Making the European Connection

Valuable contacts were made, and many insights gained, for two IARF representatives who attended a seminar on religious freedom, which was held in the Hague, Netherlands on 26 June. The seminar, titled "Freedom of Religion or Belief in the OSCE Region: Challenges to Law and Practice" was a joint initiative of the Romanian Chairman-in-Office of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Government of the Netherlands. IARF President Eimert van Herwijnen, as well as this author, joined over 200 individuals representing the region’s governments, international organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s) to discuss some of the complex issues surrounding freedom of religion and belief in Europe.

The Value of Religious Freedom:

Opening remarks by the Dutch and Romanian Ministers of Foreign Affairs (Jozias van Aartsen and Mircea Dan Geoana) and the former Norwegian Minister for Human Rights (Hilde Johnson) cited some of the fears associated with religious extremism, proselytism, and religion being used to foster conflict. However, the speakers acknowledged the powerful and positive force that religion could play in society. In an era when political ideologies based on material needs have failed society, said Johnson, we need to turn to a human rights framework based on moral values. Unfortunately, she said, man’s spiritual nature is still repressed in many places. It was this repression that was largely the subject of the conference which was held at the Dutch Government’s impressive Hall of Knights. Following opening remarks, participants selected one of two working sessions which allowed for greater dialogue on specific issues. Details on the sessions below come from final reports submitted by conference rapporteurs.

Seeking Registration:

Working Session 1 of the conference focused on the recognition and registration of religious and belief communities. While participants at this session agreed that registration should not be a prerequisite for the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, it was also recognised that states often have requirements necessary to allow religious groups to benefit from certain privileges or exemptions. If registration is legitimately required, noted the final report, certain criteria (such as the size of the community and property ownership) need to be examined. Problems arise, however, when registration is used as a "control device" rather than in a facilitative way to allow religious communities to exercise their rights to freedom of religion or belief.

Participants at this session acknowledged that there was a need for more information both related to the problems faced by authorities and by communities seeking registration. Various recommendations were put forward on ways to improve such communications. Valuable roles could be played by national committees, agreed participants, in bringing representatives of the faith and belief communities together to evaluate the potential impact of any legislation being considered. The final report of the working session noted, "Where they exist, registration laws must apply in law and be applied in an open, transparent and non-discriminatory fashion, aimed at facilitating the enjoyment of this basic human right."

Examining Permissible Restrictions:

Working Session 2 of the conference was devoted to a discussion of permissible restrictions on the activities of religious and belief communities. Although non-interference with a person’s internal beliefs is absolute, international human rights instruments have defined circumstances in which governments may limit external manifestations of these beliefs. Professor Manfred Nowak, the Director of the Ludwig Boltzman Institute of Human Rights, was on hand at this session to review the many legal dimensions of such limitations. He noted that, for a government’s limitation to be proper, it must ensure the protection of public safety, order, health, morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Such restrictions, however, should be proportionate to the harm that a government might wish to prevent and should not be excessively broad.

Some participants at this session felt that several states in the region were not complying with OSCE standards in that restrictions were applied to faith and belief communities in a discriminatory manner. In some cases, for example, established traditional religions have been favoured over new religious groups and movements. A growing multiculturalism in Europe was cited as one of the factors contributing to such antagonism. Participants recommended that OSCE’s Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief convene a special session to "analyse and elaborate on OSCE standards pertaining to the permissible governmental limitations on freedom of religion or belief," including more work on topics such as proselytism and conscientious objection.

In Conclusion:

The concluding seminar statement noted that both working groups meeting at the Hague called for more exchange of information on jurisprudence and best practices at national and international levels.

Overall, participants in general, and the IARF team in particular, came away from the convocation with a greater understanding of some of the legal difficulties and challenges posed by manifestations of freedom of religion or belief in the OSCE region. IARF materials were distributed at the conference and a special mailing subsequently sent to select participants. As OSCE gatherings allow for interventions by NGO participants, IARF President Eimert van Herwijnen commented on IARF’s intended work on a voluntary code of practice for all religions or belief communities. The connections made at this conference will be valuable to IARF’s ongoing work on the development of such a code.

Zarrín T Caldwell