The European Parliament has condemned the role of Russian Patriarch Kirill in the war (updated)

In a resolution on 7 April 2022 about the increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexei Navalny, the European Parliament condemned the role of Moscow Patriarch Kirill in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Item 6 of the resolution states:

(See full resolution at the bottom of the article):

“Condemns the role of Moscow Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, in providing theological cover for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; praises the courage of the 300 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church who signed a letter condemning the aggression and expressed their grief over the ordeal of the Ukrainian people, calling for an end to the war.”

In parallel, priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to appeal to the Cathedral of the Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches with a lawsuit against the Russian Patriarch Kirill for “committing moral crimes”. Priests of the Moscow Patriarchate in Ukraine demand an international tribunal for the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill.

The statement of the priests was published by Fr Andrei Pinchuk on his Facebook page.

Excerpt:

“Today, when Patriarch Kirill of Moscow frankly supports Russia’s war of conquest against Ukraine, we, the priests of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, have decided to appeal to the Council of Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches with a lawsuit against Patriarch Kirill.

Our main accusations:

1. Cyril preaches the doctrine of the “Russian world”, which does not correspond to Orthodox teaching and should be condemned as heresy;

2. Kirill committed moral crimes by blessing the war against Ukraine and fully supporting the aggressive actions of Russian troops on the territory of Ukraine.

We hope that the Council of Primates of the Ancient Eastern Churches will consider our appeal and make its fair decision,”

the appeal says.

See full resolution of the European Parliament below the video.

UATV interviewed on video a priest on the suit against Kirill

UATV, a Russian-language channel of the state foreign broadcasting of Ukraine, addressed to a wide foreign audience and designed “to convey to the whole world objective, relevant and interesting information from Ukraine and about Ukraine the first hand”, launched an interview with a high ranking orthodox priest. The video is presented with the following message:

“Russian World” – an ideology that laid the foundation of Russian hatred of Ukraine. Ukrainian priests of Moscow Patriarchate “filed a suit” to the highest church judicial authority calling to condemn the doctrine spread by the Russian Orthodox Church and its heretical leader – Patriarch Kirill

See the full resolution here:

(if reading the article in our non-English site, find below an automatic translation of the resolution)

TA-9-2022-0125_ENDownload

European Parliament 2019-2024

(source link at the website of the European Parliament)

TEXTS ADOPTED

P9_TA(2022)0125

Increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexey Navalny

European Parliament resolution of 7 April 2022 on the increasing repression in Russia, including the case of Alexei Navalny (2022/2622(RSP))

The European Parliament,

–       having regard to its previous resolutions on Russia,

–       having regard to the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders,

–       having regard to the Constitution of the Russian Federation,

–       having regard to the statement by the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (VP/HR) Josep Borrell of 28 March 2022 on the Russian independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta,

–       having regard to the declaration by the High Representative on behalf of the EU of 22 March 2022 on the ruling to extend Alexei Navalny’s politically motivated imprisonment by an additional nine years,

–       having regard to the statement by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights of 24 March 2022 expressing appreciation for the courageous work of journalists and human rights defenders, including those from the Russian Federation and Belarus,

–       having regard to the statement by the Media Freedom Representative of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe of 3 March 2022 on the serious infringement of the right to freedom of expression and media freedom in Russia in the context of the country’s military attack against Ukraine,

–       having regard to the statements by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the latest developments in Russia and Ukraine,

–       having regard to Rules 144(5) and 132(4) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.      whereas the Russian Federation has repeatedly breached international law and its international commitments and has launched an illegal, unprovoked and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine and perpetrated massacres against its citizens; whereas legislative restrictions, media bans, the criminalisation of independent reporting and free opinion, and other political prosecutions have reached a totalitarian scale in recent months, resulting in the disintegration of independent and pluralistic civil space in Russia;

B.      whereas the Russian regime has intensified, in an unprecedented manner, its crackdown on peaceful protesters, independent journalists and bloggers, human rights defenders and civil society activists in an effort to silence any criticism of and opposition to its illegal, unprovoked and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine; whereas thousands have fled Russia due to the drastically increased risk of arbitrary arrest and prosecution; whereas this crackdown has had a devastating effect on the lives and freedoms of minorities, LGBTQI+ persons, women, and all people branded by the government and society as deviating from the behavioural or normative rules and expectations imposed or for criticising the regime and the policies of the Russian authorities;

C.      whereas fundamental human rights, including freedom of association and freedom of expression, are enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as in numerous international legal instruments to which Russia has committed itself; whereas the Russian authorities are responsible for years of systematic propaganda campaigns against Ukraine, Europe and liberal democratic values, culminating in the eradication of any vestiges of a vibrant, politically active and independent civil society;

D.      whereas since 24 February 2022, Russian authorities have arbitrarily detained more than 15 400 peaceful anti-war protesters across the country, subjecting some to severe ill‑treatment and other human rights violations; whereas more than 60 criminal cases have already been brought since then;

E.      whereas numerous laws imposed over the past few years, such as the ‘foreign agents’ law and its variations, the regulation of and adjudication over so-called ‘extremist organisations’ and countless decrees by the regulator responsible for media oversight (Roskomnadzor) have been used by Russian authorities for their concentrated crackdown on independent civil society and media active in Russia, targeting in particular non-governmental organisations (NGOs), human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as women’s rights, LGBTQI+ and environmental activists, and activists of ethnic and cultural minorities; whereas the imposition of all of this legislation, regulation and judicial and administrative burdens is forcing civil society actors to refuse foreign funding, engage in self-censorship and reduce both their public visibility and their activities for fear of state retaliation;

F.      whereas on 4 March 2022, the Russian Parliament amended the Criminal Code to impose a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for spreading allegedly ‘fake’ information about the war in Ukraine; whereas on 22 March 2022, the law was broadened to criminalise the sharing of ‘fake news’ about any activities of Russia’s official bodies abroad; whereas on 4 March 2022, the Russian Duma banned demonstrations against the war in Ukraine; whereas the Russian legal reforms have introduced administrative and criminal offences for Russian nationals and legal entities who call for international sanctions against the Russian state, its nationals or any Russian legal entities;

G.      whereas Russian authorities have forced several independent media outlets to suspend their activities, close down, or move their activities abroad, while blocking access to others in the context of growing internet censorship, control and isolation, thereby depriving the Russian population of unbiased information about Russia’s war against Ukraine and the war crimes being committed there in the name of the Russian Federation; whereas these include, most notably, the radio station Echo of Moscow, the TV station Dozhd and the newspaper Novaya Gazeta; whereas the authorities have blocked foreign social media in Russia and blacklisted Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, labelling it as ‘extremist’;

H.      whereas since the beginning of Russia’s war in Ukraine, hundreds of journalists, human rights defenders, activists and others have left Russia due to the drastically increased risk of arbitrary arrest and prosecution, including after President Putin referred to those standing up against the war as ‘national traitors’ and a ‘fifth column’;

I.       whereas on 16 March 2022, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided to revoke the membership of the Russian Federation in the Council of Europe, effective immediately; whereas the Russian Federation, for its part, decided to leave the Council of Europe on 15 March 2022, depriving Russian citizens of the protection enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and denying them access to judicial remedies before the European Court of Human Rights;

J.       whereas Alexei Navalny, a Russian lawyer, opposition politician and anti-corruption activist, and laureate of the 2021 Sakharov Prize, was arrested in January 2021 and has been in prison since February 2021, where he has been serving an arbitrary, politically motivated sentence and has been repeatedly subjected to torture and inhumane treatment; whereas the EU has condemned the poisoning and politically motivated imprisonment of Alexei Navalny in the strongest possible terms, imposed targeted sanctions and continues to demand an independent investigation into his poisoning;

K.      whereas on 22 March 2022, Moscow’s Lefortovski Court, following an extraordinary session staged in a prison camp and thus outside regular court facilities, sentenced Alexei Navalny to nine years in a maximum security prison and issued him with an administrative fine of RUB 1,2 million (approximately EUR 12 838); whereas this judgment clearly contravenes international law and the Russian Constitution and is as unlawful, arbitrary and politically motivated as the previous judgment;

L.      whereas a number of activists have been threatened with or subjected to arrest and prosecution for supporting or working with Alexei Navalny or for supporting his ideas, like the smart voting strategy; whereas they were accused and prosecuted for such support based on the retroactive application of new laws or administrative decisions on the basis of their social media statements, and many of them have left Russia after facing criminal charges; whereas Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation was labelled ‘extremist’;

1.      Condemns the Russian regime’s domestic repression, which has worsened in the wake of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; demands that Russian authorities stop the harassment, intimidation and attacks against all anti-war protesters, independent civil society organisations, NGOs, human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, as well as women’s rights, LGBTQI+ and environmental activists in Russia; expresses its solidarity with the democratic forces in Russia committed to an open and free society, and underlines its support for all individuals and organisations which have been the target of attacks and repression;

2.      Condemns the neo-totalitarian, imperialist ideological stance cultivated by the Russian Government and its propagandists; emphasises that the assault against democracy and disregard for the rights of other nations has paved Russia’s path towards despotism, international aggression and war crimes; underscores that an undemocratic Russia is a constant threat to Europe’s security and stability;

3.      Deplores Russian legislation, including on ‘foreign agents’, the changes to the Criminal Code introduced on 4 March and 22 March 2022, and the Mass Media Law, which are used to engage in judicial harassment against dissenting voices in the country and abroad and to undermine independent media; underscores that these developments are in blatant contradiction with the commitments Russia has voluntarily undertaken under international law and written into its own Constitution;

4.      Denounces the continuous and increasing censorship by Russian authorities, including of the internet, and urges them to immediately put an end to their control and censorship;

5.      Condemns Russian authorities’ behaviour in persecuting the mothers of Russian soldiers and their established organisations, depriving Russian parents of information on the whereabouts of their children and refusing to cooperate with Ukrainian authorities in order to return the remains of Russian soldiers killed in action;

6.      Condemns the role of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, head of the Russian Orthodox Church, for providing theological cover for Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine; praises the courage of the 300 priests of the Russian Orthodox Church who have signed a letter condemning the aggression, grieving over the ordeal of the Ukrainian people and asking to “stop the war”;

7.      Strongly condemns the imprisonment of the Sakharov Prize laureate Alexei Navalny and reiterates its call for his immediate and unconditional release, as well as of the hundreds of other Russian citizens baselessly detained merely for having the courage to demonstrate in favour of democracy and peace or to improve their rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; calls on the Russian authorities to improve conditions in prisons and detention facilities in order to meet international standards; considers Alexei Navalny’s humanitarian, health and safety situation a priority concern for the EU; calls on the Russian authorities to take all necessary measures to fully secure his rights during his unlawful detention; condemns the fact that the trial against Alexei Navalny did not respect his right to a fair trial and reiterates its call for a transparent investigation into the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, without delay;

8.      Considers the repression against Alexei Navalny, his supporters, the media and civil society, all intended as part of a prelude to Russia’s criminal war of aggression, and reiterates that political pluralism and free media are the best safeguards against and obstacles to international aggression by an undemocratic government; considers that our efforts to support freedom of opinion and the media for Russian citizens are an intrinsic part of our efforts to combat the war and aggression in Ukraine;

9.      Forcefully condemns the decisions by Russian courts leading to the closure of International Memorial and the Memorial Human Rights Centre, together one of Russia’s oldest and most prominent human rights organisations and a Sakharov Prize laureate; condemns the continued warnings by Roskomnadzor against Novaya Gazeta concerning censorship and alleged violations of the ‘foreign agents’ law, resulting in the newspaper’s announcement to cease operations until the end of the war in Ukraine; equally deplores the Russian Prosecutor-General’s request for Roskomnadzor to restrict access to Echo of Moscow and Dozhd due to their coverage of the war in Ukraine; commends the role played by these outlets, as well as so many other independent organisations and news outlets that have since been closed down, in uncovering the truth and providing facts about the crimes of the Soviet regime and the Russian Government, as well as their commitment to human rights; calls for an end to the systematic repression of journalistic institutions and independent media, which constitute the fundamental pillars of freedom and democracy;

10.    Calls on the UN Human Rights Council to investigate in full and as a matter of urgency the abuses of the right to information and freedom of expression perpetrated by the Russian regime;

11.    Expresses deep concern over how the crackdown on Russian civil society, human rights defenders, women’s rights activists, sexual and reproductive health and rights activists and LGBTQI+ communities is further exacerbating the situation of already vulnerable and targeted groups in the country;

12.    Reiterates that the free and independent work of civil society organisations and the media is a cornerstone of a democratic society; calls on Russia, therefore, to establish a clear legal framework as well as a safe environment for civil society organisations, protesters, media and political actors in line with Russia’s Constitution and international obligations and with international human rights standards, enabling them to carry out their legitimate and useful work without interference; stresses the need to guarantee efficient legal recourse for protesters, civil society activists and journalists whose fundamental rights have been violated;

13.    Calls on the Commission, the European External Action Service (EEAS) and the Member States to closely monitor the human rights situation in Russia, to provide emergency assistance and to increase support for the civil society, independent NGOs, human rights defenders and independent media which remain active in Russia, including sustainable and flexible financial assistance; calls on the EU Delegation and the Member States’ representations in Russia to publicly show solidarity with those persecuted;

14.    Urges the Commission and the Member States to strengthen protection for the rights and physical integrity of activists, independent journalists and human rights defenders targeted by the Russian authorities’ repression, and to provide them with emergency visas to enable them to leave the country and find temporary shelter in the EU, as well as to allow threatened or banned Russian NGOs and media to immediately continue their work from EU territory if needed;

15.    Calls on the VP/HR and the Council to make effective use of the EU’s global human rights sanctions mechanism and impose restrictive measures on all Russian officials involved in the crackdown against independent civil society and media and peaceful protesters, as well as in this latest case against Alexei Navalny;

16.    Calls on the Commission and the Member States to prevent and counter the spread of disinformation, including propaganda, and strengthen independent media; welcomes, therefore, the development of specific platforms and news in Russian and Ukrainian; calls for EU strategic communications to be improved and for an exploration of effective ways to counter war propaganda originating in Russia from outlets such as Rossija, Channel One Russia and NTV, which disseminate content approving of the war of aggression and misinforming people about it; calls on the Member States, the Commission and the EEAS to continue to enhance alternative online Russian-language information on the unfolding developments to counter disinformation, to continue to ensure that public statements from the EU and the Member States are translated into Russian and to address Russian-speaking audiences and platforms;

17.    Calls on the Commission and the Member States to host banned media teams in the EU and to develop a joint platform for media in exile, as well as to support technologies that enable people to use the internet to exercise their fundamental rights, in particular the freedom of information and expression, and to support the pursuit of democracy and the rule of law, by establishing technological means to circumvent communication surveillance and the blocking of websites and applications in Russia, including low-tech via M-waves, a VPN Russia platform, anonymisation networks and satellite TV;

18.    Calls on the EU Delegation and national diplomatic representations in Russia to closely monitor the situation on the ground and how trials are handled and to offer those concerned any support that they may need, including direct financial assistance to pay for lawyers and experts; calls on all governments to refuse any future extradition requests for Russian nationals for offences under the Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative Offences;

19.    Urges the Member States, the Council and the Commission to secure humanitarian status and create safe migration possibilities for threatened Russian opposition, civil society and media representatives, including securing opportunities for them to enjoy long-term residence and work in the European Union; calls on the Member States to devise a mechanism to protect Russian soldiers who decide to defect; calls on financial institutions, banks, credit card companies and government authorities to introduce screening procedures for the tailored application of sanctions against Russian citizens in the EU in order to allow opposition activists, independent civil society and media representatives to retain access to their financial assets necessary to secure their existence in the European Union;

20.    Recalls that academic and cultural collaboration at an individual level, even in times of conflict, may help to strengthen pluralistic voices in anti-democratic circumstances and serve as a basis for facilitating the re-establishment of relationships after the conflict; underlines that the Russian scientific community has been a primary target of repression by Putin’s regime;

21.    Stresses the strategic value of the input of Russian academics who oppose the war in order to better analyse Putin’s regime and how to counter it; calls for an EU strategy to allow Russian students and professors to officially continue their studies and work in European universities, particularly in humanitarian disciplines, and to receive their corresponding diplomas;

22.    Asks the EEAS, the Commission and the Member States to mainstream human rights and civil society consultation across all dialogues between the EU, its Member States and Russia, and to abide by their commitment to gender mainstreaming;

23.    Calls for the EU and the Member States to continue to engage with the people of Russia and with Russian civil society in exile; urges the EU to demonstrate its readiness to support Russian civil society in its efforts to build a democratic Russia, and to welcome a democratic and responsible Russia back into the international community;

24.    Calls for the EU to appoint a special envoy for a democratic Russia, who should be responsible for relations with the Russian people, in particular with democracy defenders in exile and those who have remained in Russia and want the country to return to the path of democracy;

25.    Calls on the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, to help establish and support a Democratic Russia Hub for continuous dialogue with the democratic Russian community, in particular the anti-war committee established by Russian democratic opposition activists, in order to provide direct communication with the Russian people, to develop together with civil society an EU strategy for a future democratic Russia, to improve the integration of new emigrants from Russia through educational programmes, and to organise annual EU summits with democratic Russia in exile;

26.    Urges the VP/HR and the Member States to take coordinated action with like-minded countries to raise awareness of and push back against the restrictions of fundamental freedoms and human rights by the Russian authorities, including through high-level and public interventions, coordinated démarches, sustained scrutiny at international and regional human rights forums, as well as regular human rights impact assessments to ensure that engagement with Russia does not undermine human rights objectives and does not contribute, directly or indirectly, to human rights violations;

27.    Notes that according to the Levada Center, 83 % of Russians support Putin’s war in Ukraine, while the percentage of Russians who say the country is moving in the right direction has risen from 52 % to 69 %, the highest level ever recorded since 1996; applauds, in this regard, those brave individuals who openly protest and oppose Russian imperialism in its newest form – the invasion of Ukraine – despite the brutality of the rioting policy, as well as media and social pressure; urges EU citizens, nevertheless, not to equate all Russian citizens with the brutal actions of their leadership and military in Ukraine; calls on the Commission and the Member States to support and protect the critical voices within the Russian diaspora who are facing threats from Russian authorities; condemns rallies organised by Russian diasporas in support of the war or in protest against the acceptance of Ukrainian refugees;

28.    Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the Council, the Commission, the governments and parliaments of the Member States, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the President, Government and Parliament of the Russian Federation.

Council of Europe: The battle for human rights in mental health continues

The decision-making body of the Council has started its review process of a controversial drafted text that aim at protecting human rights and dignity of persons who are subjected to coercive measures in psychiatry. The text however has been the subject of widespread and consistent criticism since the work on it started several years ago. The United Nations human rights mechanism has pointed to the legal incompatibility with an existing UN human rights convention, that outlaw the use of these discriminatory and potentially abusive and humiliating practices in psychiatry. UN human rights experts has expressed a shock that the Council of Europe with the work on this new legal instrument that allows the use of these practices under certain conditions might “reverse all positive developments in Europe”. This criticism has been strengthened by voices within the Council of Europe itself, international disability and mental health groups and many others.

Mr Mårten Ehnberg, the Swedish member of the decision-making body of the Council of Europe, called the Committee of Ministers, told the European Times: “The views regarding the compatibility of the draft with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are of course of great importance.”

“CRPD is the most comprehensive instrument protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. It is also the starting point for the Swedish disability policy,” he added.

He stressed that Sweden is a strong supporter and advocate for the full enjoyment of human rights by persons with disabilities, including the right to effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others.

Discrimination on the grounds of disability should not occur

Mr Mårten Ehnberg noted that “Discrimination on the grounds of disability should not occur anywhere in society. Health care must be offered to everyone based on need and on equal terms. Care must be provided with respect of the individual patient’s needs. This is of course also applicable regarding psychiatric care.”

With this he puts his finger on the sore spot. The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – the UN Committee that monitors the implementation of the CRPD – during the first part of the drafting process of this possible new legal text of the Council of Europe issued a written statement to the Council of Europe. The Committee stated that: “The Committee would like to highlight that involuntary placement or institutionalization of all persons with disabilities, and particularly of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, including persons with ‘‘mental disorders’’, is outlawed in international law by virtue of article 14 of the Convention, and constitutes arbitrary and discriminatory deprivation of liberty of persons with disabilities as it is carried out on the basis of actual or perceived impairment.”

To make any doubts on the question whether this concern all coercive psychiatric treatment, the UN Committee added, “The Committee would like to recall that involuntary institutionalization and involuntary treatment, which are grounded on therapeutic or medical necessity, do not constitute measures for protecting the human rights of persons with disabilities, but they are an infringement of persons with disabilities’ rights to liberty and security and their right to physical and mental integrity.”

Parliamentary assembly opposed

The UN does not stand alone. Mr Mårten Ehnberg told the European Times that “The Council of Europe’s work with the current drafted text (additional protocol) has previously been opposed by, inter alia, the Parliament of the Council of Europe (PACE), which on two occasions has recommended the Committee of Ministers to withdraw the proposal to draw up this protocol, on the basis that such an instrument, according to PACE, would be incompatible with the member states’ human rights obligations.”

Mr Mårten Ehnberg to this noted, that the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers in turn had stated that “the utmost should be done to promote alternatives to involuntary measures but that such measures nevertheless, subject to strict protective conditions, may be justified in exceptional situations where there is a risk of serious damage to the health of the person concerned or to others.”

With this he quoted a statement that had been formulated in 2011, and has been used since by those who speak in favour of the drafted legal text.

It was originally formulated as part of the initial consideration whether a Council of Europe text regulating the use of coercive measures in psychiatry would be necessary or not.

During this early phase of the deliberation a Statement on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was drafted by the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics. While seemingly concerning the CRPD the statement however factually only considers the Committee’s own Convention, and its reference work – the European Convention on Human Rights, referring to them as “international texts”.

The statement has been noted as rather deceptive. It lays out that the Council of Europe Committee on Bioethics considered the United Nations Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, particularly whether articles 14, 15 and 17 were compatible with “the possibility to subject under certain conditions a person who has a mental disorder of a serious nature to involuntary placement or involuntary treatment, as foreseen in other national and international texts.” The statement then confirms this.

Comparative text on the key point in the statement of the Committee on Bioethics however show it in reality does not consider the CRPD’s text or spirit, but only text straight out of the Committee’s own convention:

• The Council of Europe Committee’s Statement on the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: “Involuntary treatment or placement may only be justified, in connection with a mental disorder of a serious nature, if from the absence of treatment or placement serious harm is likely to result to the person’s health or to a third party.”

• Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Article 7: “Subject to protective conditions prescribed by law, including supervisory, control and appeal procedures, a person who has a mental disorder of a serious nature may be subjected, without his or her consent, to an intervention aimed at treating his or her mental disorder only where, without such treatment, serious harm is likely to result to his or her health.”

Further preparation of the drafted text

Mr Mårten Ehnberg, said that during the continued preparations, Sweden will continue to monitor that the necessary protective principles are upheld.

He stressed that, “It is not acceptable if compulsory care is used in a way that means that persons with disabilities, including psychosocial disabilities, are discriminated against and treated in an unacceptable way.”

He added that the Swedish Government is highly committed, both nationally and internationally, to further improve the enjoyment of human rights by persons with mental ill-health and disabilities, including psychosocial disabilities, as well as to promote the development of voluntary, community-based support and services.

He finished off noting, that the Swedish Government’s work regarding the rights of persons with disabilities will continue unabated.

In Finland the government also follow the process closely. Ms Krista Oinonen, Director of the Unit for Human Rights Courts and Conventions, Ministry for Foreign Affairs told the European Times, that: “Throughout the drafting process, Finland has also sought a constructive dialogue with civil society actors, and the Government is keeping Parliament duly informed. The Government has lately organised an extensive round of consultations among a large group of relevant authorities, CSOs and human rights actors.”

Ms Krista Oinonen could not give a conclusive viewpoint on the drafted possible legal text, as in Finland, the discussion about the draft text is still ongoing.

Justice and reparations still critical, 30 years on from Sarajevo siege

Thirty years after the siege of Sarajevo, the UN team in Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterated the importance on Wednesday of pursuing justice and reparation for victims, survivors and their family members.

The siege began after Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence in the wake of the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. 

Bosnian Serbs largely opposed independence, while the other two large ethnic groups, Muslim Bosniaks and Croats, favoured the split from Belgrade. 

Bosnian Serb troops started bombarding the capital city in April 1992, a sustained assault which lasted for nearly four years. 

This was the longest blockade since the Second World War, with more than 12,000 people killed, and marked a key moment in the Bosnian War. 

Fighting denial of atrocities 

The UN Resident Coordinator for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ingrid Macdonald, has met with survivors’ associations across the country. 

Ms. Macdonald continues to spotlight the importance of countering the denial of atrocity crimes and glorification of war criminals, said UN Spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric, speaking during his daily briefing from New York. 

“She said that such rhetoric perpetuates the suffering of survivors and families of victims and has no place in a democratic society,” Mr. Dujarric told journalists. 

© UNICEF/LeMoyne

Women near the town of Kladanj, in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995).

End hatred and discrimination  

Ms. Macdonald has also appealed for political leaders to take measures to prevent and act upon all manifestations of hatred and discrimination. 

They are also urged to ensure all people there live in an environment of mutual understanding, respect and dignity.   

The UN has repeatedly spoken out against rising hate speech in the country, and in neighbouring Serbia, decades after the Bosnian War. 

The conflict ended in December 1995 and was among the bloodiest fighting to occur in Europe during the last century. 

Horrific crimes were committed, including ethnic cleansing campaigns such as the July 1995 massacre of thousands of Muslim men and boys in Srebrnica. 

Last June, a UN court upheld the 2017 life sentence imposed on Bosnia Serb military chief Ratko Mladić who commanded the killings. 

ECtHR: Belgium condemned for discriminating against Jehovah's Witnesses

Belgium was condemned for discriminating against Jehovah’s Witnesses. Failure to grant congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses exemption from property tax in the Brussels-Capital Region since 2018 was discriminatory

ECHR 122 (2022) 05.04.2022

In today’s Chamber judgment¹, in the case of Assemblée Chrétienne Des Témoins de Jéhovah d’Anderlecht and Others v. Belgium (application no. 20165/20) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) read in conjunction with Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights and with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the Convention.

The case concerned congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses which complained of being denied exemption from payment of a property tax (précompte immobilier) in respect of properties in the Brussels-Capital Region used by them for religious worship. According to an order of 23 November 2017 enacted by the legislature of the Brussels-Capital Region, as of the 2018 fiscal year the exemption applied only to “recognised religions”, a category that did not include the applicant congregations.

The Court held that since the tax exemption in question was contingent on prior recognition, governed by rules that did not afford sufficient safeguards against discrimination, the difference in treatment to which the applicant congregations had been subjected had no reasonable and objective justification. It noted, among other points, that recognition was only possible on the initiative of the Minister of Justice and depended thereafter on the purely discretionary decision of the legislature. A system of this kind entailed an inherent risk of arbitrariness, and religious communities could not reasonably be expected, in order to claim entitlement to the tax exemption in issue, to submit to a process that was not based on minimum guarantees of fairness and did not guarantee an objective assessment of their claims.

Nazism in Ukraine: Separating Facts from Fiction

Nazism in Ukraine – Sociologist Massimo Introvigne has just published, in his already popular online magazine BitterWinter.ORG, a series of articles with in-depth research to separate facts from fiction, about the propaganda that is trying to portray Ukraine as Nazified country.

See the excellent series of 7 articles published by Massimo Introvigne: Nazism in Ukraine – Separating Facts from Fiction.

article 1 – Ukrainian Nationalism and Antisemitism

A main argument of Russian propaganda in the current Ukrainian war is that Ukraine is under the decisive influence of “Nazis” and needs to be “denazified.” The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, is Jewish, which makes any claims that he heads a “Nazi government” paradoxical. However, the Russians insist that Nazis are a significant part of those fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the Donbass, and that Ukraine keeps lionizing those who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II. The Ukrainians counter that there are quite a few Nazis fighting “for” the pro-Russian Donbass separatists rather than against them. Read the full article by clicking on the title above.

article 2, Nazi Germany and Stepan Bandera

The main argument used by Russians to prove that present-day Ukrainians have Nazi sympathies are the honors officially tributed to nationalist leader Stepan Bandera (1909–1959). Putin’s Russia has inherited from the Soviets the use of “Banderist” as synonym for “Ukrainian Nazi.” The story, however, is somewhat more complicated. Read the full article by clicking on the title above.

article 3 – A Nazi Resurgence in Independent Ukraine

Ukraine became independent in 1991. By then, there were few who had been involved in significant ways in the Nazi German occupation of Ukraine who were still alive. Many had been executed in Soviet times; others had escaped abroad or died of old age. However, small neo-Nazi groups emerged, as they did in most European countries, among young people who had never encountered German Nazism. Read the full article by clicking on the title above.

article 4 – Eduard Kovalenko: A Pseudo-nazism Created by the Russians

There is a propaganda war around neo-Nazism in Ukraine, and it is a war where intelligence services play their usual roles. Not many outside Ukraine are familiar with the story of Eduard Kovalenko, but it is a perfect illustration of how Russian disinformation works on this issue. Read the full article by clicking on the title above

article 5 – Enter the Azov Battalion

Those who have heard of Nazis in Ukraine have certainly heard of the Azov Battalion, which is presented often by Russian and pro-Russian propaganda as the smoking gun proving that the Ukrainian government promotes Nazism. Read the full article by clicking on the title above

article 6 – Pro-Russian Nazi Fighters in the Ukrainian War

Putin has repeatedly indicated that “denazification” of Ukraine is one of the aims of its war. One can ask, however, whether, before denazifying other countries, he should not put his own house in order. Neo-Nazism is not a peculiar Ukrainian phenomenon. It exists in all European countries, and Russia is no exception. Read the full article by clicking on the title above

article 7 –  Russian Propaganda is Just Propaganda

It is now time to draw some conclusions from the six articles I have devoted to the question of Nazism in Ukraine. They show, I believe, that Russian propaganda is just propaganda, and war propaganda is rarely informative. Read the full article by clicking on the title above

Support, resignation, fear, protest... Russians facing the war in Ukraine

The last few weeks seem to have demonstrated, on the one hand, that an armed confrontation between Russia and NATO countries is out of the question and, on the other hand, that international sanctions alone will not be enough to force Moscow to stop the invasion of Ukraine. So who can stop Vladimir Putin in this war (or in his future wars)? The answer is single: the Russian people.

However, it is obvious that the Russian people will not be able to do this tomorrow morning. And no external force will be able to push them to oppose the Kremlin regime en masse in the immediate future. But, in the end, real changes in Russia will take place only when the society strongly demands freedom and a dignified life. That is why it is essential to study in detail how Russians are reacting to Vladimir Putin’s assault on Ukraine.

Russia: many arrests during anti-war demonstrations – FRANCE 24, 6 March 2022

Control of power over society

In his 22 years in power, Putin has succeeded in creating a resilient repressive system. The power vertical tightly controls political life and public expression throughout the country, so that for years a large majority of Russians have preferred to assert themselves “outside politics” in order not to risk losing their jobs, their physical integrity, their freedom or even their lives – and, at the same time, in order not to admit that, in the face of power, they feel powerless and weak.

This sense of fear and helplessness is compounded by incessantly hammered propaganda, which is being deployed in a media landscape that the government has finished cleaning up in recent weeks. This propaganda has convinced a large part of the population that the president has no choice but to launch a “special military operation” in Ukraine to save Russia from destruction.

Yet the invasion of Ukraine has not generated euphoria in Russia comparable to that seen in spring 2014 following the annexation of Crimea. Despite surveys that announce 70% popular support for the “special operation”-but which cannot be taken seriously given the Russian government’s total control over polls-there is a lack of enthusiasm about the war among the Russian population.

Supporting actions are mainly organized by administrations, and the people who take part in them are, most often, civil servants.

For example, in universities, administrations have staged videos of students expressing their support for Putin; in several public elementary school, teachers have arranged groups of children to form the letter Z (which has become the symbol of the invasion of Ukraine); in St. Petersburg, on the famous Nevsky Prospect, a police band played patriotic songs at the top of its lungs to disrupt anti-war demonstrators; in some cities, municipal bus drivers were forced to put a Z sign on their vehicles.

On March 18, 2022, the Kremlin organized a large concert in the Luzhniki Stadium on the eighth anniversary of the annexation of Crimea to show public support for the war in Ukraine.According to official data, nearly 200,000 people attended. Testimonies of participants later revealed that many of them were forced to come (under threat of being fired) and many were paid.

Journalist is asking Z-attendees "Friends, wanna give a small comment – what does this day mean for you?" They turn away in silence. He insists – they shake their heads and refuse to answer. Finally he asks – why did you come? Response "They pushed us into a bus and brought here" pic.twitter.com/3UswR4nL6o

— Kamil Galeev (@kamilkazani) March 18, 2022

In reality, all these actions do not tell us anything about the public opinion in Russia. For the moment, we can only see the mosaic of different trends in Russian society.

Fear and denial

The first trend is fear and denial in Russian society. An example of the fear caused by the all-out repression unleashed by the government against all those who contest the war: in mid-March, an attempt to conduct a realistic survey on the population’s perception of the war had edifying results. Of the 31,000 people the agency was able to reach by phone, almost 29,000 hung up as soon as they realized they were going to be asked about the “special operation” in Ukraine (usually, the proportion of people refusing to answer telephone polls is three to five times lower).

Much of the denial is due to the success of the propaganda mentioned above. After the closure of the last few media outlets open to alternative views to the government’s, most Russians found themselves in an information bubble. The state-controlled media are broadcasting an extremely biased interpretation, hiding the real information about the Russian offensive on Ukrainian towns and villages, presenting Ukrainians as hostages of a Nazi clique and claiming that it is the Ukrainian army and volunteer battalions that are themselves firing missiles at residential buildings in their country and blaming the destruction on the Russians – who, for their part, are allegedly extremely careful to spare civilians.

Some Russians, especially those who have installed VPNs on their computers and smartphones, have access to sources of information inaccessible to their compatriots, know that the reality is different from the image presented on television. But even these people rarely have the courage to discuss it with their relatives, friends and colleagues.

Anonymous denunciations, widespread under the USSR, have become commonplace again. The fear of arrest has begun to destroy horizontal social ties and has atomized society, making collective resistance impossible.

Soviet reflexes
The second trend is precisely the emergence of Soviet reflexes in the Russian population. The “homo sovieticus” was thought to have disappeared with the fall of the USSR, but it seems that its burial was premature.

In addition to the anonymous reports already mentioned, the ideas of nationalization of foreign companies that have decided to suspend their activities in Russia, the introduction of strict price controls by the state, or the expropriation of property owned by the “enemies of the people” who left the national territory after the beginning of the “special military operation” are often brandished by those who support the war in Ukraine.

More directly, direct references to the USSR are flourishing. Tanks on their way to Ukraine are flying Soviet flags. During the concert that the Kremlin organized on March 18, 2022 in Moscow to show popular support for the president, the main song was “Made in the Soviet Union” (which starts with “Ukraine and Crimea, Belarus and Moldova… That’s my country!” before adding a little later “Kazakhstan and the Caucasus, and the Baltic too!”).

Kremlin crooner Oleg Gazmanov at the pro-war rally Putin went to yesterday singing “Ukraine and Crimea, Belarus and Moldova, that is my country.” This clip was sent to me by an acquaintance in Chișinău where it’s being shared with increasing alarm. pic.twitter.com/DHoyiyojX1

— Simon Ostrovsky (@SimonOstrovsky) March 19, 2022

Today’s deeply corrupt and kleptocratic Russian system, run by an elite that generally uses the embezzled money to afford a luxurious lifestyle, has little to do with any communist ideal. Nevertheless, the country’s current leaders, most of whom are old enough to have been trained and educated in the USSR, are happy to use typical Soviet propaganda.

Thus, in September 2021, on the Facebook page of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to justify the idea that Russia has never attacked another country (a fundamental element of the Kremlin’s propaganda) the partition of Poland by Germany and the USSR in 1939 was simply presented as a “liberating expedition” by the Red Army – a vision in line with the one propagated in the USSR and taken up on several occasions by Vladimir Putin, who did not hesitate to rehabilitate the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Young against old

The third trend at work is the growing generation gap in Russia.

Many young Russians are opposed to this war. They are the ones who come out in the streets the most, they are the ones who are most often arrested by the police during demonstrations. Students confide on social networks and sometimes to their teachers that the hardest thing for them today is to talk to their own parents, who are either indoctrinated by television or paralyzed by fear of repression, and therefore pressure their children to keep them quiet.

Modern Russian youth is largely globalized and open to dialogue with other cultures. They live like Western youth: they listen to the same music, watch the same series, love the same brands and use the same formulas (lol, crush, chill, etc.). This trend may contribute to the evolution of Russian society in the future – but not in the immediate future.

What about the intelligentsia?

It is impossible to understand Russian society without mentioning the intelligentsia. The philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev said that writers and poets are the conscience of the nation and best represent the real Russia. Today, we can see that a large majority of the Russian intelligentsia is radically opposed to the war that Putin has unleashed.

These include writer Boris Akunin, director Andrei Zviaguintsev, writer Lyudmila Ulitskaya, actress Shulpan Khamatova, writer Dmitry Glukhovsky, as well as Russian youth idols such as singers Oxxxymiron, Monetochka, Face, Noize MC, and the country’s most popular blogger, Yuri Dud. Most of them have already left Russia.

Report on the “Russians against war” concert organized by Oxxxymiron in Istanbul, CNN, 18 March 2022.

All of them take up positive ideas intrinsic to Russian culture: the value of individual freedom sung by Alexander Pushkin, the absurdity of a harmony built on even a single tear of a child, as expressed by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and the rejection of violence that Leo Tolstoy placed at the heart of his philosophy.

The Russian people have always been slightly out of step with their intelligentsia. Nevertheless, they have always managed to reunite with it. It will still take time for the whole population to become aware of the tragedy that is currently taking place. How long? That is the uncertainty. What is certain is that only after a critical analysis of the Putin regime and the expurgation of the hatred it has infused into Russian society can real changes take place.

Published by The Conversation France

Exoplanets: Weird, Wondrous Worlds [Video]

There’s a huge amount of variety among exoplanets – planets outside our solar system. There are water worlds, lava planets, egg-shaped worlds, planets with multiple suns, and even planets with no sun at all! What can we learn from all this weird, wondrous variety? What does it tell us about both the exoplanets themselves and our own home planet?

Video transcript:

[Narrator] Earth is awesome.

What would be even more awesome, if we found another earth, or a bunch of earths.

That’s one of the things we’re looking for at NASA as we study exoplanets, planets outside our solar system.

But maybe searching for a planet similar to our own, where conditions might have led to an entirely unique origin of life, finally telling us that we’re not alone in the universe, maybe that’s not your thing.

That’s cool.

Maybe you’re more interested in just how weird exoplanets can be.

We think there are entire worlds covered by deep oceans, water worlds.

Not weird enough for you?

Okay. How about planets covered entirely in oceans of lava?

There are egg-shaped planets, worlds that orbit so close to their stars that they’re pulled by gravity into a lopsided shape.

And there are planets where conditions might be just right for it to rain things like glass, or even rubies and sapphires.

There are planets that orbit pairs and even groups of stars. Imagine having three or four suns in the sky!

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there are the loners, rogue planets wandering out in space with no star to call their own.

There are even planets that orbit dead stars, stars that exploded long ago and left behind a rapidly spinning core called a pulsar. Some of these pulsar planets could be among the oldest in our galaxy, pushing 13 billion years.

Such planets would have witnessed most of the history of the universe. Sadly, nearly all of it without tacos.

Now, we think that we haven’t found one yet, that there probably are exoplanets pretty similar to earth out there.

But in the meantime, there are absolutely tons of weird, wondrous worlds in our galaxy.

(jaunty music)

France presents project A/HRC/49/L.2 on Freedom of Religion or Belief, on behalf of the EU, and gets adopted by the HRC

France on the name of the European Union presented the Project to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the HRC adopted the project.

Programme Planning and Budget Division issues Oral Statement about the Resolution A/HRC/49/L.2 on Freedom of Religion or Belief.

1.  This statement is made in accordance with rule 153 of the Rules of procedure of the General Assembly.
2. Under the terms of operative paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of draft resolution A/HRC/49/L.2, the Human Rights Council would:

(a) Decide to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for a further period of three years, and invite the Special Rapporteur to discharge the mandate in accordance with paragraph 18 of Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 of 14 December 2007 (para15);

(b) Request the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the human, technical and financial assistance necessary for the effective fulfilment of the mandate;

(c) Request the Special Rapporteur to report annually to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly in accordance with their respective programmes of work. (para 18)

3. In order to implement the mandate contained in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 of the draft resolution, the following activities and resources would be required. Owing to the perennial nature of the mandate, the activities and resources are presented on an annual basis, and would be applicable to 2022 through 2025:

(a) Annual travel of the Special Rapporteur: three trips to Geneva of five working days each (to report to the Council, to hold an annual consultation with States, OHCHR and relevant stakeholders and to attend the annual meeting of special rapporteurs/representatives, independent experts and chairpersons of working groups of the special procedures of the Council); one trip of five working days to New York to report to the General Assembly; and two country visits of 10 working days each

(b) Travel of one staff to accompany the mandate holder during the two country visits per year of 10 working days each;

(c) Local transportation, security, communications and other miscellaneous expenses during field missions; and

(d) Conference services for the translation of Annual reports and government replies to communications and interpretation during field missions.

4. The activities referred to above relate to section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management, and section 24, Human rights, of the programme budget for the years 2022 – 2025.

5. The adoption of draft resolution A/HRC/48/L.2 would give rise to total annual requirements of $297,100, and a total of $891,300 during the three-year mandate period, as follows:

(United States dollars)

	Requirements
Annual	Total for the mandate period
Section 2, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council affairs and conference management
Simultaneous interpretation	74 100	222 300
Documentation	143 200	429 600
Subtotal, section 2	217 300	651 900
Section 24, Human Rights
Travel of Representatives	51 900	155 700
Travel of staff	11 900	35 700
General Operating Expenditures	16 000	48 000
Subtotal, section 24	79 800	239 400
Total	297 100	891 300

6. As reflected in the table above, annual requirements would arise as follows:

a) $297 100 for 2022, which have already been included in the approved programme budget for 2022 owing to the perennial nature of the mandate;

b) $297 100 for 2023, which would be included in the proposed programme budget for 2023, to be considered by the General Assembly, at its 77th session

c) 297 100 for 2024 and 2025 which would continue to be included in respective proposed programme budgets.

7. With regard to operative paragraph 17, the attention of the Human Rights Council is drawn to the provisions of section VI of General Assembly resolution 45/248B of 21 December 1990, and subsequent resolutions, the most recent of which is resolution 76/245 of 24 December 2021, in which the Assembly reaffirmed that the Fifth Committee is the appropriate Main Committee of the Assembly entrusted with the responsibilities for administrative and budgetary matters, and reaffirmed the role of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

G2229017Download

49/… Freedom of religion or belief

The Human Rights Council,

Recalling General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981, in which the Assembly proclaimed the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,

Recalling also article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant human rights provisions,

Recalling further Human Rights Council resolution 46/6 of 23 March 2021, and other resolutions adopted by the Council, the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights on the freedom of religion or belief or the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief,

Recalling Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1 and 5/2 of 18 June 2007,

Noting with appreciation the conclusions and recommendations of the expert workshops organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and contained in the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial and religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, adopted in Rabat on 5 October 2012,

Reaffirming that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated,

Recalling that States have the primary responsibility to promote and protect human rights, including the human rights of persons belonging to religious minorities, including their right to exercise their religion or belief freely,

Deeply concerned at continuing acts of intolerance and violence based on religion or belief against individuals, including persons belonging to religious communities and religious minorities around the world,

Underlining the importance of education in the promotion of tolerance, which involves the acceptance by the public of and its respect for diversity, including with regard to religious expression, and underlining also the fact that education, in particular at school, should contribute in a meaningful way to promoting tolerance and the elimination of discrimination based on religion or belief,

1. Stresses that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, which includes the freedom to have or not to have, or to adopt, a religion or belief of one’s choice, and the freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance, including the right to change one’s religion or belief;
2. Emphasizes that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and stresses the role that these rights can play in the fight against all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief;
3. Expresses deep concern at emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief, and at instances of religious intolerance, discrimination and violence, inter alia:
4. The increasing number of acts of violence directed against individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities in various parts of the world;
5. The rise of religious extremism in various parts of the world that affects the rights of individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities;
6. Incidents of religious hatred, discrimination, intolerance and violence, which may be manifested by derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and the stigmatization of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief;
7. Instances that, both in law and in practice, constitute violations of the fundamental right to freedom of religion or belief, including of the individual right to publicly express one’s spiritual and religious beliefs, taking into account the relevant articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international instruments;
8. Constitutional and legislative systems that fail to provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all, without distinction;
9. Attacks on religious places, sites and shrines and vandalism of cemeteries, in violation of international law, in particular international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
10. Condemns all forms of violence, intolerance and discrimination based on or in the name of religion or belief and violations of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, and any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means;
11. Also condemns violence and acts of terrorism, which are increasing in number and targeting individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities across the world;
12. Emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this may have adverse consequences for the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the religious community concerned;
13. Also emphasizes that States should exercise due diligence to prevent, investígate and punish acts of violence against persons belonging to religious minorities, regardless of the perpetrator, and that failure to do so may constitute a human rights violation;
14. Strongly encourages government representatives and leaders in all sectors of society and respective communities to speak out against acts of intolerance and violence based on religion or belief;
15. Urges States to step up their efforts to promote and protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, and to this end:
16. To ensure that their constitutional and legislative systems provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief to all, without distinction, by, inter alia, the provision of access to justice and effective remedies in cases where the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, or the right to freely practise one’s religión, including the right to change one’s religion or belief, is violated;
17. To implement all accepted universal periodic review recommendations relating to the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief;
18. To ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief, and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary arrest or detention on that account, and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights;
19. To end violations of the human rights of women, and to devote particular attention to abolishing practices and legislation that discriminate against women, including in the exercise of their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief;
20. To ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion or belief in their access to, inter alia, education, medical care, employment, humanitarian assistance or social benefits, and to ensure that everyone has the right and the opportunity to have access, on general terms of equality, to public services in their country, without any discrimination on the basis of religion or belief;
21. To review, whenever relevant, existing registration practices in order to ensure that such practices do not limit the right of all individuals to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or in community with others and in public or private;
22. To ensure that no official documents are withheld from the individual on the grounds of religion or belief, and that everyone has the right to refrain from disclosing information concerning their religious affiliation in such documents against their will;
23. To ensure in particular the right of all individuals to worship, assemble or teach in connection with a religion or belief and their right to establish and maintain places for these purposes, and the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas in these areas;
24. To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities, to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully respected and protected;
25. To ensure that all public officials and civil servants, including members of law enforcement bodies, and personnel of detention facilities, the military and educators, in the course of fulfilling their official duties respect freedom of religion or belief and do not discriminate for reasons based on religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate awareness-raising, education or training is provided;
26. To take all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international human rights obligations, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, and any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, with particular regard to persons belonging to religious minorities in all parts of the world;
27. To promote, through the educational system and other means, mutual understanding, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect in all matters relating to freedom of religion or belief by encouraging, in society at large, a wider knowledge of different religions and beliefs and of the history, traditions, languages and cultures of the various religious minorities existing within their jurisdiction;
28. To prevent any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief that impairs the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis, and to detect signs of intolerance that may lead to discrimination based on religion or belief;
29. Stresses the importance of a continued and strengthened dialogue in all its forms, including among individuals of and within different religions and beliefs, and with broader participation, including of women, to promote greater tolerance, respect and mutual understanding, and takes note with appreciation of different initiatives in this regard, including the Alliance of Civilizations and the programmes led by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization;
30. Welcomes and encourages the continuing efforts of all actors in society, including civil society organizations, religious communities, national human rights institutions, the media and other actors to promote the implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and also encourages their work in promoting freedom of religion or belief and in highlighting cases of religious intolerance, discrimination and persecution;
31. Calis upon States to make use of the potential of education to eradicate prejudice against and stereotypes of individuals on the basis of their religion or belief;
32. Takes note of the thematic report presented by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on the rights of persons belonging to religious or belief minorities in situations of conflict or insecurity;¹
33. Also takes note of the work of the Special Rapporteur, and concludes that there is a need for the continued contribution of the Special Rapporteur to the promotion, protection and universal implementation of the right to freedom of religion or belief;
34. Decides to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for a further period of three years, and invites the Special Rapporteur to discharge the mandate in accordance with paragraph 18 of Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 of 14 December 2007;
35. Urges all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and to respond favourably to the requests of the mandate holder to visit their countries, and to provide the mandate holder with all the information necessary to enable him or her to fulfil the mandate even more effectively;
36. Requests the Secretary-General and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to provide the Special Rapporteur with all the human, technical and financial assistance necessary for the effective fulfilment of the mandate;
37. Requests the Special Rapporteur to report annually to the Human Rights Council and to the General Assembly in accordance with their respective programmes of work;
38. Decides to remain seized of this question under the same agenda item and to continue its consideration of measures to implement the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.

¹ A/HRC/49/44.

Council of Europe parliamentary committee: Step up deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities

The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Parliamentary Assembly unanimously adopted a draft resolution, as well as a draft recommendation to European governments in line with their obligations under international law, and urged it to be inspired by the work of the UN Convention for persons with disabilities.

The committee pointed out that the UN had clearly shifted to a human rights-based approach to disability which underlined equality and inclusion. Based on a report from its Rapporteur, Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman, the committee laid out a number of recommendations specifically addressing the scene in European countries.

The committee proposed that laws authorising institutionalisation of people with disabilities be progressively repealed, as well as mental health legislation allowing for treatment without consent and detention based on impairment, with a view to ending coercion in mental health. Governments should develop adequately-funded strategies, with clear time-frames and benchmarks, for a genuine transition to independent living for persons with disabilities.

“Persons with disabilities are often presumed to be unable to live independently. This is rooted in widespread misconceptions, including that persons with disabilities lack the ability to make sound decisions for themselves, and that they need ‘specialised care’ provided for in institutions,” the committee pointed out.

“In many cases, cultural and religious beliefs may also feed such stigma, as well as the historical influence of the eugenic movement. For too long, these arguments have been used to wrongfully deprive persons with disabilities of their liberty and segregate them from the rest of the community, by placing them in institutions” the parliamentarians added.

More than one million Europeans affected

In its resolution, the Committee noted that: “Placement in institutions affects the lives of more than a million Europeans and is a pervasive violation of the right as laid down in Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which calls for firm commitment to deinstitutionalisation.”

Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman explained to the European Times that there are quite some differences between the European states, for example in one country there has been a very high rate of institutionalisation of children.

She noted that in this country a process of reform, as well as a commitment to the transformation of its national care system, had been initiated following longstanding pressure. Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman however added, that with this another concern over the fact that institutions had been shut down without any proper community-based alternatives had come to light. A key challenge is to ensure that the process of deinstitutionalisation itself is carried out in a way that is human rights compliant.

Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman stressed, that the European States must allocate adequate resources for support services that enable persons with disabilities to live in their communities. This requires amongst other things a redistribution of public funds from institutions to strengthen, create, and maintain community-based services.

To this extent the Committee in its resolution pointed out that, “Measures must be taken to combat this culture of institutionalisation resulting in social isolation and segregation of persons with disabilities, including at home or in the family, preventing them from interacting in society and being included in the community.”

Ms Reina de Bruijn-Wezeman explained, “Ensuring that there are proper community-based care services available for persons with disabilities, and thus a smooth transition, is pivotal for a successful deinstitutionalisation process.”

Systemic approach to deinstitutionalisation with an aim needed

A systemic approach to the process of deinstitutionalisation is needed in order to achieve good results. Disability has been linked to homelessness and poverty in several studies.

She added, “The aim is not mere deinstitutionalisation of the persons with disabilities, but genuine transition to independent living in accordance with Article 19 of the CRPD, General comment No. 5 (2017) of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on living independently and being included in the community, and the upcoming Guidelines on deinstitutionalization of persons with disabilities, including in emergency situations.”

The transformation of residential institutional services is only one element of a wider change in areas such as health care, rehabilitation, support services, education and employment, as well as in the societal perception of disability and the social determinants of health. Simply relocating individuals into smaller institutions, group homes or different congregated settings is insufficient and is not in accordance with international legal standards.

The report is due to be debated by the Assembly at its April session when it will take a final position.

UN Ocean Conference 2022: The launch of a ‘fleet’ of solutions

Billions of humans, animals and plants rely on a healthy ocean, but rising carbon emissions are making it more acidic, weakening its ability to sustain life underwater and on land.

Plastic waste is also choking our waters, and more than half of the world’s marine species may stand on the brink of extinction by 2100. 

But it is not all bad news. According to the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean Peter Thomson, momentum for positive change is building around the world, with people, especially youth, mobilizing to do their part to reverse the decline in ocean health.

The UN Ocean Conference which will take place from 25 June to 1 July, in Lisbon, Portugal will provide a critical opportunity to mobilize partnerships and increase investment in science-driven approaches.

It will also be the time for governments, industries, and civil society to join forces and take action.

With 100 days to go until the event, UN News spoke with Mr. Thomson about the event, and the current situation of our oceans.

Peter Thomson, UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean. © UNDP/Freya Morales

UN News:  What are UN Ocean Conferences for? What exactly happens in there?

Special Envoy Peter Thomson: When SDG 14 (to conserve and sustainably manage the resources of the ocean) was created back in 2015, along with the other 17 Sustainable Development Goals, it didn’t really have a home. It wasn’t like the health SDG, which had the World Health Organization or the agriculture one, which had The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and so on.

So, the advocates for SDG 14, particularly the Small Island Developing States and some of the coastal States and other allies, said that we needed some kind of discipline to ensure that the implementation of SDG 14 was on track and, if it wasn’t, a way how to bring it on track.

So that’s how the first UN Ocean Conference came into existence in 2017, mandated by the UN General Assembly. Now we have the second UN Ocean Conference, which is, as you said, happening in Lisbon this year. So, this is the process that keeps SDG 14 honest. And that honesty, of course, is extremely important because, as the mantra goes, there is no healthy planet without a healthy ocean.

UN News: How much have we advanced in ocean conservation since the last Ocean Conference? 

Peter Thomson: Definitely not enough. There was a target for 2020 to have 10 per cent of the ocean covered in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and we have only reached eight per cent in 2022. This highlights the fact that we need to do a lot more work on this, because Marine Protected Areas are an essential part of saving the health of the ocean.

For the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming, China, this year, there is a proposal, which some 84 countries are supporting, for a “30 by 30” target.  In other words, 30 per cent of the planet protected by 2030, which of course includes parts of the ocean. So that’s a lot more ambitious than what we currently have in our SDG 14.5 Target, which is the one that sets out that 10 per cent. I believe this is achievable and we are moving in that direction.

A view of Viti Levu, the largest of the islands comprising the South Pacific nation of Fiji and home of the capital city of Suva. © Unsplash/Alec Douglas

 

UN News: Climate change is a matter of survival for all of us, but especially for Small Island Developing States. As a Fijian yourself, what would you say to make people relate to the devastating situation that millions of pacific islanders are facing?

Peter Thomson: The news is not good; you’ve seen the latest IPCC report. I’m a grandfather, and what I care about, and what my friends in Fiji care about, is the security of our grandchildren.

We understand that it’s not just Small Island Developing States, it’s people living in river deltas – think of Bangladesh or the Mekong – and it’s people living in cities that are built on low alluvial foundations. Security does not look good for them, in a world that is two to three degrees warmer, which is where we’re currently heading.

So that’s why you’ll find that Small Island Developing States, Fiji amongst them, are at the forefront of the battle to transform our consumption and production patterns so that we don’t go to that much warmer world. “1.5 to stay alive”, as the saying goes. That’s still our ambition. It’s diminishing every day, but we’re calling for that ambition to be high.

It’s a matter of survival, not just for our grandchildren, but also for our cultures, that have existed for thousands of years in those locations.

UN News: What’s the way forward? What concrete actions can be taken?

Peter Thomson: Well, look at the COP26 UN climate conference. See what came out of that, and where we’re heading for the next conference, COP 27 in Sharma Sheikh this November.

It’s about cutting down the use of fossil fuels and coal burning activities. Every belch that comes out of every one of those chimneys is another nail in the coffin of those countries, of those environments I’ve just spoke about. So that’s the big call to transform.

And let’s be honest with ourselves: it’s on every one of us. As we come out of this COVID-19 pandemic, are we going to just go back to what we were doing before? or are we going to try and eat more sustainably, travel more sustainably, shop more sustainably. Has the pandemic taught us a lesson? Hopefully it has. And we’ll be building back not just better, but we’ll be building back greener and bluer.

One of the largest coral reefs in the world off the coast of Tahiti, French Polynesia. © Alexis Rosenfeld

UN News: What do you think is hindering the progress towards ocean conservation right now?

Peter Thomson: Well, progress for me in terms of ocean protection is all about implementing SDG 14. This has quite a few targets: It’s about pollution; It’s about overfishing; It’s about the effects of greenhouse and gas emissions; It’s about getting marine tech in place, and so on.

I think it’s very doable. I don’t lose sleep on whether we’re going to achieve this or not. We are going to achieve this by 2030.

I also think of targets like SDG 14.6: ridding the world of harmful fisheries subsidies that lead to overfishing, and lead to illegal fishing and so on. That is a very doable act, and the time to do it is at the World Trade Organization Ministerial conference in June this year.

And who’s going to do it? The member States of this world. And if they fail, they fail all of us. Now, are they going to do it? I’m sure they will, because they’ve looked at Nairobi and saw that member States there grasped that nettle of consensus and said, ‘Let’s do the right thing by people on planet. Let’s get this treaty to ban and control plastic pollution. Let’s bring it into reality’.

As a result, they’ve an intergovernmental negotiating committee to get that treaty up and running, and they will finish their work on that by the end of 2024.

I’m so excited about it, because when you talk about marine pollution, which is SDG Target 14.1, 80 per cent of that pollution is plastics. So, by getting this treaty in place, an internationally binding treaty to combat plastic pollution, we’re going to hit that target, no problem.

Fisheries provide a vital source of food and employment for people throughout the world. © UN Photo/Martine Perret

UN News: Can you give us some examples of ‘ocean solutions’?

Peter Thomson: Look, there are 1000 solutions, and a fleet of them will be launched at the UN Ocean conference in Lisbon. Rather than going into individual ones, I would say be prepared for that fleet.

But one that I particularly like talking about is nutrition. We all know that the sea provides very healthy nutrition compared with some of the other things that are produced on land.

We don’t eat what our grandparents ate. We have a totally different diet, which is, in fact, why obesity is such a problem around the world. But our grandchildren will be eating very differently from the way we eat.

They won’t be eating big fish, for example. They will still be eating fish, but there’ll be small fish which are grown in sustainable aquaculture conditions. They’ll be eating a lot more algae. And that may not sound appetizing to you, but you’re already eating it in your sushi with the nori that’s around your sushi. That’s seaweed, right? That’s algae.

The biggest source of food in the world really is unexploited by anybody other than whales, phytoplankton. We will be eating some kind of marine tofu which is made from phytoplankton. We’ll be farmers of the sea rather than hunter-gatherers, which is what we still are. It’s the only place we still are, which is out on the ocean. So those sorts of transformations are underway, but we have to invest in the transformations, and we have to start doing that now.

Marine debris, including plastics, paper, wood, metal and other manufactured material is found on beaches worldwide and at all depths of the ocean. © UN News/Laura Quiñones

UN News: And as individuals what can we do?

Peter Thomson: I think you have to think first about source to sea, which is very important. You see people throwing cigarette butts into the gutter. They don’t think about the fact that the filter of that cigarette is microplastic and it’s heading in one direction, which is down the drain into the sea eventually, and that’s more microplastics going into the ocean.

Microplastics, of course, are coming back to them when they’re eating their fish and chips because they are being absorbed into life in the ocean. That cycle is going on, whether people realize it or not.

So, I think ‘source to sea’ really important, but that relates to our industries, to agriculture, to the chemicals that are coming down the same drains and rivers out into the sea and poisoning the lagoons that we rely on for healthy marine ecosystems.

So, what can we do? We can just adopt better behaviour as human beings in terms of pollution. Look at your plastic use and say, Do I really need all this plastic in my life? I’m old enough to remember a life with no plastic, it was very nice.

You can make your own decisions about your nutrition. I remember my wife and I, when we were living here in New York, we looked at the latest report about what beef was doing to the Amazon, and we looked at a photo of our grandchildren and said, what do we love more? our hamburgers or our grandchildren? And we decided then and there – it was about five years ago – to give up beef.

Do you need to own a car? A lot of people do need to own cars, but my wife and I, we’ve been living in cities now for quite a while and we haven’t had a car for decades. You rely on public transport and walking, which, of course, is the best way to get around.

Individuals have to make the right choices that make this world a sustainable place.

UN News: What do you hope to accomplish in the upcoming Ocean Conference? 

Peter Thomson: In Lisbon, we want to generate, outside of the formal process, the excitement of new ideas, of innovation, and that will take place in the side events.

I’m very confident that there’s going to be this innovation, which is going to be visible in that carnival type atmosphere that you develop around the central core of the conference.

Of course, science-based innovative partnerships is the other big thing, public and private and north and south and east and west. This is a universal moment. A UN conference is always a universal moment.

The first ocean conference in 2017 was a game changer in terms of waking the world up to the Ocean’s problems. I think this conference in Lisbon in June is going to be about providing the solutions to the problems that we’ve alerted the world to. And I’m very confident that those solutions emerge when we get there.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Related content: EU contribution to the One Ocean Summit

Pope Francis addresses the participants of the 3rd edition of the European Catholic Social Days

Pope Francis addressed the participants of the 3^rd edition of the European Catholic Social Days on Friday 18 March 2022, thanking Church actors for the “prompt and coordinated response in coming to the aid” of the refugees from Ukraine. Read the message of Pope Francis

On the occasion of the opening session of the 3^rd edition of the European Catholic Days held in Bratislava on 17-20 March 2022, the Holy Father addressed the participants of the event with a message focused on the current war and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine.

“The distressing cry for help of our Ukrainian brothers and sisters urges us as a community of believers not only to reflect seriously, but to weep with them and to do something for them; to share the anguish of a people whose identity, history and tradition have been wounded”, reads Pope Francis’ message.

“Once again humanity is threatened by a perverse abuse of power and vested interest, which condemns defenseless people to suffer all forms of brutal violence”, the message continues.

While thanking all those who acted with a “prompt and coordinated response in coming to the aid of the people, guaranteeing them material help, shelter and hospitality”, the Holy Father prayed for a general “commitment to rebuild an architecture of peace at the global level, where the European home, born to guarantee peace after the world wars, plays a primary role”.

President of the Slovak Bishops’ Conference, Zuzana Čaputová. (Credit: Slovak Bishops’ Conference)The opening session also included the participation of Zuzana Čaputová, President of the Slovak Republic. “All the moral and spiritual qualities that we are discovering and mobilising in ourselves today – she stated referring to the ongoing war in Ukraine and to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic to our societies –  will undoubtedly be needed in the future, when we face the challenges that lie ahead. The war has erupted at a moment when our continent is facing a number of serious and interlinked challenges, including the climate crisis, ageing, changes in the labour market and social inequalities”. Read the speech of President Zuzana Čaputová

Mgr. Zvolenský, President of the Slovak Bishops’ Conference. (Credit: Slovak Bishops’ Conference)

Following the European Catholic Social Days held in Gdansk (2009) and in Madrid (2014), this third edition – entitled “Europe after the pandemic – towards a new beginning” – gathered hundreds of delegates of the Bishops’ Conferences to discuss about the most pressuring socialchallenges in Europe.

This event aims at reflecting upon the demographic, technological and ecological transition processes taking place in European societies. Moreover, as highlighted by H. E. Mgr. Stanislav Zvolenský, President of the Bishops’ Conference of Slovakia, in his opening remarks, “the theme of the war confrontation and its consequences, especially from a social point of view […], has become particularly topical in this regard”. Read the speech of Mgr. Stanislav Zvolenský

H. Em. Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich SJ, President of COMECE, reiterated the “fraternal closeness and solidarity with our brother and sisters in Ukraine”, welcomed the event as the occasion to “reflect on the importance of solidarity and social justice in Europe” and invited all participants to “rediscover together our vocation to fraternity, and to reflect and debate on the way forward towards a just recovery in Europe, leaving no one behind”. Read the speech of Cardinal Hollerich

CCEE President Mgr. Grušas at the European Catholic Social Days. (Credit: Slovak Bishops’ Conference)

“We embark with the hope of helping one another find a path on which we can assist in the renewal of the Church in Europe and of our European society” –the President of CCEE, H.E. Mgr. Gintaras Grušas, added.

“The challenges before us are great, but our coming together to pray, to analyze the current situation and to look for solutions is at an appropriate moment”, he continued. Read the speech of Mgr. Grušas

H. Em. Cardinal Michael Czerny took part in the opening session of the European Catholic Social Days following his visit to some of the structures receiving refugees at the Slovakian-Ukrainian border. “[I saw war] in displaced and desperate eyes, in personal and family histories abruptly ended”, he stated.

“How do we, as Christian or non-Christian citizens, as laity or clergy and hierarchy, contribute to peace in Europe? Such an examination of conscience invites us to meditate on the violent history of the 20th century and the first 20 years of the 21st. The vocabulary and thinking of such an examen may be found in ‘Fratelli tutti’”, he continued. Read the speech of Cardinal Czerny

Ecumenical Prayer for peace in Ukraine and the world. St. Martin’s Cathedral in Bratislava. (Credit: Slovak Bishops’ Conference)

During the first day of the event, participants joined various workshops and reflected and explored the social, ecological and demographic challenges in today’s Europe, including the road to recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Watch the videos

A powerful ecumenical prayer closed the first day of the third edition of the European Catholic Social Days. The ceremony was celebrated at the Saint Martin’s Cathedral of Bratislava, where participants, including the Slovakian Prime Minister Eduard Heger, prayed for peace in Ukraine and in the world.

Visit the official website of the event to download the programme, speeches, contributions, videos and photos: www.catholicsocialdays.eu