Special "Voices for Humanity" on International Education Day

Each year, the United Nations sets aside January 24 as International Day of Education. Among this year’s goals: “unlocking the potential in every person.” 

The episode “Help for Miami,” of Voices for Humanity on the Scientology Network takes viewers inside an innovative program that is shattering the glass ceiling for those labeled with learning disabilities.

“Our country is in crisis today,” says Tamara Batalha, cofounder and administrator of HELP Miami.

“Kids are being labeled and drugged. They’re not learning,” adds HELP Miami’s principal Barbie Rivera. “This is a tragedy.”

Together, they are introducing kids to a new way of learning.

“Families thought the only solution was to drug their child and now they don’t have to anymore,” says Batalha. “The beauty of our program is we treat every child as an individual, so no matter where they are on their educational level, we’re able to work with them.”

HELP Miami is a dynamic program using Study Technology developed by author, humanitarian and Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard. It provides a fully workable approach to teaching students how to learn.

One mother relates that her son was getting “F” in subject after subject at the school where he attended 5th grade. They were advised to place him on medication, but that caused side effects. “He told me he hated school. He wanted to drop out.” When they enrolled him at HELP Miami, everything changed. “They brought him up to grade level,” the mother said. “Now he’s in 8th grade and every single year, he’s gotten honor roll. Being able to learn how to learn—this is an incredible gift that HELP Miami is giving these kids.”

Go behind the scenes of this innovative school that is providing a bright future for kids who were told they would never have one. 

Scientology Network’s Voices for Humanity, is a weekly series presenting heroic changemakers from a variety of faiths, cultures and nations, working to uplift their communities.

Since launching with a special episode featuring Scientology ecclesiastical leader Mr. David Miscavige, Scientology Network has been viewed in 240 countries and territories worldwide in 17 languages. Broadcast from Scientology Media Productions, the Church’s global media center in Los Angeles, the Scientology Network is available on DIRECTV Channel 320 and can be streamed at Scientology.tv, on mobile apps and via the Roku, Amazon Fire and Apple TV platforms.

Source HERE.

The beautiful love story of Tsar Boris III and the lovely Joanna of Savoy

She is 20 years old, beautiful, smart, with a delicate narrow face and spirited green-brown eyes. He is 33 – very wise for his age, a man in every sense of the word. She captivates him not only with her charm, but with her sense of humor and the great audacity she has for a princess. He makes her fall in love with him with his masculine radiance and balanced look.

She is Joanna of Savoy – the daughter of the Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (of the Savoy dynasty) and the Montenegrin Princess Elena Petrovich Nagos, born in Rome between gilded pots and satin ribbons. He is Tsar Boris III – the respected son of Tsar Ferdinand I. Their love – pure and true, not dictated by political or personal interests.

And this is what shocks the society and provokes the drama, but also the beauty in their relationship.

On September 25, 1927, the fateful meeting between Tsar Boris III and the Italian beauty took place. Boris was invited to lunch at the royal mansion of San Rossore near Pisa by her parents. There is also “Joe”, as she is called at home – light brown, fragile, with a white face, fine features and a keen eye. She has a solid education – literature, history, Latin, art. He also speaks French and English, paints, sings, plays piano, cello and harmony.

However, this is not what impressed the then 33-year-old Boris. He falls in love with Joe because of the sunny Italian woman’s sense of humor and because of her free discussion of secular topics, which in modern translation means that the princess has not been ashamed to talk peppery and without detours about what is in her heart.

Everyone notices the sparks that pass between the two, but fate does not meet them again soon. They see each other again after a 3-year break, which is enough time to forget, but not … In January 1930, at their second meeting, where Boris and Joanna were at the home of her beloved sister Mafalda , he personally uttered the marriage proposal. The answer is yes, but not everything is arranged by notes.

During this two-year period, there have been many talks and debates over whether marriage between a Catholic and an Eastern Orthodox is possible, with discussions involving both the Vatican and the Italian and Bulgarian governments, as well as foreign diplomats.

Archbishop Angelo Roncali, the apostolic visitor to Bulgaria, comes to the rescue. According to the provisions of Roman canon law, Tsar Boris must give written consent for the children of this marriage to be baptized and brought up as Catholics.

The initial opinion of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is that the male heirs should be baptized Orthodox and the girls – Catholics. Later, the Holy Synod agreed that only the heir to the throne would be Orthodox.

Desperate from all this, the king ordered the Bulgarian Minister Plenipotentiary in Italy Gen. Ivan Valkov to stop the preparations for the marriage. Even in an emotional outburst, he declares that he is ready to remain single if he does not marry Princess Giovanna. For his part, he also declared his readiness to retire to a monastery if he did not have a permit. She sent two letters to the pope.

In early September 1930, Boris finally arrived in San Rosore again. He brings the good news that he has managed to receive the blessing of the head of St. Synod, Metropolitan Neophyte, and Metropolitan Stephen of Sofia. And the Vatican is finally blessing the wedding.

Boris returns to Sofia to clarify the latest details. The saga “royal wedding” is coming to an end. The official response of the Italian royal family to the announcement of the engagement was received on October 4, 1930.

And then follows the spectacular wedding, a display of true, strong and great love. On October 25, 1930, the day of the wedding, government men and the color of European monarchical dynasties arrived in Assisi, and the streets were literally congested with thousands of people wanting to see the newlyweds. 10,000 cars came to the small town.

This forced the municipality to expand the station with several tracks so that it could meet all train compositions. Due to the royal wedding, the schools in Assisi were closed for ten days. The mayor had to set up an additional telephone line so that all foreign journalists who came to cover the event could perform their duties.

Joanna impresses guests by violating conservative etiquette and adding veils to her wedding attire. At her explicit request, the ladies wear dresses without a neckline, with long sleeves and a white veil, and their hairstyles are without jewelry. The men are in tailcoats or uniforms of the military rank to which they belong. All this is written in the wedding invitation that the guests received.

Joanna herself is in a dress of fine white velvet with a train, 15 m long, with a veil of antique lace and a small bouquet of orange flowers from Sicily. Tsar Boris is in the uniform of a general of the Bulgarian Army, on his chest shines the order “St. St. Cyril and Methodius ”. His sword has a golden hilt.

In the municipality of the town Boris and Joanna sign a civil marriage certificate. Witnesses were the then Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, in his capacity as state notary, and Andrey Lyapchev, Prime Minister of Bulgaria.

After the wedding, American publicist Markham will write: “One of the best things Tsar Boris has done for his people is to bring Italian Princess Joanna as queen to Sofia, one of the most charming princesses in Europe.”

Boris and Giovanna board a special royal train to Sofia. The young royal family enters the capital in front of a crowd of many thousands through a specially built triumphal arch on the Lion Bridge. An Orthodox wedding ceremony follows in the Sofia Cathedral “St. Alexander Nevsky”. At this sacred moment, Giovanna, Princess of Savoy, becomes Joanna, Queen of Bulgaria.

And although much later, after the appearance of the daughter Maria-Louise and the son Simeon and after a happy and peaceful life, the tragic circumstances around the death of Tsar Boris III at the age of 49, the Bulgarians truly love their queen Joanna and in their hearts she remains as the Queen of Mercy.

In 1946, during the communist regime, Joanna and her children were extradited from Bulgaria, but her enormous charitable work, her courageous behavior during the bombing of Sofia, and her absolute courage in many ways made Prime Minister Konstantin Muraviev sigh. :

“A woman, a mother had to show Bulgarian politicians what manhood means – the queen.”

On the other hand, the American publicist Markham writes: “One of the best things Tsar Boris has done for his people is to bring the Italian Princess Joanna as queen in Sofia, one of the most charming princesses in Europe.”

Joanna Bulgarska died at the respectable age of 92. She was buried where she made a vow as a young woman – in the church “St. Francis ”in Assisi, where she was married. They say that until her last day she did not regret for a moment that she was devoted as an Italian and that she loved as a Bulgarian. More masculine. To the very end.

Trials and Escape of Princes Lobanov-Rostovsky (2)

There were people who helped the disguised princes get on the train

Roundup. Stop of the train. Many have been arrested. Heirlooms were found in the family. Shooting, how did it happen in those years? No! We managed to escape again.

But the terrible is just ahead.

“At that time, families did not let men go anywhere, fearing for them, and only women acted …”

Prince Ivan will be arrested three times. Later, Prince Ivan recalled:

“… at night a Chekist will suddenly come in, light up the electricity, rudely wake up his victim, hit him with a rifle butt and ask:“ How do you feel, Your Excellency? ” The gray head will go low and low; the victim is silent and only a tear will quietly roll down his cheek … During the night from 15 to 25 people were shot …

Yes, I am glad, of course, that I escaped from this hell, but I must say that I saw the edge of the sky there: so wonderful and sublime was the mood of many; among them I sometimes felt like a really Christian … “

And the following was told about the prince in prison. At night, seven hostages were “dressed up” to dig a hole.

“Should I dig a hole for our execution? ” – they asked … Only the prince did not ask anything, but he also stopped and persuaded others: “Do not be faint-hearted, gentlemen, let’s go to work as soon as possible; The Lord will not leave us – whether we go to death or not – He is always with us! ””.

The princess was far from prejudice of opinions: the red ones sometimes showed a “human face”, while the whites showed obvious envy.

“The memory of many terrible, unfair and terrible things left an irresistible feeling of revenge in the soul of the people. The best of them always unconsciously move in their souls: “If only the gentlemen lived in our skin for a little bit” …

How many victims this massacre of whites and reds gave! Some died soon … others languished longer, and many languish to this day, exhausted by tuberculosis, neurasthenia, complete disability and other ailments. We cannot count the number of these martyrs … ”, Vera Dmitrievna said.

The “new” life, as if appreciating the powerful nature of the Russian woman, the wife-mother-mistress, tested the princess Vera with all kinds of trials: both large and small (but therefore no less terrible), all kinds of human malice.

“Life began both ridiculous, and strange, and inconvenient – it was impossible to get used to it,” writes Vera Dmitrievna.

A kitten clumsily drowned in front of her eyes, whom she rescued, cured, and the neighbors later threw him out of the window; the wickedly plucked flowers that the youngest son planted, deprived of all the joys necessary in childhood, it hurts forever. But this is not the horror that she experienced during the Red Terror during 1919-1920. and which can make a person mad. The family ended up in Odessa. Vera Dmitrievna lived with her children and her old mother in the mansion of her relative, a former member of the State Council, Alexei Nikolaevich Lobanov-Rostovsky. By a fatal coincidence, it was in this mansion that the Chekists daily shot their victims:

“I walked on human blood for two weeks, my soles and heels were stained red.”

I walked on human blood for two weeks, my soles were stained red

Miraculously, the Lobanovs again remained unrecognized.

The nightmare of the Red Terror, which only miraculously bypassed the princely family for the time being, forced them to come to the only solution that would allow the family to survive – to a new escape from Odessa along the Dniester waters across the border with Romania. During the long journey to a foreign land, the family again faced danger, prison and hardship. In the figurative expression of the princess – “Fire to the right, water to the left, a wall in front, and an abyss behind.”

At the end of the journey, members of the Lobanov-Rostovsky family ended up in Bulgaria. For some time, under the Bulgarian Tsar Boris, the family lived happily. But not everyone managed to escape. The Lobanovs’ daughter, Anna Ivanovna, has disappeared forever in Sovdepia. In 1932, trying to return home, their son Ivan Ivanovich was shot. And in 1921 another son died – a white officer Nikita, who, thanks to courage, miracle and the prayers of his relatives, repeatedly escaped where it seemed impossible to survive. But salvation turned out to be only a “delay”. The aftermath of the Civil War caught up with him three years later, ending his young life. The princess recalled:

“He spent three years in a bloody bath, was wounded many times, was held captive by the Bolsheviks several times, stood at the“ wall ”the same number of times, and although every time he was miraculously rescued, he still did not avoid shocks. He also suffered from typhus; not yet cured, he went into battle, suffered from the consequence of frostbitten feet after the Reds drove him without boots to be shot in the snow, when, already falling from exhaustion, he was repulsed by a detachment of whites that arrived in time. And again: blood, blood and blood! This is what kind of continuous torment my son’s life was from the age of nineteen to twenty-two. The result was the death of Nikita in August 1921 … “[4]

Vera Dmitrievna left this world in 1943, not learning about the arrest of the family of another son – Dmitry Ivanovich, godson of the Grand Duchess, who, together with his daughter-in-law Irina Vasilievna (nee Vyrubova) and 11-year-old grandson Nikita, ended up in prison and passed their own, prepared for him the way of ordeals. I did not find out about their failed escape, the execution of Dmitry Ivanovich, about the terrible fate in the camp of the eldest son of Nikolai Ivanovich. Her grandson told about this in his memoirs [5].

These are the thoughts and aspirations about Russia expressed by Princess Vera, expressing the essence of Bolshevism in a chased style. Maybe her words will soon become a “quote from the classics”:

“Bolshevism is often identified with communism. But the latter represents only an abstract, albeit harmful, delusional ideal, rented by the Bolsheviks, working on the basis of evil and deceit. Soviet power (or Bolshevism) has no moral foundations. And it serves, consciously or unconsciously, secret dark forces. Decorated with what is currently beneficial to her for the destruction of the Christian world. Communism was a props for her. It turned out to be extremely inconvenient on a national scale. Therefore, he was shamelessly discarded. I believe that Bolshevism is living out its last period. “

Vera Dmitrievna addresses the entire Russian diaspora scattered around the world:

“I ask my readers, who are still young, to visit my homeland, when, having thrown off the shackles of slavery, it will rise to a new life after trials unprecedented in the world. When, realizing herself and happy, she will again be covered with the crosses of temples and monasteries. Then the wisdom of old shines in her again, to admonish and comfort her neighbor. Then it will be called again, as before, “Holy Russia”. ”

Everyone is chasing happiness. And it is in our hands – only no one sees it and does not want to see it

Despite the great misfortunes that befell Princess Vera and her family, she managed to keep the light in her soul.

“Years passed, the youth of the soul was gone forever. I not only turned over the pages of the book about life and death, but also read its impressive lines. And I realized by experience that death on earth, this tragic end of our earthly life, could only occur from disobedience to the Creator, disobedience leading to the loss of our peace and joy. I also learned from experience that everyone is chasing happiness. And it is in our hands – only no one sees it and does not want to see it, but, on the contrary, every day they move further and further away from it. “

Photo: Prince Nikita Dmitrievich Lobanov-Rostovsky, grandson of Prince Ivan and Princess Vera. St. Petersburg. “House with Lions”, owned by the Lobanov-Rostovsky.

What Cossacks wrote to the Turkish Sultan

The admirers of Russian culture remember this painting by Ilya Repin “The Cossacks”. Or, as it is popularly called, “Cossacks are writing a letter to the Turkish Sultan”.

But what did they really write? Judging by the expressions on their faces, they are clearly not writing an analytical and economic treatise. It became interesting to me and I decided to understand this story. To begin with, I will clarify that the letter itself has not been found – there are only copies of it. Therefore, whether the reply letter was itself or not is not conclusively proven. But that doesn’t matter. Even as a legend, this story conveys the atmosphere of those times and the spirit of the free Zaporozhye Cossacks.

So, history itself took place in the 17th century. Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV subdued the right-bank Ukraine and sent a letter to the Zaporozhye Sich. The requirement was simple – to obey the Sultan and become his vassals. Half of the Sultan’s letter was dedicated to his great statuses – the ruler of the world, the invincible warrior, the viceroy of God on Earth, etc.

Interestingly, the writing style hints at the fact that Mehmed wanted to have the Cossacks as his kind vassals. Usually he promised terrible punishment in case of insubordination. He tried not to provoke the Cossacks into aggression. But he provoked them into humor with his boasting.

Perhaps, if the Sultan wrote in a practical language, the Cossacks would have agreed with his demands. There was nothing wrong with becoming a vassal in the feudal era. You received patronage and military assistance from the most powerful empire at that time. Earlier, the hetman of right-bank Ukraine Petro Doroshenko took over the power of the Sultan.

But the Cossacks are freedom-loving by nature, and the excessive pathos of the Sultan simply made them laugh. And they wrote a response letter. This moment is captured in the famous picture.

What did the Cossacks write to the Turkish Sultan? Unfortunately, the original letter has not survived, there are only later versions of the letter text. There are several of them, but they are all written quite in the spirit of the Zaporozhye Cossacks.

Let us be guided by the text from the magazine “Russian Starina” for 1872, which is based on the documents of the historian Nikolai Kostomarov.

In a response letter, the Cossacks addressed the Sultan as “the Turkish Shaitan and the secretary of Lucifer himself.”

The Cossacks expressed doubt that the Sultan was an invincible knight. For, according to the Cossacks, the sultan could not have resisted an ordinary hedgehog with a naked sirloin.

Further, the Cossacks changed all the royal titles in their own way.

“You are a Babylonian cook, a Macedonian charioteer, a Jerusalem brewer, a swineherd of Great and Lesser Egypt, an Armenian thief.” Well, you get the structure. The authors simply took each region where the sultan ruled, and instead of the word “lord” they added one of the curses. “You are not fit to feed Christian pigs,” summarize the Zaporozhian people.

The letter was signed by Ataman Ivan Sirko. By the way, this is the legendary chieftain – he participated in the uprising of Bohdan Khmelnitsky, was an ardent defender of Orthodoxy. The Turks were very afraid of him and called him “Russian shaitan”.

What happened next? In 1672-1681 there was a Russian-Turkish war. On the side of the Ottoman Empire, the Crimean Khanate, vassal to him, also came out. Russia lost the war, but did not suffer a crushing defeat and managed to save the left-bank Ukraine.

Well, Ilya Repin approached the question like a real professional. He painted the picture for 10 years. For this he went to Zaporozhye, talked with people. Studied in detail the history and costumes of that era and found several typical types, which he wrote from nature.

European Academy of Religion 2021: One of the first sessions was on Scientology and Gnosticism

On Monday August 30, at the University of Munster, the European Academy of Religion – a research initiative on religion launched under the high patronage of the European Parliament, offering an exchange platform to scholars, universities, centers, research infrastructures, scientific journals and publishers coming from Europe and the surrounding regions – launched its annual meeting of 2021, in a hybrid format, with on-site and online sessions.

University of Munster, Germany, screenshot

The President of the Academy, Prof. Hans Peter Grosshans (WWU Münster) in an official statement on their website said: “The Münster conference of the European Academy of Religion will discuss these and many more questions which are raised when studying the relation of religion and change.” 

One of the first sessions was called “Gnosticism and New Religions: The Case of L. Ron Hubbard” and tackled the topic of Scientology as a modern gnosis. The session was moderated by Rosita Soryte, board member of the European Federation for Freedom of Belief. Three panelists approached the topic from different angles.

Aldo Natale Terrin, a Roman Catholic priest teaching at the Santa Giustina Institute in Padova, had already written a comprehensive book on the similarities between Scientology and gnosis as well as with other religions, including eastern religions. In his presentation, he developed the fact that the comparison between Scientology and Gnosticism is evident, based primarily on several principles, including its explanations relating to the fall of the spirit, the conception of the world as matter, and the need to recover the knowledge of the hidden “divine spark” that lies in human spirits in order to return to the divine.  He added that there are other manifestations of Scientology that can be compared to Gnosticism giving a number of other examples of this. He concluded by quoting the Italian Humanist Agostino in his Prisca theologia (Ancient theology), an expression which means “that there is a ‘eternal core’ of shared wisdom in all religions, synthesized as a Transcendental doctrine”, saying that “surely Gnosticism and Scientology belong to this Great Tradition”.

Then Massimo Introvigne, managing director of the CESNUR (Center for Studies on New Religions) and editor-in-chief of the daily magazine Bitter Winter, furthered the discussion by reviewing how in the 60s and 70s, some antagonists to Scientology attempted to take advantage of the relationship of Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, with several Gnostic traditions and movements before he founded Scientology, in order to depict him as being associated with black magic. Introvigne reviewed different angles that attempted to discredit Hubbard at that time, and debunked the idea that he would have been so motivated. While Hubbard had indeed expressed interest in magic and found it praiseworthy in its attempt to overcome materialism, he also considered that magic was likely to fail as it depended too heavily on rituals and beliefs. He concluded by stating that Hubbard’s assessment of magic (and of Aleister Crowley, the famous British magus who leaded the Ordo Templi Orientis) was in fact surprisingly modern and close to that of more modern academics.

Finally, Eric Roux, chair of the European Interreligious Freedom for Religious Freedom and also a European religious leader of the Church of Scientology, made a presentation based on some of the writings of L. Ron Hubbard, where the Scientology Founder acknowledged that Scientologists are in fact Gnostics, in the sense that “they know that they know”. Scientology, Roux said, is “a quest for liberating knowledge, a desire to transcend the consequences of a ‘spiritual fall’ which has made the spirit prisoner of its own traps, and this can only remind one of ancient Gnostics themes”. He made comparisons between the aspirations of those ancient Gnostics and some of the “gradient scales” and axioms that exist in Scientology demonstrating that the purposes were similar. “Of course,” Roux said, “Scientology is a religion of the 20th century and its quest for knowledge therefore necessarily involves other tools than those that existed in ancient Greece or in the early days of the Christian era. Nevertheless, the result is that Scientology is Knowingness, awareness, and personal freedom for the individual, and this Gnosis,” he concluded.

France: is it all about so-called Political Islam?

The Proposed Anti-Separatism Law and the International Obligations of France: is it all about so-called Political Islam?

France is a member of International organisations and indeed a country where the rule of law, democracy and the respect of human rights are fundamental principles of the “République”.

Likewise France is a country with a very diverse population from several backgrounds and belonging to several different linguistic, ethnic and indeed religious or spiritual traditions or none.

President Macron and the Premiere Dame and a number of French politicians have defended the, arguable to say the least, right of Charlie Hebdo to insult the religion of Islam repeatedly by depicting the Prophet of Islam Mohammed, and by insulting the Turkish President Erdogan, and by insulting the religious sentiments of many religious and spiritual groups as such in a number of occasions. All of this in the name of the sacrosanct right to Freedom of Expression.

Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950 and in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which inspired the ECHR, and in most international human rights instruments and most national Constitutions as well.

Just like the Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human right, also the Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, or in a single expression the Freedom of Belief, is a fundamental human right protected by art. 18 of the UDHR and by art. 9 of the ECHR whose extent can only be limited in compliance with the ECHR provisions not basing on assumed national values or needs in contrast with the spirit of the Human Rights legislation.

Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community 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 or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Art. 9 ECHR should be read in conjunction with art. 2 Protocol 1 to the Convention which reads as follows:

Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to education “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”

Arguing that some groups and specifically “Political Islam” tend to isolate within the society and from the society and that a legislation is needed to prevent that from happening, and such legislation causes also to prevent private entities from setting up or to carrying out their activities, or prohibiting home-schooling, is probably not the best answer to problems that may exist from a democratic country like France, considering that France has a set of laws, including also criminal laws, to prevent and tackle extremism, terrorism and any other forms of delinquency whatsoever.

So the wonder is: what is the real agenda behind this proposed legislation? and who is behind such?

Where does it come from? Have we seen anything like this in the past in France?

Well there’s an organisation called FECRIS in France which is funded by the French Government and that advocates, all over the world, the fight against minority groups, derogatorily called cults (sectes in French). FECRIS doesn’t care about the International Human Rights obligations of France and regularly requests the International Organisations to ban Human Rights Organisations advocating Freedom of Religion and Belief from their premises and to stop interacting with them, e.g. FECRIS at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw.

The belief that behind this legislation there may be both the FECRIS and those sharing the same views, may be a legitimate possibility, at least, if we consider that very often the fight against Islam, whether the so-called Political or non Political one, goes hand by hand with the fight against cults.

The proposed legislation may just be a Trojan horse aimed at fighting against extremism but with the real intention to fight against minorities considered as cults – this could be just my own personal opinion and speculation if the Minister Madame Marlène Schiappa had not stated, in an interview she gave to the newspaper Le Parisien, as follows:

“we will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam”.

The United States bipartisan organisation USCIRF, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has warned that FECRIS is an organisation that threats the human rights of minorities and recommended, inter alia, as follows:

“Counter propaganda against new religious movements by the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS) at the annual OSCE Human Dimensions Conference with information about the ongoing involvement of individuals and entities within the anti-cult movement in the suppression of religious freedom.”

To me it is clear that the proposed legislation if passed would mean a serious drift from the International legal obligations of France, first and foremost the ECHR and its fundamental freedoms and human rights.

The rule of law requires attention and intervention and indeed the extremist activities of any group must be prevented and fought against with all necessary means – but erasing the International obligations that ensure the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms belonging to everyone is not the answer but only an excuse for other ends. The present law is the natural consequence of law no. 504 of 2001 on the prevention and suppression of cultic movements and of her sister law no. 228 of 2004 aimed at suppressing the right to show religious symbols in public places, both of which are a serious concern for a European democracy.

We hope that, while we are fighting against two viruses, the Covid-19 and the virus of intolerance, the actions recommended by the USCIRF Report may be implemented very soon and also be only the beginning of a series of further actions to contrast these hate experts, and finally guarantee everyone their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.

Macron gets a request from NGOs around the world to have his anti-separatism bill reviewed by Venice Commission

On October 28, a letter has been sent to Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic, asking for review of the future French “law on separatism” by the Venice Commission and the Office for Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE.

The letter was signed by several NGOs and individuals from all over the world, including the well-known Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, after it had been circulated by the Freedom of Religion or Belief Roundtable Brussels-EU, an informal group of individuals and organizations from civil society who gather regularly to discuss FoRB (Freedom of Religion or Belief ) issues. Writers raise several concerns about the law after the announcements made by Macron and members of his government.

See full letter here:

To:Mr Emmanuel Macron

President of the French Republic

Brussels, the 28^th October 2020

Copies to:

• Kishan Manocha, Head, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
• Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
• Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the Venice Commission
• Mr Eric Dupont-Moretti, French Minister of Justice

Re: The announcements on the “Law on separatism”

Dear Mr President,

We write as an informal group of organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious leaders and human rights advocates. We are from many faiths or acting in a secular capacity, representing a high degree of diversity. While there is very little we agree on theologically, or politically, we all agree on the importance of religious freedom for all faiths and none.

We write to you following the announcements that you and members of your government have made regarding the bill on “separatism” that you plan to approve in the Council of Ministers meeting on December 9. While no draft of the bill has yet been circulated, to our knowledge, we have some concerns which have been highlighted by the announcements that have been made.

We acknowledge the cautious approach that you have taken during your official speech. We have noted your insistence on the fact that you are targeting radical Islam, and not Muslims, as well as the fact that you intend to respect freedom of religion or belief. We agree that terrorism is a real issue that needs to be tackled and that a strong response needs to be taken with regards to the dangers that are posed to the French Republic, and we deeply share the traumatisms that result from the recent tragic terrorist events which hit France.

Nevertheless, we are concerned that some of the proposals may lead to the opposite of what you intend. Furthermore, taking into account the statements made by members of your government after your speech, those statements reinforce the conviction that the measures being proposed will violate France’s international commitments towards freedom of religion or belief.

For example, you announced that you plan to ban home-schooling in order to protect children from illegal schools “often administered by religious extremists”. While we understand that these schools pose a threat, a global ban on home-schooling will affect the majority of parents that for many different reasons are using this freedom with satisfying results, regardless of their faith, or none. There is certainly sufficient provision in French law to organize controls and make sure that the children are effectively educated according to established educational programmes.

The “general concept” of the law was unveiled by your Minister of Interior, Gérald Darmanin, on Twitter. It explained that places of worship will be placed under increasing surveillance and “preserved […] from the diffusion of ideas and statements hostile to the laws of the Republic.” However, how will that apply to a priest or pastor criticizing abortion or same-sex marriage, which are part of the laws of the French Republic. What action will be taken against others who may speak out against certain “laws of the Republic” that penalize the poor and the immigrants? Or even if they criticize a law against blasphemy, as it existed still recently for Alsace-Moselle in France? Is anyone now criticising the law an enemy of the state?

Another announced provision that poses a problem is your statement and that of the Minister of Interior, where it is said that the law will allow religious and other associations to be dissolved directly by the Council of Ministers in the case of  an “affront on personal dignity” and “use of psychological or physical pressures.” These concepts are vague enough to allow the arbitrary targeting of groups that are acting quite legally and without any violent intent but are in ‘disfavour’ by the administrating body. Furthermore there is no guarantee of judicial process or oversight. 

The Minister of Citizenship, Marlène Schiappa, also stated in an interview that, “We will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam.” This shows that there is already a clear intent to deviate from the fight against terrorism and enter the realm of prohibiting religious associations on the basis that they do not please someone, simply because they are categorised as “cults” (sectes, in French). 

Legislation aimed at terrorism is not surprising. It is a challenge that many countries face. However, States that have chosen to draft laws with such vague concepts as those cited above are States that have totalitarian tendencies (or are in fact totalitarian). Russia, for example, has passed an anti-extremism law that is now used to prosecute and jail political dissidents as well as members of peaceful religious movements such as the Jehovah Witnesses or followers of Said Nursi on the basis of their definition of “extremism”. 

When the Venice Commission gave its opinion on law of the Russian Federation on Combatting Extremist Activity, adopted at its 91st Plenary Session, it stated: 

7.  The broad interpretation of the notion of ‘extremism’ by the enforcement authorities, the increasing application of the Law in recent years and the pressure it exerts on various circles within civil society, as well as alleged human rights violations reported in this connection have raised concerns and drawn criticism both in Russia and on the international level

(…)

28.  The only definition of ‘extremism’ contained in an international treaty binding on the Russian Federation is to be found in the Shanghai Convention [on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 15 June 2001, ratified by Russia on 10 January 2003]. In Article 1.1.1.3) of the Extremism Law, ‘extremism’ is defined as ‘an act aimed at seizing or keeping power through the use of violence or changing violently the constitutional regime of a State, as well as a violent encroachment upon public security, including organization, for the above purposes, of illegal armed formations and participation in them, criminally prosecuted in conformity with the national laws of the Parties’. The latter clause allows signatory states to prosecute such ‘extremist’ actions according to their national laws.

It made clear that the only definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘separatism’ that could be used to take action against individuals or organizations require that violence is an essential element (incitement to, or encouragement of, violence or actual violence). 

The European Court of Human Rights has already applied this approach to Russia, regarding a case that involved the prosecution of followers of Said Nursi accused of extremist activities, in IBRAGIM IBRAGIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, which became a final judgment on April 2, 2019.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion of Belief, in the unedited version of his last report on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance (October 12, 2020), stated: 

17.    A concerning number of mandate communications highlight the use of inchoate terrorist offenses that are disproportionately applied to religious or belief minorities. Harassment measures broadly linked to countering terrorism and protecting national security illustrate that in almost every region of the world religious minorities appear to be at particular risk of being designated “terrorist groups” and of having members arrested under “extremism” or “illegal activity” charges. A number of communications addressed the use of national security imperatives as the stated objective by some governments in criminalizing membership in and/or activities of certain religious or belief groups.  Such an approach amounts to targeting, and ultimately criminalizing, the peaceful expression of a person’s identity. 

19.    Numerous State authorities have arrested, detained (sometimes incommunicado) and sentenced members of religious and belief minorities for undefined charges such as intent to ‘disturb political, economic or social structures’ , to ‘disrupt state sovereignty’   or to  ‘overthrow the Government’.  Such vague provisions fail to fulfil the principle of legality as enshrined in article 15 of ICCPR and give worrying leeway to States to arbitrarily limit the exercise of freedom of religion or belief of certain groups.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recently released a new document called “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: Policy Guidance”. It states in its introduction: 

While OSCE participating States have adopted different strategies to ensure that their own security measures are fully compliant with their international obligations and commitments pertaining to freedom of religion or belief, certain laws, security policies and practices have placed freedom of religion or belief and other universal human rights under significant pressure. Such measures, especially those that are very broad or applied arbitrarily, are often enacted in the name of “national”, “state” or “public” security, or in the interests of preserving or maintaining “peaceful coexistence”, “social stability” or “social harmony”. Experience shows that such limitations can worsen rather than improve security.

There are many more international human rights documents that deal with this delicate issue, but for reasons of brevity we are unable to carry out a full review in this letter.

We are at your disposal to meet and discuss this issue further. In any case, we respectfully but strongly recommend that you submit to both the Venice Commission and ODIHR the draft of the law when it is ready, in order to get considered international legal expertise as to how the law meets established human rights principles. 

We feel that there is a real risk that contrary to your intention, the proposed measures that have been announced will lead to the targeting of Muslims in general as well as other minority faiths, and that it may well lead to a series of human rights violations.

Respectfully yours,

Organizations

Advocates International, Advocates France, All Faiths Network, CAP Freedom of Conscience, CESNUR – Center for Studies on New Religions, EIFRF – European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom, FOREF – Forum for Religious Freedom Europe, HRWF – Human Rights Without Frontiers, International Christian Concern, Law and Liberty International, LDH – Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, LIREC – Center for Studies on Freedom of Religion, Belief and Conscience, ORLIR – International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees, United Sikhs, UPF The Netherlands

Individuals

• Régis Dericquebourg, Président, Observatoire Européen des Religions et de la Laïcité
• Michael P. Donnelly, J.D., LL.M., Senior Counsel, Global Outreach
• The Most Reverend Joseph K. Grieboski, Senior Fellow, The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute
• Rimon Kasher, Prof. Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
• Nancy Lefèvre, Chairwoman, Advocates France
• Brent McBurney, President & CEO, Advocate International
• Kareem P.A. McDonald, Program Associate, Religious Freedom Institute
• Greg Mitchell, Chair, International Religious Freedom Roundtable 
• Scott Morgan, President, Red Eagle Enterprise
• Matias Perttula, Director of Advocacy, International Christian Concern
• Malik Salemkour, President, Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)
• Frans de Wolff, Secretary, Dutch Network for Interfaith Dialogue

[you can read more about the initiative at