2. 3. 4. 5. The Human Rights of the Muslims in the Philippines: An Introduction, by Homer A. Jack. Religion in Kampuchea Today, by David R. Hawk. New York: WCRP Report on Kampuchea. The Reemergence of Buddhism in China Today, by Homer A. Jack. Dharma World (Tokyo). See material issued by Burmese Muslim Organization, Burmi Colony, 36-G, Landhi, 6. The Baha'is of Iran, by Roger Cooper. London: Minority Rights Group. 16 pp. 1982. See also The Baha'is in Iran: A Report on the Persecution of a Religious Minority. New York: Baha 1 International Community. June 1981. 68 pp. Update. November 1981. 18 pp. 7. See materials issued by the American and Canadian Coptic Association, P.O. Box 9119, G.L.S., Jersey City, N.J. 07304. 8. See Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, edited by Blahoslav 8. Hruby. New York: 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. 10115. Monthly. 9. The final text is in General Assembly resolution 36/55. Also see The U.N. Declaration for Religious Freedom: The Results of Two Decades of Drafting, by Homer A. Jack. New York: WCRP Report. 1981. 27 pp; and How the U.N. Religious Declaration was Unanimously Adopted, by Homer A Jack. New York: WCRP Report. January 1982. 23 pp. 10. 11. This was decision 36/412. 30th session, U.N. Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/SR.1300. February 11, 1975. Also "United States and U.N. Response to Massacre: Bangladesh." In International Protection of Human Rights. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 412-21. Mr. BONKER. Thank you, Dr. Jack. STATEMENT OF DINAH SHELTON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CLARA MS. SHELTON. I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify at the second of this very important series of hearings. While I also have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the record, I find I now have fewer points to make following the very eloquent Homer Jack, who thinks along similar lines on some of these issues. Being a lawyer I will be addressing some of the legal issues that are involved in religious persecution as well as indicating the complexities and pervasiveness of religious discrimination. I think the latter is reflected by the fact that in a 2-month period last year at the United Nations some 4,366 petitions involving issues of religious discrimination were filed by individuals and groups. In addition, the committee of the United Nations which implements the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights raised questions on matters of religious discrimination in 41 of the first 52 State reports that were filed. The countries making these reports come from all geographical, political, and economic sectors of the world. In my statement I have focused on the term "discrimination" rather than the term "religious persecution" for several reasons. One is because the existing human rights instruments use "religious intolerance" or "religious discrimination." The term "religious persecution" does not appear in any legal dictionary or in any human rights instrument. In English language dictionaries it appears that the common element in all definitions of "religious persecution" is a genocidal one. In using the term "persecution," what is referred to is a particularly serious form of discrimination, one where a campaign or program is initiated to exterminate, drive away, or subjugate people because of their religious, ethical, and moral beliefs. The ultimate objective, then, is to eliminate the group in question. This definition, I think, puts religious persecution squarely within the Genocide Convention, so that cases of religious persecution would be covered by the terms of that treaty. Second, the line between discrimination and persecution, because of this motivational element, may be very difficult to draw in some cases. While it may be quite easy to see that Iran is engaged in an effort to eliminate the Baha'i, in other cases the determination may be more difficult. Third, ultimate elimination of persecution may only be possible if we eliminate or combat all forms of discrimination based on religion or belief. In many cases there are discriminatory laws in existence in countries and these provide the legal justification for a campaign of persecution. Only by eliminating these laws can the legal justification be withdrawn that would permit a country to move into a situation of persecution. In the section of my statement which identifies those committing religious persecution, I distinguish two situations: One in which the government itself has undertaken a campaign of discrimination and persecution; and second, situations in which private groups undertake their own campaign in spite of, in many cases, good efforts by the Government to control their activities. It remains the case that most persecution of religious groups, most discrimination is undertaken by governments. Historically it was the case that most states maintained a state religion. That is still the case in approximately 35 countries of the world. Not all of them practice discrimination against other religious groups, but many do. It is also the case that where there is a state religion breakaway groups are labeled heretical or sectorian and the formation of these groups very often trigger discrimination. I have noted in here that the Baha'i, which began as a breakaway group from Islam, has never been recognized legally as an independent religion in Iran. As far as the Muslim hierarchy is concerned, the Baha'i are simply Muslim heretics. They are not a separate religion; they have no legal existence. That type of perceived heretical movement is very often most subjected to persecution within countries with an established religion. On the other hand a separation of church and state is no guarantee of religious liberty either, since separation may take the form of hostility toward or persecution of all religious activity, which is the case in many countries of Eastern Europe. Furthermore, when you do have a situation of separation of church and state, questions often arise as to the appropriate dividing line between activities of church and those of state. In other words what constitutes the appropriate activity of religious groups? For a religious individual wherever the line is drawn may appear artificial, since carrying out one's religious belief is a major component of adherence to a religion. As a result of carrying out religious beliefs, in many parts of the world religious groups, especially those concerned with social justice, have been subjected to imprisonment or persecution, and in some cases there have been death threats, disappearances, and assassinations. Turning away from state action, discrimination and persecution can arise in private sectors; it is an unfortunate phenomenon that many religions consider themselves to be the sole repositories of truth and are themselves responsible for the type of religious persecution from which they would be claiming freedom in another context. There is a religious origin to much religious persecution. While the intolerance and discrimination that is practiced is directed primarily at interfering with religious liberty, there is an interdependence among all human rights, and the measures that are taken against a religious group can violate nearly every human right. Encompassed within the notion of religious liberty is the right of assembly, the right to receive and impart information, the right to receive an education, to marry and found a family, and ultimately, of course, the right to personal security. Many of the laws which discriminate are directed at aspects of religious practices as well as at religious beliefs: Separation of church and State may carry with it a separation of education and church, with the result that churches are forbidden to undertake any educational activity within the State. This is legitimately seen by religious groups as being an interference with their religious liberty. Other laws compel individuals to undertake activity or behavior in violation of their religious beliefs, such as compelled participation in political activity within a country, or compelled participation in military service. In terms of what is being done and what may be done to combat this problem, I would agree with much of what Homer Jack has said. Every international instrument concerning human rights has within it provisions on religious liberty, including the U.N. Charter. The U.N. Charter does not enumerate human rights, but says human rights must be guaranteed to all individuals without distinction on the basis of religion, so we have a nondiscrimination clause even within the U.N. Charter. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the American Declaration of Human Rights and American Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all have extensive statements of religious freedom and nondiscrimination clauses. Many of these instruments also have procedures for implementation, which have provided a forum for individuals and groups to bring cases where they can focus attention on the discrimination that exists. I think it would be a very important step for us to participate in these procedures, by ratification of the various instruments. Through membership in the OAS we do participate in the InterAmerican Human Rights Commission, which has considered persecution in Guatemala. In addition, the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba was taken up in the last report on Cuba. The Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant is another procedure that could be very important. Finally, ratification of the Genocide Convention would be a mechanism for approaching the most serious cases. Turning from protection to promotion it must be remembered that law cannot do everything. While law can regulate behavior, much of the discrimination and persecution that takes place is motivated by beliefs which law cannot easily affect. There are some international organizations, such as UNESCO, that have been attempting to promote human rights and tolerance through teaching and dissemination of information. Those efforts should be widely supported. I think one encouraging sign is that the Latin American Conference of Churches decided to publish in a combined volume the Bible, selected church declarations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While I do not wish to say I consider those to be of equal value, I think it is important that the religious groups themselves are taking an initiative to encourage their members to respect the rights of others, including not only religious liberty but the combined catalog of human rights. Thank you. [Ms. Shelton's prepared statement and attachment follow:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF DINAH SHELTON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CLARA I would like to thank the Chairman for inviting me to speak about religious intolerance and discrimination in what is my first appearance before this distinguished Subcommittee. I am Dinah Shelton, Associate Professor at the University of Santa Clara School of Law. I am a member of the Executive Councils of the American Society of International Law and the International Institute of Human Rights, though in this statement I do not speak for either of those organizations. I appear as a human rights lawyer and teacher who has been working on problems of human rights and religious intolerance since 1968, most recently as organizer of the Santa Clara Conference on International Protection of Religious Freedom (December 1979). In my statement, I hope to illustrate the pervasiveness and complexity of the problem you are considering throughout this important series of hearings. |