse of power.This is why we need to insist on the de-fence of this principle.

Violations of this right are takingplace all over the world and affect around100 million people every year.

All religions are affected by persecu-tion. I am, for example, thinking about themass murder against Muslims in Srebre-nica or the slaughter caused by the Alge-rian civil war. That is what the ninetieshanded down to us. In the early XXI cen-tury we have to deal with violence causedby those who use the name of God to im-pose their power on others on the one

hand, and with the discriminations suffe-red by people submitted to unfair legisla-tions and hate public speeches on theother hand.

Nevertheless, the 75% of deaths linkedto religion-based hate crimes affect Chri-stians. This makes this religious group themost persecuted in the world. Accordingto the NGO Open Doors International,in 2010, the top ten list of countries whereChristians are persecuted because of theirfaith numbered states such as NorthKorea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Mal-dives, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mauritania,Laos, and Uzbekistan. But we also haveserious persecutions in many other states.

During the last seven years, Iraqi Ch-urch has faced a violent attack within adramatic political condition: fifty-one ch-

urches attacked, hundreds of believers,priests, nuns and also one Archibishop,have been beheaded, hanged, kidnappedand so on. Many of them have also suffe-red psychological pressures and threatsfrom their persecutors, interested in ta-king their homes and property.

It often happens that Christian com-munities, for example in Sudan, co-existwith several different religions, and this isa fact that has distant roots in the historyof many different countries.

So, how is it possible to co-exist? Inthese days, like never before, multicultu-ralism is a word used and abused. It is notpossible to build a pluralistic and pacificsociety by basing it on a compromise, be-cause this will lead to an ideology that canbe called “multicultural relativism”. On thecontrary, in this particular historical mo-ment, it is evident that only the encounterbetween clear cultural and religious iden-tity and between people willing to meeteach other can build a society where dif-ferent people cohabit and cooperate inbuilding a better world.

Consequently, it is necessary to reco-gnize the right of religious freedom intoto. The key point is the permission foreverybody to freely live according to theirown faith and to freely convert themsel-ves. To live a faith in a visible way can befundamental for a more peaceful society.Thanks to this, everyone can build a pieceof the common good. On the contrary, ifwe reach a compromise based on wrongprinciples, we can prepare the base for adisaster that will last for an entire genera-tion.

As I have previously pointed out, thereare many types of discrimination, in par-

ticularly where legislation and judgmentsare used to restrict the ability to expressone's belief. It happens frequently in manyEuropean states.

At the same time, states like Turkey,where believers suffer both discriminationand persecution, want to become Mem-bers States. Here, the little Christian com-munity is caught between the nationalists’secularism and the fundamentalism. De-spite the Turkish Constitution providingfreedom of religion, Christians and Jewishbelievers suffer from discrimination intheir everyday life: conversion from Islamto another faith, missions or proselytismof non-muslim religious groups can bedangerous. Media and public speeches en-courage bad stereotypes and prejudicesagainst non-muslim believers.

During the last five years we have seenseveral hate motivated attacks and mur-ders against Christians: I would like to re-call, just the murder of Father Santoro in2006, the killing of three members of aprotestant church in Malatya in 2007, theraid into a church in Kadikoy in March2009 and the several criminal damagesthat happened in some cemeteries.

Europe cannot remain indifferent. TheEU must take co-responsibility for theprotection of religious freedom all overthe world, and of course within the EUregion.

It is fundamental to remember whatthe nature of a believer is: a believer is afree man in constant relation with God.This means he will never be overcame byany political system. This concept is wellexplained by the great philosopher, JosefTishner, who said: “God is born, great po-wers tremble”.

In these days, like never before, multicul-turalism is a word used and abused. It is notpossible to build a pluralistic and pacific so-ciety by basing it on a compromise, becausethis will lead to an ideology that can be cal-led “multicultural relativism”.

“

European Union, 2010

More than senior figures from the Christian, Jewish, Muslim religions as well as from the Sikh and Hindu communities from fourteen EU Members States metin the Berlaymont on July 19 2010 to discuss the importance of combating poverty and social exclusion with a view to European governance.

New Europe Page 26


by Fiorello ProveraFiorello Provera is a member of the European Parliament from Italy, a member of the Europe of freedom and democracy Group, andVice-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee

Pakistan: persecution in the name of Islam

Earlier this year the European Par-liament passed a resolution highli-ghting the persecution of religious

minorities in Pakistan. For the EuropeanUnion, and in particular for MEPs, theright to freedom of worship is fundamen-tal, universal and non-negotiable. In Pa-kistan, however, the free practice ofreligion - at least for non-Muslims - isdifficult, hazardous and rare.

Part of the problem of religious perse-cution in Pakistan stems from the establi-shment of the country itself in 1947 andthe promulgation of its constitution in1956. It is officially called the Islamic Re-public of Pakistan, which, in effect, makesthe state indivisible from Islam. Pakistanplaced religion at the heart of its raisond'être in order to distinguish itself from itsrival India, from which it had been sepa-rated.

But whereas India has developed intoa sophisticated democracy in which peo-ple of all religions and none live side byside in relative harmony, Pakistan hasgone the opposite way. Indeed, Pakistan'sattitude to religious freedom stems alsofrom its attitude to political freedom.

Democracy - at least as we in the EU

understand it - remains elusive in Paki-stan. For much of its history Pakistan hasbeen ruled by military dictators, and evenduring periods of civilian government thearmy has maintained ultimate power, asregular coups d'état have shown.

Moreover, the military has cynicallyused Islamisation as a means of control-ling the population.

This process gathered pace under Ge-neral Zia ul-Haq, who imposed draconianand disproportionately harsh laws duringthe 1970s and 1980s in order to enshrinethe dominance of Islam.

The Hudood Ordinance was a lawpassed in 1979 that replaced civil senten-ces for various crimes with sharia punish-ments as mandated by the Koran. One ofits consequences was to make it extremelydifficult and dangerous for women toprove an allegation of rape. Pakistan's ownNational Commission on the Status ofWomen estimated in 2003 that eighty percent of women in prison had been incar-cerated for adultery because they had fai-led to prove an allegation of rape.

This part of the Hudood Ordinancewas repealed in 2006 by a law that maderape a crime prosecutable under civil law.

However, the new law has proved extre-mely difficult to enforce in a country withsuch a weak government and conservativesociety. Islamist groups, which maintain apowerful grip over Pakistani society, havedemanded the reintroduction of the Hu-dood Ordinance calling it God's divinepunishment and a victim of unjust propa-ganda by human rights organisations.

General Zia also introduced a series oflaws against blasphemy, under whichanyone convicted can be sentenced todeath.

The extremely wide definition of bla-sphemy makes it easy for the Sunni-do-minated government to prosecuteChristians, Hindus and Baha'i adherents,as well as Shias and Ahmadi Muslims.Ahmadis are considered to be apostates inPakistan and are therefore subject to aparticularly robust campaign of govern-ment-sanctioned vilification.

The civilian and military governmentsthat have come after General Zia havedone little to combat the rise of funda-mentalism and obscurantism.

What are the solutions to the problemof religious persecution in Pakistan? Thedevelopment of genuine democracy would

contribute substantially to a less repressivereligious environment, because religiousfreedom is a by-product of political free-dom.

Wholesale reform of the education sy-stem would promote values of tolerance,diversity and respect.

A focus on enhancing the rights ofwomen would undoubtedly help to dilutesome of the more extremist elements ofIslam in Pakistan.

A serious effort to counteract the ter-rorists and militants operating freely onPakistani soil and spreading their poiso-nous jihadi ideology is long overdue andmost welcome. Steps to improve the qua-lity and integrity of governance and inparticular to clamp down on the rampantcorruption that has crippled Pakistan'seconomy are absolutely essential.

Ultimately, the European Parliamentcan criticise, expose and denounce asmuch as it likes, but it will never changethe situation in Pakistan.

Change must come from within Paki-stan, and from within Islam. Only thenwill Pakistan develop a progressive andopen society that truly values religious fre-edom for everyone.

AN

A/EPA

/T.MU

GH

ALPakistani women protesters wear black shawls and mock nooses to protest against newly proposed controversial Isla-

mic rape law in front of Parliament in Islamabad on Wednesday, 20 September 2006. Hundreds of members of differentNGOs staged a protest against the delay in repealing Islamic Hudood Law on rape, Known as the Hudood Ordinance.

New Europe Page 27


The battle for religious free-dom often goes hand inhand with the struggle for

political independence, especiallywhen religion and the state are in-divisible. This is the case in Sudan,where for much of the past half-century the Arab Muslim north haswaged a merciless civil war againstNilotic southerners, who are Afri-can and mainly Christian or ani-mist.

In early 2011 voters in the au-tonomous region of South Sudanwill decide whether to secede fromthe north and create an indepen-dent sovereign state. According toall reliable opinion polling it is al-most certain that the south willtake this opportunity to control itsown destiny. Not surprisingly, lea-ders of the Christian churches in

South Sudan have urged souther-ners not to throw away this chanceto enshrine their inalienable rightto freedom of worship.

Ever since Sudan won indepen-dence from Britain in 1956, south-erners have been treated likesecond-class citizens in their owncountry. The south is characterizedby abject poverty and a serious lackof public investment in even themost basic infrastructure. As well asstarving the south of its fair shareof tax revenues, Khartoum has con-stantly sought to impose Islamistvalues and sharia law on the south.

Civil war broke out immediatelyafter independence and lasted se-venteen years.

A decade of uneasy peace follo-wed until the government in Khar-toum tried to tear up the AddisAbaba agreement, which had endedthe civil war. This agreement hadgranted the south considerable au-tonomy and had also recognizedthe very different religious heritageand practices in the south. Conflictbroke out again and lasted for 22years.

The renewed civil war causedthe deaths of at least two millionpeople, and caused many millionsmore to flee their homes. SouthSudan remains littered with land-mines. Only now are children inSouth Sudan going to school in-stead of learning how to shootguns. The civil war has left thesouth one of the least developedand neediest places on the planet.

The civil war finally came to an

end in 2005 with the signing of theComprehensive Peace Agreement.South Sudan gained a substantialdegree of autonomy and in the pastfive years has made some progresstowards rebuilding its infrastruc-ture and society. The churches andNGOs that played such a courage-ous role during the civil war by pro-viding moral and materialassistance to the south are now inthe business of saving souls and notjust saving lives.

When analysing the cause ofSudan’s horrifying history in recentdecades, it would be easy to blamecolonialism for creating the condi-tions in which religious tension de-veloped into war.

Undoubtedly the colonial auth-orities were deluding themselves ifthey expected religious harmony totake root in Sudan, such a massiveand diverse country, when it gainedindependence. But other countriesin the region, such as Kenya andUganda, have shown that they candevelop societies in which differentreligions can flourish.

Why did this not happen inSudan? Primarily because the lea-ders of Sudan in Khartoum have al-ways been wedded to a rigidIslamist vision of their country’sdevelopment, in which every aspectof state and private life is subject toand regulated by Islamic law. Thereare several examples of successfulMuslim-majority countries thathave not sought to impose Islam onreligious minorities – Tunisia, Se-negal, Bangladesh and Indonesia

are all countries where secular go-vernance and greater religious free-dom have contributed substantiallyto the development of progressive,forward-looking societies.

In Sudan’s case, however, astrain of radical Islam based onjihad took root in Khartoum in themid-1950s and we are still livingwith the consequences today, notleast in the strife-torn region ofDarfur. Sudan’s case has interestingparallels with Nigeria, which is di-vided on religious lines between theMuslim north (where sharia lawapplies) and the Christian south.Occasionally this tension spills overinto violence in which hundreds ofpeople are murdered. The expectedpartition of Sudan will undoub-tedly refocus attention on Nigeriaand the sustainability of its futureas a unitary state.

Often in cases of religious per-secution there is no obvious or ach-ievable solution to the problem.However, in Sudan the solution isobvious (at least to most souther-ners) and it is also achievable. Thereferendum on secession offersSouth Sudan a new perspective onthe future – a future in which sou-therners will no longer face perse-cution, marginalization andviolence because of their religiousbeliefs.

The American poet RobertFrost once said "Good fences makegood neighbours." This is as truefor warring ethnic communities inSudan as it is for the squabblingfarmers Frost was referring to.

by Charles TannockDr. Charles Tannock, MEP, is a British Conservative member of the European Parliament representing London and serves asECR Group coordinator on the Committee on Foreign Affairs

Sudan: a political solution to religious persecution?

Often in cases of religiouspersecution there is no obvi-ous or achievable solution tothe problem. However, inSudan the solution is obvious(at least to most southerners)and it is also achievable.

“

Flickr - Vít Hassan

New Europe Page 28


by Konrad SzymanskiKonrad Szymański is a member of the European Parliament from Poland, in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group

Persecution against Christians remains unnoticed

It is without doubt that thefreedom of religion consti-tutes a pillar of human ri-

ghts. It has been stated in theEuropean Convention for theProtection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms(Art. 9.1) and the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights(Art. 18). The practice showshowever that the persecutionon the grounds of religion orbelief is still present worldwide.According to the statistics atleast 75% of religious persecu-tion is directed against peopleof Christian faith and each yearabout 170,000 Christians suf-fer because of their beliefs. Thetotal number of faithful whoare discriminated amounts al-ready to 100 million. It's also aknown fact that more Chri-stians have been martyred inthe 20th century than in all theprior 1,900 years. All in all itmakes Christians the most per-secuted religious group.

Persecution may includealso obstacles to the proclama-tion of faith, confiscation anddestruction of places of wor-ship or prohibition of religioustraining and education.

Restrictions on religiontouch over half of the countriesand these contain more than80% of the global population.Interestingly the problem ispresent worldwide, irrespectiveof the country, its culturalbackground or political regime.Naturally the democratic regi-mes shall have fewer tendenciesfor violations of religious free-dom. Christians suffer becauseof radical Islam, sometimesHinduism or atheistic commu-nism.

Of course, the situation dif-fers from country to country.First of all we have to distin-guish between the state hosti-lity towards religiousminorities and social aversion,which the governments simplydo not know how to handle.

During the conferencewhich I have recently organisedtogether with Mr Mario MauroMEP on this topic, we have li-stened to the witnesses of per-secution representing variouscultures and backgrounds. Theyhave given very concrete exam-ples of the tragic situation intheir respective countries.

Our guest from Iraq, MgrLouis Sako, has presented thesituation of Christians there, in

a country with an Islamic ma-jority. He expressed great con-cern about the future existenceof Christian minority in Iraq asits number continues to dimi-nish. It is due to the differentforms of discrimination againstthis minority. There have beenalarming numbers of religi-ously motivated killings, bea-tings, rapes, forced conversions,marriages, and displacementfrom homes and businesses. Atthe same time, being Iraqi him-self he underlined a strong be-lief in the diplomatic means tobring back the freedom of reli-gion in his country. There is anurgent need for fostering re-conciliation among Iraqis, forpromotion of human rights inthat area and asking the go-vernments to respect the rules.

Another guest, Mr KokKsor has spoken on the behalfof the Montagnard people li-ving in Vietnam. This Chri-stian community enduresstrong pressures and infringe-ments of their rights from theVietnamese communist go-vernment. The pictures he de-scribed were horrifying, butagain these people do not wantto resort to other than peacefulmeans.

They do not want to leavetheir country either. Up to thepresent time though, the Viet-namese government have con-tinued to attack their villages,arrested, tortured or sent themto prisons. There is an openfight of the communist partywith the Christian belief. Stillthere is hope that the interna-tional community can exerciseits influence to improve the si-tuation in Vietnam.

A situation of the Christianminority is nearly the same dif-ficult in India, the largest worlddemocracy, where Christiansconstitute only 2.34% of thepopulation, as Dr T.M. Josephhas presented at our confe-rence. Unfortunately Christianshave become a target of the do-minant community, especiallyin the province inhabited bytheir majority, Orissa. Therehave been many radical inci-dents of physical violencenoted in the last years.

As a fruit of the mentionedconference, a written declara-tion on religious freedom is si-gned by the members of allfour biggest Parliamentary po-litical groups and hopefully

adopted soon by the majorityof the House. Among othersthis declaration "calls on theHigh Representative of theUnion for Foreign Affairs andSecurity Policy to incorporatethe subject of religious freedominto European external poli-cies".

Is it enough however howthe EU tackles the co-respon-sibility for the protection of re-ligious freedom in the world?Taking into account all thepossible political and financialinstruments that the EU insti-tutions have in their posses-sion, we must admit that theEU lips are still sealed.

Human rights always findtheir expression in a practicaldimension. Religious freedom,defence from the persecutions,especially against Christians, isnot a result of any political pre-ference. It is a demand of themoment coming from a situa-tional analysis in concrete poli-tical circumstances.

The European Union pos-sesses many instruments to im-prove the situation of thepersecuted Christians or otherreligious minorities in theworld. First of all, the emergingEU diplomacy shall react onevery incident of intolerance onthat ground. Secondly, all ofthe countries, which practicethe politics of religious oppres-sion, or which do not succes-sfully oppose the persecutions,develop political and economicrelations with the EU. Viet-nam, Iraq or India shall becomemore and more important part-ners for the Union. This part-nership however should beconditioned upon the guaran-tees of respect for the rights ofthe religious minorities, espe-cially of the persecuted, inmany different ways, Chri-stians.

Many countries such as Al-geria or Russia are our partnersin the Neighbourhood policy.This could be used as anotherinstrument of influence.

European silence on theproblems of religious freedomundermines our credibility inthe area of human rights in theworld. We have a clear obliga-tion in this field and nothingcan excuse us from a reaction tothe mass martyrdom of Chri-stians, which we witness in XXand XXI centuries.

Is it enough however how the EUtackles the co-responsibility for theprotection of religious freedom inthe world? Taking into account allthe possible political and financialinstruments that the EU institu-tions have in their possession, wemust admit that the EU lips are stillsealed.

“Alexandros Michailidis | www.alemi.gr

New Europe Page 29


by Sophia in ‘t VeldSophia in ‘t Veld is a member of the European Parliament from the Netherlands, in the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democratsin Europe. She is a member of the EU-Turkey JPC and vice-chair of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice, and Home Affairs

The need for a secular voice in the European Union

After decades of ongoing secularisa-tion, and despite declining churchattendance, churches and religious

groups are increasing their influence onEU policy making. The first half centuryof European integration was dedicatedlargely to policies of a more technical na-ture: coal and steel or the internal market.As Europe evolves from diplomatic coo-peration between governments, into a po-litical union, a community of citizens, theneed arises to define the shared values anddiscuss ethical questions.

Our values have already been laiddown formally in a wide range of treaties,conventions and laws. The EU Treatiesrefer to shared values and to fundamentalrights. The EU Charter of FundamentalRights, the European Convention on

Human Rights and the UN Universal De-claration of Human Rights provide a solidbasis for the protection and promotion ofour values.

Civil society actively naturally engagesin further defining the values of the Eu-ropean Union, including associations re-presenting various religious and secularistlife stances. This resulted in the inclusionof Article 17 of the Treaty on the Func-tioning of the European Union, statingthat the EU “shall maintain an open, tran-sparent and regular dialogue with thesechurches and organisations”. But in prac-tice, the “Dialogue” is very uneven and un-representative, as religious forces, inparticular the most conservative strand,have disproportionate influence on EUpolicy making. The secularist voice is ba-

rely heard in the debate.Most of these organisations have re-

presentatives in Brussels. However, unlikebusiness lobbies or NGOs, these organi-sations are not subject to the regular ruleson transparency. This is a serious omis-sion, as this means the political influenceof these organisations cannot be verified.All the more serious as religious organi-sations do not only have the regular advo-cacy tools of a lobby, but they can alsoapply the official rules and sanctions oftheir religious community – for exampleexcommunication - to policy makers, for-cing them to vote according to religiousdoctrine.

The Roman Catholic church has aspecial position, as the Vatican is at thesame time a state. The EU has diplomaticrelations with the Vatican, including anEU embassy. In past centuries, worldlyand ecclesiastical powers were closely lin-ked, and worldly rules sought divine legi-timation of their reign. Despite theofficial separation of church and state, inmany Member States we still find tracesof this century long cooperation. In con-trast, the EU institutions have been purelysecular from their inception. Attempts toinsert a reference to the Judaeo-Christianroots in the EU Treaty failed. But the le-aders of the EU institutions are seeking tocreate special ties between the EU and re-ligion. Within the office of EU Commis-sion President Barroso, a special unit hasbeen set up for the “Relations with reli-gion, churches and communities of con-viction”. Barroso stages annual “Summits”with religious leaders. The selection crite-ria for participants are unclear, as is the

procedure for deciding the agenda. In re-cent years the Presidents of the Parlia-ment and the Council have joined these“Summits”. Although there is no particu-lar basis for this in Article 17, Barroso haschosen to meet separately with religiousand secular groups. Barroso only acceptedto meet with secular groups after que-stions and pressure from Members of theEuropean Parliament.

A similar attitude was found in theprevious President of the European Par-liament, who had invited a series of religi-ous leaders to address the Plenary sessionof the European Parliament. Under pres-sure he agreed to add a secular speaker tothe list (the only woman, incidentally), butthe President of Parliament himself wasostentatiously absent during her addressto the plenary assembly.

The debates focus almost exclusivelyon a limited number of issues, relating toFundamental Rights, sexual and repro-ductive health rights, family, and marriage.Freedom of religion and freedom of spe-ech are another area of interest. Religiouslobbies have no strong interest in otherpolicy areas, such as transports or compe-tition policies. On the whole the most po-werful religious lobbies represent veryconservative views, sometimes even atodds with the EU Fundamental Rights,for example equal treatment of gay and le-sbian citizens. They make their presencefelt on dossiers like the Anti-Discrimina-tion directives, sexual and reproductivehealth rights in the context of the Millen-nium Development Goals, Developmentcooperation, the fight against HIV/Aids,or EU funding for stem cell research. Inmany cases they claim exemptions and ex-ceptions from EU Fundamental Rights,on grounds of freedom of religion.

The European version of the “Religi-ous Right” does not represent the majo-rity of European citizens. But they have astrong influence on policy making. As Eu-rope is becoming a mature political union,it is high time the secular voice be heard.Secular movements are highly diverse:atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists,but also liberal religious associations suchas Catholics for a Free Choice, women’srights and gay rights movements. But theyshare the view that the separation of ch-urch and state applies equally to the EUinstitutions, and they stand firm for EUFundamental Rights.

In the European Parliament the Plat-form for Secularism in Politics brings to-gether MEPs and NGOs. The debatescover a wide range of issues, from gay ri-ghts to conscientious objection in medi-cine, from apostasy within Islam to therole of Concordats. The affiliated NGOsare now setting up the Alliance for Secu-larism in Europe. The Platform and theAlliance will work towards a strong voicefor secularism the European Union.

In past centuries, worldly and ecclesiasti-cal powers were closely linked, andworldly rules sought divine legitimation oftheir reign. Despite the official separationof church and state, in many Member Sta-tes we still find traces of this century longcooperation.

“


New Europe Page 30


There is often considerable overlapbetween different grounds of di-scrimination. This is particularly

evident in respect of discrimination on thegrounds of ethnic origin and religion. In-deed, telling the two apart can sometimesbe quite difficult. Discriminators are notalways that discerning; they tend rather tolump all ‘otherness’ together and discrimi-nate accordingly.

Two groups which frequently sufferdiscrimination on account of a variety ofoverlapping prejudices are Jews and Mus-lims. These two groups may be discrimi-nated against not only on the grounds oftheir ethnic origins and often misunder-stood or presumed religious beliefs, butalso because of their presumed politicalbeliefs and responsibility for world events.Thus, European Jews are subject to abuseand even violence on account of a percei-ved responsibility for the situation in Is-rael and the Occupied Territories, whileEuropean Muslims are often indiscrimi-nately associated with extremist views andviolent ideologies.

Discrimination on these overlappinggrounds takes various forms includingviolent attacks, interference with the free-dom of religion and expression and thedenial of equal access to employment,goods and services.

Anti-Semitism has a long and painfulhistory in Europe. Even if the public ex-pression of anti-Semitic sentiment is lesscommon today than it once was, it stillenjoys widespread popular currency and itunfortunately not always countered with

the force it should be. As a result, indivi-dual acts of anti-Semitism, including vio-lent attacks on Jewish people and thedesecration of places of worship and bu-rial, still occur with disturbing frequencyacross Europe.

Islamophobia in Europe is, in its cur-rent guise, a more recent phenomenoncoinciding with the large-scale arrival ofMuslim immigrants in most western Eu-ropean countries over the last 50 years.This short period has been sufficient, ho-wever, for Islamophobia to penetrate deepinto the mainstream of public discourseand political debate.

Even if it is often difficult to distin-guish from a broader xenophobia, it is

clear that Islamophobia exists as a distinctand deeply troubling phenomenon thathas been significantly exacerbated by thereaction to the 11 September 2001 attacksin the USA. The result has been a varietyof human rights violations.

The rising tide of Islamophobia hasresulted in increased discriminationagainst Muslims and individuals presu-med to be Muslims in all areas of life.Even long-standing Muslim communitiesface difficulties in exercising their rightsto freely practice their religion with theconstruction of mosques often being pre-vented by strong local resistance and exi-sting places of worship occasionally, butincreasingly being subject to vandalism

and arson attacks. Discrimination againstMuslims in the area of employment, par-ticularly of women wearing religious clo-thing, is widespread across Europe.Indeed, the right to wear religious dress isitself being increasingly contested.

Europe’s Muslims have also been bothspecifically targeted and disproportiona-tely affected by a range of security measu-res which, ostensibly designed to counterthe threat of terrorism, have often resul-ted in serious human rights violations.Ethnic profiling has resulted in Muslimsbeing disproportionately stopped, sear-ched and arrested, with negligible resultsin terms of successful prosecutions.

Under hastily introduced counter-ter-rorism laws, Muslims suspected of oftenonly the most oblique involvement in ter-rorism-related activities, have faced pro-longed preventive detention, the denial ofdue process and removal to countrieswhere they face a real risk of being sub-jected to torture or other ill-treatment. Inaddition to the violations of the rights ofindividuals, such measures have fed popu-lar prejudices and contributed further tothe alienation of Europe’s Muslim com-munities.It is clear that the human rightsframework cannot provide all the answersto the many challenges posed by Europe’srich diversity.

It does, however, provide a minimumset of rights and obligations, which, if bet-ter respected, would contribute greatly tothe harmonious flourishing of Europe’smany different peoples, traditions, cultu-res, languages and relgions.

by Nicolas BergerNicolas Berger is the Director of Amnesty International’s European Institutions Office in Brussels

Human rights: the basis of harmony

Even long-standing Muslim communitiesface difficulties in exercising their rights to fre-ely practice their religion with the construc-tion of mosques often being prevented bystrong local resistance and existing places ofworship occasionally, but increasingly beingsubject to vandalism and arson attacks.

“Spyros Paloukis | www.spyrospaloukis.com

New Europe Page 31


by Greg AustinDr. Greg Austin is Vice President at the EastWest Institute and Director of EWI’s Global Security Program and Policy Innovation. Hehas also held senior posts at the International Crisis Group and the Foreign Policy Centre London

Muslims living in fear

“Iam not a fascist, a nazi, a terrorist,a criminal or violent. But I am con-stantly being forced on the defen-

sive”. This is one piece of the evidence of aMuslim student to a Dutch court hearingrace-hate charges against Geert Wilders, amember of parliament in October this year.According to Wilders: “Islam is not a reli-gion, it's an ideology, the ideology of a re-tarded culture. I have a problem withIslamic tradition, culture, ideology.” Inanother place he says: “The Koran is a fa-scist book which incites violence.” He cal-led for it to be banned, like Hitler’s bookMein Kampf.

The current Netherlands government,currently a minority government, has cometo office by relying on the support of Wil-ders’ party. This was a sad day for demo-cracy and for the Netherlands.

Switch to the United States and NewtGingrich, former Republican speaker ofthe House of Representatives. He calledMuslim organizers of a planned religiouscentre near Ground Zero in New York “ra-dical Islamists” interested in “supremacy”and likened them to Nazis wanting to putup a sign beside the Holocaust memorialor Japanese wanting to put up a sign atPeal Harbor.

New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg,countered Gingrich by saying it would bea “sad day for America” if opponents of the

planned religious centre got their way. Pre-sident Obama also backed the right of theorganizers of the centre to go ahead withtheir plans.

Islamophobia is now at the centre ofnational politics in a number of liberal de-mocratic countries. It has surfaced stron-gly in international politics. TheOrganization of Islamic Conference, aninternational grouping of 57 countries, hasinitiated a global campaign against Isla-mophobia. Al Qaeda has taken note of therising hostility to Muslims and threatenedretaliation for it. There is an escalating cli-mate of fear and hate around this religionin too many places.

What is Islamophobia? According tothe Runnymede Trust, it has many facesthat include the following. Islam is seen “asa monolithic bloc, static and unresponsiveto change”. It is seen as inferior to theWest, barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist,violent, aggressive, threatening, supportiveof terrorism and engaged in a 'clash of ci-vilizations'. It is seen as a political ideology.The Trust also noted that hostility towardsIslam is used to justify discriminatorypractices towards Muslims.

Runnymede, a name taken by the Trustmentioned above, is the place in Britainwhere the Magna Carta was signed, thedocument seen as one of the principal so-urces of political and civil rights enjoyed

across Europe today. Ironically, the docu-ment was bound by its time. The first pro-vision in it does not grant religiousfreedom but grants freedom to organizedreligion, the “Church”. That tells us some-thing. Religion has always been highly po-liticized and remains so. In fact, religiousfreedom (freedom of conscience) is argua-bly one of the last freedoms to arrive, isoften the most politically contested andthe most fragile. One reason is that beca-use a religion offers potentially decisiveviews on what is right and wrong, all sortsof demagogues see it as very fertile ground

for sowing the seeds of division and hateto produce a false flower of legitimacy fortheir own political goals.

The revolutions of Europe and theUnited States over two centuries ago weresupposed to have forced the separation ofstate and religion, and to have guaranteedfreedom of conscience. All citizens mighttherefore reasonably expect governmentsin liberal pluralist democracies (and theirparliamentarians) not to implement policyor act in any way to appease religious hateor an irrational discomfort with Islam. Op-pose Islamophobia, now.


merican Progress

English Defence League supporters and anti-fascist supporters clash in Birmingham city centre.

Al Qaeda has taken note of the rising ho-stility to Muslims and threatened retalia-tion for it. There is an escalating climate offear and hate around this religion in toomany places.

“

New Europe Page 32


by George Readings George Readings is a Research Fellow and Communications Officer for Quilliam, the world’s f irst counter-extremism think tank

Religious freedom and extremism

During the 2009/2010 academicyear, a small clique of extremistswas able to take over the Islamic

Society at City University, London. Fromthis position, they preached that peoplewho choose to leave Islam should be kil-led, declared Shi’a Muslims not to beMuslims and left Jewish students so inti-midated that, rather than praying in the‘interfaith’ prayer room, they felt saferusing empty class rooms and lecture hallsinstead. They even taught that other SunniMuslim students, if they chose not to prayfive times a day, should be killed as “apo-states”.

When they were challenged, this group– who had trampled over the religious fre-edom of students they disagreed with –complained that “Islamophobes” were de-nying them their right to religious free-dom. This has all been documented by mycolleague, Lucy James, in a ground-brea-king briefing published recently by Quil-liam about radicalisation of students atCity University.

Elsewhere in London, as reported re-cently in the British press, preachers lin-ked to Khatme Nubawwat Academy, aBritish offshoot of a Pakistani group, alsoexercised their “religious freedom”. Theydid so by teaching that Ahmadis are notMuslims and warning that any attempt tochange laws in Pakistan forbidding Ahma-dis from describing themselves as Muslims

would be met with violence on a similarscale to a 1953 massacre of Ahmadis inLahore.

“Religious freedom” is the legal rightto believe, not believe, or change one’smind about believing, in whatever god orgods one chooses, but what meaning doesit really have if extremists can exploit it tojustify attacks on the religious freedom ofothers? And should “religious freedom” re-ally be a carte blanche for religious belie-vers to act however they like, so long asthey can argue that it is “part of their reli-gion”?

The answers to these questions may, attimes, seem obvious. For example, nobodywould argue that “religious freedom” allowsa group to engage in terrorist violence. Atthe other end of the spectrum, however,does “religious freedom” allow a parent towithdraw their child from sex educationclasses in school? Or to force them to weara kippah, kara, headscarf, or even face-veil?

In the two cases above, the groups in-volved clearly held no brief for the conceptof “religious freedom”. Indeed, they hopedto deny it to people whose views were notcompatible with their own. Moreover, theirintimidatory behaviour may have had im-mediate and practical consequences on theability of others to exercise their religiousfreedom. Should such behaviour really passwithout comment in the name of “religi-ous freedom”, as the extremists themselves

argue? “Religious freedom” is a vital prin-ciple because it allows a diverse and plura-listic society to survive. But so do otherprinciples, like the rule of law, equality, de-mocracy, and freedom of speech. As such,“religious freedom” cannot be allowed toundermine these other principles. Forexample, “religious freedom” allows an in-dividual to believe that Ahmadis are notMuslim, but it doesn’t exempt this view-point from criticism. And it certainly do-esn’t allow a bending of the law to permitinciting hatred, or even violence, againstAhmadis.

Inevitably, discussion of what is andwhat is not legitimate “religious freedom”will carry on as long as there are multi-re-ligious societies, and different understan-dings of what it means will be reached indifferent countries and at times. At pre-sent, for example, the French ‘burka ban’ isunthinkable in Britain, but this may not al-ways be the case.

Equally inevitable is the fact that ex-tremists like Khatme Nubawwat Academyand the clique at City University will con-tinue to exist, and will continue to be inte-rested in “religious freedom” only so far asit provides a way to discourage and discre-dit their critics. This means that, whilst re-ligious freedom is key to allowingpluralistic and diverse societies to survive,so is challenging extremists who exploitthis important right to deny it to others.

Students of City University's Islamic society conduct outdoor prayers in On 2 February 2010, supporting that they were ‘forced’ toconduct their prayers outside although they were adamant that this was ‘by no means a demonstration... [r]ather it is an obligation’.

citymuslim

s.co.uk

New Europe Page 33


by Willy Fautré Willy Fautré is the director of Human Rights Without Frontiers (Brussels) and Member of the InternationalConsortium on Law and Religion Studies (ICLRS)

Full veil, burqa, niqab, hijab… a challenge to ‘European’ values?

The recent adoption of a lawbanning the burqa (1) inthe public square in France

is posing the problem of the inter-sectionality of religious freedom,cultural rights and women’s rights,one of the most complex humanrights issues in today’s globalworld. The religious, sacred and culturalare sometimes so intimately inter-woven that it is difficult to differ-entiate between them. Societiesdominated by men and by the ruleof religion have adopted a numberof practices which are not explic-itly prescribed by their holy books,such as the preservation of girls’virginity by genital mutilation, orthe eradication of sinful sexual re-lations by honor killings. Clothingrestrictions and obligations im-posed by states or by religiousgroups (but also freely chosen bywomen), whether they are rootedin religious principles or not, aredebated publicly, not only in Mus-lim countries but also in European,American and Asian countrieswhere Islam is a minority religion.

Situation in some Muslim countriesIn Egypt, the Ministry of Healthhas prohibited the wearing of theniqab (2) by nurses in hospitals. In

Iraq, the niqab was banned by afatwa. In Kuwait, women wearingthe niqab have been banned fromdriving for security reasons. InSaudi Arabia, people in charge ofpublic security have started a battleagainst the niqab after discoveringthat many Islamic terrorists haveused it to hide in and commit ter-ror attacks. In Syria, students andteachers are not allowed to wearthe full Islamic veil.

Legislation and practice in some EUcountriesWith regard to the EU memberstates, a wide variety of policiesrange from the ban, to the accom-modation in the public sphere, inschools and in state institutions.No legislative provision explicitlydeals with the wearing of theburqa in Austria, Denmark, Ger-many, Sweden.In other countries, there is no leg-islative provision either but localinstitutional initiatives have beentaken to ban it indirectly.In Italy, several municipal councilshave adopted decrees banning theburqa on the controversial basis oftwo laws on public security.In the Netherlands, there is nogeneral rule banning the full veil ineducational institutions but someschools have adopted regulationsbanning the burqa and their deci-sions have been endorsed by theCommission on Equal Treatment. In Spain, a handful of towns andcities have banned the wearing ofburqas and niqabs in municipalbuildings, including in the coun-try’s second-largest city ofBarcelona in June.In UK, the Ministry of Educationreleased a circular letter aboutschool uniforms in October 2007,which allowed the school councilsto have an interior regulation andto ban the burqa on the grounds ofsecurity or of the nature and qual-ity of the classes. On the basis of a decree releasedon 22 March 2006 in the Begumcase, the House of Lords consid-ered that the school had not vio-lated the right to manifest one’sreligion or beliefs when excludinga female student who wanted toattend classes with a jilbab (a longdress worn with a hood or a veil). In Belgium‘s lower house of par-liament almost unanimously de-cided on 29 April 2010 to banburqa-type Islamic dress in publicbut the draft law still needs to beapproved by the Senate and polit-ical life has been paralyzed by a

political stalemate since the parlia-mentary elections in June.By now, the wearing of the full veilin public is prohibited in an in-creasing number of municipalities,especially in Flanders. These bansare accompanied by administrativefines which can amount to 250 €.In 2009, the city of Brussels finedonly 29 women - down from 33 in2008 - for wearing a burqa-typedress.Up to now, France is the only EUmember to have adopted a nationallaw banning the burqa in the pub-lic square. The legislation wasoverwhelmingly approved by thelower house of parliament in July.In September, the law was passedat the Senate by a vote of 246 toone, with about 100 abstentionscoming essentially from left-lean-ing politicians.

Society attitudes throughout the EUIn Austria, a debate was initiatedby Social Democrat Minister forWomen and Public Services,Gabriele Heinisch-Hoseck, to-wards formulating laws that wouldban the full veil in public spaces ifthe number of women wearing itwere to increase dramatically.In Denmark, the majority ofDanes are opposed to the wearingof a full veil by Muslim women inthe streets. Moreover, the penaltyfor forcing a woman to wear theburqa has recently been increasedto four years imprisonment.In Germany, a survey conductedin April-May 2010 found that theGerman public strongly supports aban on the full veil: 71% approvewhile just 28% disapprove.In Italy, 63 % of the Italians are infavor of a ban. In the Netherlands, only about150 women are said to wear thehead-to-toe burqa or the niqaband people think a general banwould heighten alienation amongthe country’s Muslims, who num-ber approximately 1 million.In Spain, a survey conducted inApril-May 2010 found that thepublic strongly supports a ban onthe full veil: 59% approve whilejust 37 % disapprove.In Sweden, according to a censusmade by Expressen (independentlyliberal) and the Swedish researchconsultancy Demoskop, 53 % ofthe Swedish population want a lawagainst wearing burqa and niqab inpublic, while 46 % are said to beagainst a prohibition.In France, a survey conducted inApril-May 2010 found that the

French public overwhelmingly en-dorses the government’s ban: 82%approve of a ban on Muslimwomen wearing full veils in public,including schools, hospital andgovernment offices, while just 17%disapprove.

Ban on the full veil: pros and consThree categories of arguments aremainly used by the supporters of afull or partial ban on the full veil:security, women’s rights and inte-gration in the European valuessystem.Security: Some states have bannedor want to ban the full veil on thegrounds of public safety and arguethat the police need to see thefaces of everybody on the streets inorder to prevent criminal activities(i.e. hold ups) and suicide-bomb-ings, to identify criminals or pris-oners on the run, to find missingpersons, and so on.For security reasons, the veil andthe full veil may also need to bebanned at the workplace.Women’s rights: Westerners, non-Muslims, and many Muslimwomen are actively fighting whatthey consider the subjugation andsubordination of women throughthe imposition of the full veil.However, a ban could furtherworsen the plight of those who arecoerced by family or by the dictatesof tradition to cover themselves inpublic. Many believe that by mak-ing the burqa and the niqab illegal,a lot of women would be forced tostay at home, which would furtheralienate them and deprive them oftheir freedom of movement, theirright to education, their access topublic and health services, eco-nomic opportunities and theirability to seek advice or support.. European/ French values: One ofthe most pervasive underlying as-sumptions in the discourse on Eu-ropean Muslim integration is thatMuslim religiosity is incompatiblewith and a threat to European val-ues. In France, president Sarkozyheld that wearing a full veil is in-compatible with France’s republi-can values. With such argument,the French government, it will givestrong arguments to such hardlin-ers as Iran’s president MahmoudAhmadinejad who will be toohappy to defend the Iran’s republi-can values and impose a strict dresscode to all women, including toEuropean female tourists. Is thatwhat the supporters of the defenceof national or European values andidentity really want?

AN

A/EPA

/NAQ

EEB AH

MED

A file picture dated 08 June 2010shows Burqa clad Afghan women.

New Europe Page 34


by Andy DarmooAndy Darmoo is a member of the Save the Assyrians Campaign

Assyrian Christians face destruction in Iraq

New Europe has asked me to writean article for this supplement fo-cusing on religious freedom, par-

ticularly regarding the situation beingfaced by the Assyrian Christians of Iraq.Since 2003, members of this ancient com-munity have been increasingly forced toabandon their homes, sometimes literarywith nothing except a bag of clothes, andcatch the nearest bus to take them to theborders of Jordan, and nowadays Syria.These two countries, which are not weal-thy countries, have thankfully openedtheir doors to millions of refugees, due tothe carnage in Iraq – whether due toabductions, rape or murder, which arecontinuing to take place daily. This isespecially highlighted in October’s attackon a church in Baghdad, when many ofthe congregation were held hostage forhours and then killed by terrorists, whomay have been from Egypt, Yemen or nei-ghbouring countries.

While a British citizen for forty years,I was born in Iraq and am myself an As-syrian Christian. Assyrians are the indige-nous people of Iraq and were the first toembrace Christianity as their national re-ligion in the first century AD. It is wellknown that Assyrians speak Aramaic, thelanguage believed to be spoken by theLord Jesus Christ; we pride ourselves tobe the first people to embrace Christia-nity.

Over the years of sanctions I had tra-

velled to Iraq to help provide much-nee-ded humanitarian and medical aid, so Iwas aware of conditions facing Assyriansin the country at the time, particularly inBaghdad. Sanctions certainly took theirtoll, but providing Assyrians steered clearof politics they were largely left alone bythe regime.

However, following the war in 2003catastrophe struck. It is unbelievable thateven under the previous regime Assyriansdid not face the type of insecurity facednow, even after seven years. It is estimatedthat since the invasion about half of allChristians have left their homes. Somehave fled to the north or have escaped tocountries like Syria, Jordan and Lebanon,while others have eventually reached Eu-rope. These people are living in these co-untries as refugees and need support withbasic needs such as housing and medica-tion.

The situation for Assyrian Christianshas grown steadily worse over the years inthe seven years since the invasion. Bagh-dad and Mosul are still dangerous placesfor Christians, with numerous examples ofhorrendous anti-Christian atrocities in-cluding kidnapping and murder. Of co-urse, churches have been targeted andAssyrians are finding it extremely difficultto care for the vulnerable and needy in thecommunity.

After the invasion, with a British jour-nalist friend, I started a campaign called

Save the Assyrians. The intention was toput pressure on the West to use its powerto ensure the Iraqi Government guaran-teed the rights of its Assyrian and Chri-stian community.

Sadly, these efforts have fallen on deafears. There have been meetings in Wash-ington, in New York at the UN, with theEuropean Commission, but nothing hasresulted from any of these. Even as re-cently as July this year, I was invited to ameeting of the various Christian denomi-nations in Iraq (as I had dealt with someof the delegates previously), and attendedon behalf of the Save the Assyrians cam-paign. Unfortunately, I can report that no-thing progressed – we had good listenersfrom the US State Department and Con-gress but that is all.

More concrete steps have needed to betaken against successive Iraqi Govern-ments to force them to meet their obliga-tions to its own people, particularly thosewho represent such an integral part of thecountry’s rich heritage.

We have tried working through theEuropean Parliament to raise awareness ofthe situation being faced.

A resolution was passed in the Euro-pean parliament thanks to Dr CharlesTannock MEP and Glyn Ford, a formerMEP, together with many other honoura-ble members. But unfortunately becauseof the continuing problems with Iraq,such as corruption and the warring fac-

tions running the country, nothing hasbeen done. Since this resolution was pas-sed, there has been no improvement in thesituation – in fact, it has only gottenworse, not helped by there still not beinga government in place so long after Iraq’slast elections.

Since the scale of the exodus of Assy-rians from Iraq has became clear, we havealso sought funds to provide humanitarianaid for those now living in terrible condi-tions, whether in Syria or those internallydisplaced to the north of the country. Un-fortunately, the EU has been very slow inproviding any assistance to non-Muslimcommunities in Iraq. Instead, we havebeen kindly helped by various British andAmerican charities, who not only providebasic help with food and medication, butare also trying to rebuild communitieswhich are in exile.

I hope this article has given you an ap-preciation of what is being faced by Iraq’sAssyrian Christians. You can help us inour efforts by writing to both your localmember of parliament and your MEP toput pressure on your government and theEU to use whatever influence it has tohelp this community.

We cannot continue to allow one of ci-vilisation’s oldest communities to simplydrain away from its ancestral homelandand disappear, especially as we in Europeare supposed to place a high regard forother people’s human rights.

AN

A/EPA

/OLIVIER H

OSLET

Syriac-Chaldean-Assyrian of Iraq protest in front of the European Union headquaters in Brussels.

It is estimated thatsince the invasionabout half of all Chri-stians have left theirhomes. Some havefled to the north orhave escaped to co-untries like Syria, Jor-dan and Lebanon,while others haveeventually reachedEurope.

“

New Europe Page 35


by Francisco Jaime QuesadoFrancisco Jaime Quesado is the General Manager of the Innovation and Knowledge Society in Portugal

The new frontiers Flickr - Kevin Krejci

The world is rethinking its frontiers.When Jurgen Habermas spokeabout this special global capacity of

creating a new commitment between thecitizens toward the challenge of the fu-ture, he was in fact speaking about thiscommitment with New Frontiers in a glo-bal and complex world. Based in newstandards of Law and Democracy, theseNew Frontiers are above all the confirma-tion that in this new world the individualperformance in a complex society is pos-sible, desirable and above all necessary forthe future.

These New Frontiers allow people toknow who they are and have a strongcommitment with the values of freedom,social justice and development. This is thereason to believe that a new standard ofDemocracy, more than a possibility, is anindividual and collective necessity for allof us, effective global citizens.

Habermas is more than ever present –the difference of this new world will be inthe exercise of the capacity of the indivi-dual participation as the central contribu-tion to the reinvention of the collectivesociety. I times of Change and Uncer-tainty, the World must regain its StrategicCompetitive Advantage but at the sametime must be able to reinforce its SocialDimension.

In this way it´s essential to learn the les-sons that more than ever emerge from aworld that is trying to rebuild its compe-titive advantage and to reinvent its effec-tive place in a complex and global networkof relations.

In the New Global Economy and Inno-vation Society, people and companies havea central role to play towards a new atti-tude connected with the creation of valueand focus on creativity.

In a time of change, the world can´twait. The world must confirm itself as an“enabler actor” in a very demanding world,introducing in the society and in the eco-nomy a capital of trust and innovationthat is essential to ensure a central leader-ship in the future relations betwen the dif-ferent social and economic players. Thesenew actors should be more and more glo-bal, capable of driving to the social matrixa unique dynamic of knowledge buildingand selling it as a mobile asset on the glo-bal market.

This New Contract of trust betweenthe different actors must be supported bysome strategic proposals that demand fora new operational agenda. The worldmust know how to integrate in a positiveway most of the citizens that want to de-velop new ideas. Social cohesion is donewith the constructive participation of thecitizens and it is more and more necessaryan effective attitude of mobilization forthis effort.

A positive integrative policy is a signalthat the different actors have a commonroad to follow in the future.

At the same time, Innovation and Te-chnology must be the “enablers” for com-petitiveness in this New World.Universities and Companies must per-form a new strategic partnership centeredin the objectives of the added value, crea-

tivity and knowledge. This is the basis fora future effective implementation of aCompetitive Strategy, which must be fol-lowed by every citizen. The global worldhas still a strong opportunity to imple-ment an agenda of innovation – the op-portunity is more and more know and itcan´t be lost.

The world is facing a new strategic ch-allenge. Reinventing this world and givingthe different Actors (States, Universities,Enterprises, Civil Society) the opportu-nity of developing new challenges focusedon innovation and creativity is in a largesense giving a central contribution to aNew Global Order.

The Reinvention of the world is the

reinvention of its people and institutions.An active commitment, in which thefocus in the participation and develop-ment of new competences, on a collabo-rative basis, must be the key of thedifference.

This is a process that is not determinedby law. It is effectively constructed by allthe actors in a free and collaborative stra-tegic interaction. The Reinvention of theworld is the reinvention of its people andinstitutions. An active commitment, inwhich the focus in the participation anddevelopment of new competences, on acollaborative basis, must be the key of thedifference. This is purpose of the Newfrontiers.

Habermas is more than ever present – thedifference of this new world will be in theexercise of the capacity of the individual par-ticipation as the central contribution to thereinvention of the collective society.

“

From the outside, today’s Turkey appearsas if it differs markedly from yesterday’sTurkey. However, one should always

bear in mind that not everything that shinesis gold. As a result of the decision made inDecember 2004 by the European Union(EU) to start the accession negotiations withTurkey, the recent years have witnessed a se-ries of widely acclaimed reform packages andconstitutional amendments in this ever morede-Christianized, Islamified state. Despite these developments, most expertsagree that Turkey still has a long way to go inorder to achieve “stability of institutions gua-ranteeing democracy, the rule of law, humanrights, respect for and protection of minori-ties.” In the case of the Aramean people, thispart of the Copenhagen criteria, which formthe basis in the negotiation process with can-didate countries since 1993, exposes Turkey’sapparent lack of commitment to Europe’s va-lues.1. The Aramean (Syriac) People of Turkey Most politicians, journalists, writers and ac-tivists are not familiar with the Aramean pe-ople and their historical presence in SoutheastTurkey. Briefly, five facts are worth stressing: 1.1 Indigenous: Contrary to the Turks andthe Kurds, who as latecomers are foreign toSoutheast Turkey, the Arameans and theirAramaic language are indigenous to this co-untryside, as corroborated by written evidencedating back to the 12th century B.C.1.2 People: Rather than a religious commu-nity, the Arameans are a people or statelessnation, and this is how their vast majority in-creasingly perceive and call themselves. InTurkey, the ethno-religious Arameans histo-rically consist of the Syriac (Orthodox, Ca-tholic, Protestant), Chaldean and Nestorian(or: ‘Assyrian’) communities. 1.3 Name: The Syriac Orthodox Patriarchaptly wrote about the synonymy of theirnames: “The Syriac language is the Aramaiclanguage itself, and the Arameans are the Sy-rians themselves. He who has made a di-

stinction between them has erred.” Thereexists an academic consensus on this issue, asthere also is one that states that ‘Assyrian’ is ahistorically unfounded and politicized namethat was invented in the 19th century. 1.4 Diaspora: As a result of systematic ethniccleansing, land theft, persecutions and discri-mination by the Turkish State, often with thehelp of Kurdish auxiliaries, the Arameans fledfrom their homeland. Today some 25,000Arameans reside in Turkey, among whomcirca 2,500 souls have remained in SoutheastTurkey. The number of Aramean Europeanssubstantially exceeds the number of Arame-ans in this region.1.5 Leadership: In the diaspora, particularlyin Europe, the Arameans have tasted the de-lights of true democracy, freedom and equalcitizenship. In the secularized and free West,secular organizations emerged in addition tothe churches and monasteries aiming at or-ganizing, defending and representing theAramean people and their rights.

2. The Aramean Question in TurkeyThe Aramean Question in Turkey consists ofpast and present cases of many human rightsviolations which have never been addressedby Turkey or the international community.Due to limited space, only four sub-questionswill be mentioned. Rather than elaboratingthem, as experts have done many times be-fore, it has been decided to ask Turkey reaso-nable questions which represent the voice andthe desire of the Aramean people. It is hopedthat this will initiate an official dialogue withthe Turkish Government, conceivably coor-dinated by the EU. 2.1 Lack of Recognition & Legal Status1. What is Turkey’s position on recognizingthe Arameans as a ‘minority’, in conformitywith international law and the Lausanne Tre-aty from 1923, much like the Greeks, Arme-nians and Jews, so that they are allowed toestablish their own schools, teach their Ara-maic language and freely practice their Chri-

stian faith? 2. What is Turkey’s view on recognizing theArameans as an ‘indigenous people’, in kee-ping with the UN Declaration of the Rightsof Indigenous Peoples signed by Turkey in2007 and explicitly stated in Resolution 1704of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Coun-cil of Europe?

2.2 Illegal Land Occupation3. What is Turkey’s stance towards the conti-nuation of the illegal expropriation by theState of huge amounts of land historically andlegally belonging to the Arameans, as affir-med by the European Union and the Parlia-mentary Assembly of the Council of Europe?4. When will Turkey end the delays of courtcases, noted by the European Court ofHuman Rights Annual Report 2009, thatAramean monasteries, villages and proprie-tors are facing?

2.3 Endangered Aramaic Cultural Heritage5. Is the Turkish Government willing to takeany responsibility in restoring, safeguarding,developing and promoting the endangeredAramaic cultural heritage of Southeast Tur-key? 6. Is the Turkish Government prepared to as-sist and facilitate the Arameans who originatefrom Turkey in preserving their threatenedlanguage, culture and identity?

2.4 Return Migration: The Future of Tur-Abdin7. Is Turkey ready to invest structurally in itssouth-eastern terrain, above all in improvingthe security, infrastructure and facilities fornormal life circumstances there that maydraw Aramean refugees back to the land oftheir ancestors? 8. Can Turkey ensure that the Tur-Abdin re-gion in Southeast Turkey remains populatedby its original Aramean inhabitants in thenext decades, if not centuries?

3. The ball is in Turkey’s courtThe Arameans have an ancient history inTurkey and are one of the oldest Christianpeoples in the world. Despite genocide, mi-streatment and discrimination, they have al-ways remained loyal and peaceful citizens.Noting that the Christian Arameans havefled from their homeland and in the past de-cades have frequently expressed the desire tobe officially recognized by the Turkish Go-vernment as a ‘minority’, according to the La-usanne Treaty, in order to obtain a legal statusso that they can start building up a future intheir ancestral land, Turkey can now demon-strate how sincere its commitments to the va-lues and principles of the EU truly are.The Arameans, above all, ask for equal citi-zenship, based on a new constitution thatmeets the standards of the EU and whichlaws will effectively be implemented. Theystrife for the recognition of their people andhistoric presence in Southeast Turkey. Theyask not to be treated as foreigners or as a fifth-column by Turkish society, led by the main-stream media and biased textbooks. In fact,Turkey should embrace and integrate the na-tive Arameans as an ambitious people whocan enrich it culturally, intellectually, spiri-tually and economically. With their expe-rience in the Western diaspora, the Arameansmay even become beneficial to Turkey in as-sisting Turkish society in the continuing pro-cess of democratization. Between the seventh and tenth centuriesA.D., the Arameans brought the Mesopota-mian and Greek sciences to the Arabs wholater exported this knowledge to Europe. Pe-rhaps with their Christian background and asa people that has integrated most successfullyin European countries, the Arameans mayonce again form a bridge between two civili-zations, this time between Turkey and theEU. In any case, the ball of democratization isin Turkey’s court.

New Europe


by Johny MessoJohny Messo is President of the Syriac Universal Alliance

The Sincerity of Turkey’s Democracy?The Case of the Indigenous Aramean (Syriac) People

Flickr | Senol Dem

ir

Syriac-Orthodox St. Akhsnoyo church at Midyat, Turkey

The Arameans, above all, ask for equal citi-zenship, based on a new constitution thatmeets the standards of the EU and which lawswill effectively be implemented. They strife forthe recognition of their people and historic pre-sence in Southeast Turkey. They ask not to betreated as foreigners or as a fifth-column byTurkish society, led by the mainstream mediaand biased textbooks.

“

The Ecumenical PatriarchateT

he Ecumenical Patriarchate is the highest see and holiest center of the Or-thodox Christian Church throughout the world. It is an institution with ahistory spanning seventeen centuries, during which it retained its see in

Constantinople (present-day Istanbul). It constitutes the center of all the local Or-thodox Churches, heading these not by administration but by virtue of its primacyin the ministry of pan-Orthodox unity and the coordination of the activity of thewhole of Orthodoxy.

The function of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as center par excellence of the lifeof the entire Orthodox world emanates from its centuries-old ministry in the wit-ness, protection and outreach of the Orthodox faith. The Ecumenical Patriarchatetherefore possesses a supra-national and supra-regional character. From this loftyconsciousness and responsibility for the people of Christ, regardless of race and lan-guage, were born the new regional Churches of the East, from the Caspian to theBaltic, and from the Balkans to Central Europe. This activity today extends to theFar East, to America and Australia.

Orthodox Christians on all continents, which do not fall under the jurisdictionof the autocephalous (independent) or autonomous (semi-independent) Churches,fall under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The most impor-tant of the autocephalous Churches are the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, An-tioch and Jerusalem (together with the ancient Archdiocese of Mt. Sinai), thePatriarchates of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia, as well as the Ch-urches of Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, and the Church of the Czech Landsand Slovakia. The autonomous Churches include those of Finland and of Estonia.Consequently, the Orthodox Churches in Europe, America, Australia and Britain,which are not under the jurisdiction of the aforementioned autocephalous Churches,lie within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. All Orthodox feel that theyare constituents of one essentially spiritual community, wherein "when one mem-ber suffers, so do all." It is a true sense of unity in diversity.

Following the establishmentof Constantinople (the an-cient city of Byzantium) as thestate capital of the RomanEmpire in the early part of thefourth century, a series of si-gnificant ecclesiastical eventssaw the status of the Bishop ofthe new Rome (as Constanti-nople was then called) eleva-ted to its current position andprivilege. The Church ofConstantinople is traditionallyregarded as being founded bySt. Andrew, the “first called” ofthe Apostles. The 3rd canonof the Second EcumenicalCouncil held in Constantino-ple (381) conferred upon thebishop of this city second rankafter the Bishop of Rome.

Less than a century later, the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Councilheld in Chalcedon (451) offered Constantinople equal ranking to Rome andspecial responsibilities throughout the rest of the world and expanding its ju-risdiction to territories hitherto unclaimed.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate holds an honorary primacy among the au-tocephalous, or ecclesiastically independent, Churches. It enjoys the privilegeof serving as "first among equals." It is also known as the "Roman" Patriar-chate (hence the Turkish phrase: Rum Patrikhanesi), recalling its historicalsource as the Church of New Rome, the new capital of the Roman Empire,transferred in 330 from Old Rome to Byzantium by Constantine

the Great. The first bishop of the city of Byzantium was St. Stachys (38-54), a disciple of the Apostle Andrew. In 330, Byzantium was renamed Con-stantinople and New Rome, while its bishopric was elevated to anarchbishopric. The Metropolitan of Heraclea, to whom Byzantium was for-

merly subject, now came under the jurisdiction of Constantinople and en-joyed the privileges of the latter's most senior see.

As a title, the phrase "Ecumenical Patriarchate" dates from the sixth cen-tury and belongs exclusively to the Archbishop of Constantinople. The GreatSchism of 1054-in fact the culmination of a gradual estrangement over manycenturies-resulted in formal separation between the Churches of the East andthe West, granting Constantinople sole authority and jurisdiction over theOrthodox Churches throughout the world.

After the capture of Constantinople by the Latins during the Fourth Cru-sade (1204), the Ecumenical Patriarchate was transferred to Nicaea (1206), butEmperor Michael VIII Palaeologos restored it to Constantinople when herecaptured the city in 1261. When Constantinople became the capital of theOttoman Empire in 1453, the Ecumenical Patriarch (at the time, GennadiusII) was recognized as Ethnarch of the Orthodox peoples, with increased au-thority over the Eastern Patriarchates and the Balkan Churches, as well asfarther afield.

From that time, the Ecumenical Patriarchate became a symbol of unity,rendering service and solidarity to the Eastern Churches. In difficult periods,the Ecumenical Patriarchate was consulted for the resolution of problems.Frequently, patriarchs of other Churches would reside in Constantinople,which was the venue for meetings of the Holy Synod that was chaired by theEcumenical Patriarch.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate also sponsored missionary growth throughthe centuries, the most notable of which was the conversion of the KievanRus in the tenth century and the most recent of which was the missionarywork in Southeast Asia in the last century. This pastoral role and responsibi-lity has earned the characterization of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as "thegolden beacon of Orthodoxy, preserving the unwaning brilliance of Christia-nity."

Currently, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is actively engaged in diverse ec-clesiastical activities and ministries. It has historically proved to be a dynamicleader in the ecumenical movement, fully participating in the World Coun-cil of Churches from its inception, as well as in local ecumenical bodies, insti-tuting and chairing bilateral theological dialogues with non-OrthodoxChristians but also with other monotheistic faiths.

History of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

"Sultan Mehmed II confirming rightsof Ecumenical Patriarch Gennadius II."

View of Ecumenical Patriarchate in Phanar.

Religious Freedom: A New Europe Special Edition

Documents

Transcript of Religious Freedom: A New Europe Special Edition