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.
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.
This statement is made in accordance with rule 153 of the Rules of procedure of the General Assembly.
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.
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,
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;
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;
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:
The increasing number of acts of violence directed against individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities in various parts of the world;
The rise of religious extremism in various parts of the world that affects the rights of individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities;
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;
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;
Constitutional and legislative systems that fail to provide adequate and effective guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief to all, without distinction;
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;
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;
Also condemns violence and acts of terrorism, which are increasing in number and targeting individuals, including persons belonging to religious minorities across the world;
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;
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;
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;
Urges States to step up their efforts to promote and protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, and to this end:
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;
To implement all accepted universal periodic review recommendations relating to the promotion and protection of freedom of religion or belief;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Pope Francis addressed the participants of the 3rd 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 3rd 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 againhumanity 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 PresidentZuzana 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 ofMgr. 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
At the European Times, we have covered the long-time association between the anticult movement, the Russian Orthodox Church and the warmongers in the Kremlin. The piece we publish today shows that in current times, the anti-sectarians, as they call themselves, are working hand in hand with the FSB and other Russian law enforcement agencies, to hunt those Russians who would dare to share messages of peace while the war is ravaging Ukraine.
Below is the full translation of a call that has been posted on the website antisekta.ru, which is the official website of the Centre of Religious Studies – Saratov, headed by Alexander Kuzmin, a Russian Orthodox Priest. This centre is a branch of another organization called Centre for Religious Studiesin the name of Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyons, headed by Alexander Dvorkin, an Orthodox theologian who has been criticized in a 2020 report by USCIRF (US Commission on International Religious Freedom) as a major architect of the crackdown on religious minorities in Russia.
Both centres are members of the FECRIS (European Federation of Centres for Research and Information on Sects and Cults), a French-based umbrella organization that gathers anticult associations all over Europe and beyond and is almost utterly funded by the French government.
The text that you will now read, by Alexander Kuzmin, is to be understood in the context of the new Russian law that can send any person in jail for up to 15 years for “discrediting the armed forces” or “spreading fake news about the military”, which includes saying that there is a war in Ukraine, when the Russian government forbade the use any other term than “special military operation”.
And here is the call, welcome back in the USSR:
Address to readers
02.03.2022
Dear friends, and especially respected fathers who know and read me! Many of you are aware that when I am engaged in anti-sectarian activities, I often talk about the fact that sects have long been a tool of the Western secret services. This has become even more important these days, and I have to warn you all. The situation is more than serious!
In social networks and the messaging systems all of us, clerics and laymen, are the object of close attention from the participants of the information war against Russia. The West has long understood that we cannot be defeated at war on the battlefield, as we are able to fight and the whole world knows it, but we have often been losing the information wars, and there is now a growing split in civil society with the efforts of sectarian structures, especially of neo-pagan and pro-Nazi persuasion. The West has decided to rely on information attacks and now the focus of these attacks is on religion.
Through fan mailings, publications in the opposition media, as well as the increasingly brazen use of the individual approach (personal messages, correspondence in comments and even phone calls), many of us these days are convinced by supposedly “ordinary people”, supposedly “peaceful residents of Ukrainian cities” who are supposedly “parishioners of Ukrainian churches”, that suppose “Russia is the aggressor”, that suppose that on purpose “they bomb civilians” and that there are supposedly “mountains of dead conscript soldiers” on Ukrainian soil and so on and so forth in order to sow panic, indignation at the actions of our state authorities, to bring people out to the streets to protest and to induce them to sign various petitions and statements.
Thus, systematically and cynically, human behavioural stability is being undermined, people are being hooked by regularly viewing opposition mass media, and are filled with indignation and anti-Russian sentiments. In particular, our Church is being attacked, priests and laymen are being asked to “pray for the repose of the newly-departed conscripted soldiers,” people are being persuaded to re-post and leave angry comments about the government of our country. Enemies know that if a clergyman becomes the mouthpiece of their ideas, it will have more resonance than if it were a politician or a public figure. Neo-pagans also do this now, hating Christians and everything related to our Christian values, including our patriotism and desire for justice. They are playing on these very feelings.
Please check and recheck the information coming to you, do not give in to provocations, take care of each other and do not rely on emotions and hasty conclusions.
Please also help in monitoring the activities of such provocateurs. Please send screen shots, their designated data (names and surnames, phone numbers and e-mail addresses) for further analysis, which is conducted by our anti-sectarian organizations together with the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation.
The attack on Ukraine represents a great paradox: there is public international law that clearly envisages the possibility of international interventions to protect civilians or collectively reduce countries that use war for non-defensive purposes (such as Russia); but we do not have effective global political arrangements to do so.
The UN Security Council, charged with ensuring global peace and security, contains Russia and China as permanent members with veto power. While Russia’s action is unjustifiable, my hypothesis is that certain macro-social processes have been at work that have indirectly favoured aggression. In the following, I will try to point both to some of these developments and to certain alternatives that the EU could take.
EU countries placed much of the responsibility for their security in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), a US-led collective defence body created at the same time as the UN to defend Western interests against Soviet communism. The UN (which included the USSR) was intended to preserve world peace, but the West also created its own organisation because it saw the USSR as a threat. NATO symbolises this Cold War, so its eastward enlargement into former Soviet republics is interpreted in Russia as a threatening encirclement. Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO has been a trigger. The European Union has probably been the most successful region in the world in terms of peacemaking through political integration and deepening interdependence and trade. The United States of Europe, however, has not come into existence, in part, because European defence was delegated to NATO. When Trump announced his cessation of support for NATO, the European Union realised the problem of defence dependence. Now, Isn’t it possible for the European Union to continue to integrate and, moreover, to expand eastwards, while not excluding Russia? NATO’s eastern expansion conveys the idea of threat, while EU expansion raises expectations of shared benefits and identity, of interdependence. This may sound idealistic, so a less ambitious prospect would be for the European Union to assume its own defence and complete its political integration.
The humanitarian situation in Ukraine’s pro-independence provinces deserves special attention: it is one of Russia’s arguments for legitimising the invasion. The UN should send international observers to Donetsk and Luhansk, to dispel any shadow of doubt about Ukraine’s behaviour since the signing of the Minsk peace accords in 2014. Putin considers them unilaterally broken by Ukraine. In February, the UN published a notice announcing that the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court opened an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine. This is a step in the right direction that could be complemented by the measure proposed here.
This in no way legitimises Russia’s attack, nor its desire to demilitarise Ukraine, nor its call for a coup d’état by the Ukrainian military to simplify negotiations with Moscow. Crossing such a dangerous red line for world peace cannot be ignored: it would open the way for similar actions by Russia or other countries.
However, any military action against Russia, inside or outside Ukraine, would have devastating global consequences, both for Ukraine, Russia and Europe. Likewise, arming Ukraine is a dangerous strategy. Other historical experiences, such as Afghanistan (1978-1992) and Syria, show that arming a population is a ticking time bomb whose place and range of explosion are unpredictable.
Unequivocal denunciations by as many states as possible, diplomacy and economic sanctions seem the only immediate way forward. Russia cares about sanctions: inflation, the freezing of funds and the closing of potential markets for gas sales hurt it. Although it looks like a superpower, its economy is not robust, internal inequalities are rampant, it is threatened by terrorist groups and there is dissent. In the medium term, reducing NATO’s influence (until its eventual dissolution), strengthening European foreign and defence policy and expanding the Union eastwards should be the way forward.
Finally, the transformation and universalisation of the UN’s collective security system, as the only framework for settling international conflicts, but democratised and endowed with indisputable coercive capacity, seems to be the essential collective project if humanity is not to be finally extinguished by the threats it itself produces.
If the federation of the United States of the world takes too long, what is sometimes seen as utopian may be remembered as the practical solution that could not be tried out because of narrow-mindedness but which would have prevented civilisation from succumbing to barbarism.
Originally published in Spanish at Diario de Navarra and SerGarcia.ES
On March 6, 2022, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. At the end of the service, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church delivered a sermon.[1]
In his sermon, Kirill, who has already been heard several times defending and justifying war since the first day it started, has explained why “this spring has been overshadowed by grave events related to the deterioration of the political situation in the Donbas”.
His explanation, which is aligned with anti-West rethoric to justify war, goes like this: “For eight years there have been attempts to destroy what exists in the Donbass. And in the Donbass there is rejection, a fundamental rejection of the so-called values that are offered today by those who claim world power. Today there is such a test for the loyalty of this government, a kind of pass to that “happy” world, the world of excess consumption, the world of visible “freedom”. Do you know what this test is? The test is very simple and at the same time terrible – this is a gay parade. The demands on many to hold a gay parade are a test of loyalty to that very powerful world; and we know that if people or countries reject these demands, then they do not enter into that world, they become strangers to it.”
He adds that: “If humanity recognizes that sin is not a violation of God’s law, if humanity agrees that sin is one of the options for human behavior, then human civilization will end there. And gay parades are designed to demonstrate that sin is one of the variations of human behavior.”
So the war “has not only political significance. We are talking about something different and much more important than politics. We are talking about human salvation, about where humanity will end up, on which side of God the Savior, who comes into the world as the Judge and Creator, on the right or on the left…All of the above indicates that we have entered into a struggle that has not a physical, but a metaphysical significance.”
And which side you choose “is today a test for our faithfulness to the Lord, for our ability to confess faith in our Savior.”
And he ends up by praying for soldiers, which we guess are not the “evil forces” of the Ukrainian army: “let us pray that all those who are fighting today, who are shedding blood, who are suffering, will also enter into this joy of the Resurrection in peace and tranquility.”
Anti-Cults – Since the Maidan events in 2014, when then President Yakunovich was forced to resign after huge protests in the streets of Ukraine, the pan-European Anti-cult movement, led by the European Federation of Centers of Research and Information on Sectarianism (FECRIS), has been participating in the Russian propaganda machine that finally led to the current war.
In 2013, after Ukraine had been on a pro-European trajectory some years and was about to sign an association agreement with the EU which would have more closely integrated political and economic ties between the EU and Ukraine, Putin’s forces pressurised Yakunovich to scuttle the agreement. Yakunovich, who was known as a pro-Russian corrupted leader, caved in and that started what has been called the Maidan revolution in Ukraine.
Counting on religious forces against the West
The Maidan revolution represented a major threat in the mind of Putin, who then started a propaganda machine to discredit the new authorities. Since then, the Russian rhetoric against Ukraine’s new democratic forces in power, which were definitely not pro-Russian, included accusations of being neo-Nazis, but also to be puppets of Western democracies hiding an anti-Russian agenda. For his propaganda, he counted largely on his “religious forces”, mainly the Russian Orthodox Church, which still had quite an important influence in Ukraine.
The Russian Orthodox Church’s main leaders, such as Patriarch Kirill, have always backed Putin’s efforts to get the rid of pro-European forces in Ukraine, accusing them of persecuting Ukrainian Orthodox members affiliated to the Moscow Patriarchate (which might have been true to some extent, as the opposite was true in Russian controlled-occupied territories in Ukraine), but also to threaten the “Old-Rus’” unity[1], and are still doing so as we could see recently when Patriarch Kirill accused those who oppose Putin’s war in Ukraine to be the “forces of evil”.
Alexander Dvorkin, the “sectologist”
Patriarch Kirill and Vladimir Putin could also count on the “anti-cult” movement, which in Russia was led by Vice-President of FECRIS Alexander Dvorkin, a Russian-Orthodox theologian who was often presented as an expert in “sectology” by Russian authorities. FECRIS is a French anti-cult organization with pan-European influence. The French government provides the majority of FECRIS’ funding, and in fact it was founded by a French anticult association called UNADFI (National Union of Associations for the Defense of Families and Individuals against cults) in 1994.
At the very beginning of the new Ukrainian government that had been elected after Yakunovich’s resignation, on April 30, 2014 Alexander Dvorkin was interviewed by radio Voice of Russia, the main Russian Governmental Radio (that a few months later changed its name to Radio Sputnik). Dvorkin, introduced as an “anti-cult activist and Vice-President of the European Federation of Centers of Research and Information on Sectarianism, which is the umbrella organization for anti-cult groups in Europe”, was asked to comment on the “hidden religious agenda behind Maidan and the Ukrainian crisis”. He then forwarded the Russian State propaganda in a very interesting way[2].
Greek Catholics, Baptists and other so-called “Cults” targeted
In that interview, Dvorkin first accused the Uniate Church, also known as Greek Catholics, to be behind the revolution: “There are several religious groups and several religious cults which play quite a prominent role in those events. First of all, the Uniate church…played a very prominent and a very, I’d say, violent role for lots of Uniate priests who preached there in all their liturgical vestments…” When the interviewer asked Dvorkin what the Vatican could do, as it had called for “the necessity of returning to peace developments in Ukraine”, Dvorkin’s answer was to explain it could do nothing, because the Vatican was now led by Jesuits, which had become very much pro-Marxist and in favor of revolution through the centuries, adding: “Well, the present Pope Francis, he is not really pro-revolutionary, but the way he behaves shows that he accepted part of this legacy”.
Alexander Dvorkin with Bulgarian Orthodox Church Clergy discussing about Ukraine on July 17, 2019
Then Dvorkin goes after the Baptists, accusing them of playing an important part in the Maidan and to be very nationalistic in Ukraine. He further goes into accusing then Prime Minister Yatsenyuk to be a “hidden Scientologist”, while pretending to be Uniate: “There were a lot of media reports which called him Scientologist… If he would have been an open Scientologist, it would have been very bad. But still, at least you would know what to expect from him. But when a person, actually Yatsenyuk, called himself a Greek Catholic Uniate [while being a Scientologist], and there was a Uniate priest that confirmed that he was Uniate, I believe this is very dangerous.” Then in an interesting conspiracy theory manner, he extrapolated on the fact that this was a way for CIA to control him, using Scientology techniques in order to “control his behavior and control his actions”.
Last but not least, Dvorkin led an attack on what he calls “neo-paganism”, which he accused of being tied into neo-Nazis, a rhetoric that has taken a very important significance in current Russian propaganda, as we can see with the “Denazification” advocated today by Putin to justify the war in Ukraine.
Gerry Amstrong’s love letters to Putin
Dvorkin is of course not the only member of FECRIS to have participated to the Russian anti-West propaganda. Amongst others, a Canadian supporter/member of FECRIS, Gerry Amstrong, wrote two letters to Putin which have been published, one on the Russian Orthodox Church website “proslavie.ru”[3] and the other on the FECRIS Russian affiliate’s website[4]. Amstrong is a former Canadian Scientologist who became an apostate of the Church of Scientology, and who flew to Canada to avoid a warrant arrest after he was convicted by an American court for some of his anti-Scientology activities. In the first letter, published on 2 December 2014, he says that after visiting Russia, “at the invitation of people in the Russian Orthodox Church…I became pro-Russian.” He adds: “I did not become anti-West or anti-US, although I am dead set against the West and the US’s superpower hypocrisy.” Then he praises Putin for having offered asylum to Edward Snowden, and being “highly intelligent, reasonable and presidential.” After complaining about his conviction in the US, he thanks Putin “for whatever officials in your government have done to facilitate my being in Russia and being able to communicate to your citizens” as well as for standing against a European Court of Human Rights decision which had condemned Russia for violating the rights of Scientologists. He then blames the West for its “black propaganda” against the President of Russia.
While this letter does not explicitly mention Ukraine it is written on the eve of the new Ukrainian democratic era and is aligned with the rhetoric of Russia being threatened by Western ideologies and cults, and being the last rampart for maintaining “a moral position” against such.
Gerry Armstrong, Alexander Dvorkin, Thomas Gandow and Luigi Corvaglia at a FECRIS conference in Salekhard, Siberia, on September 29, 2017. In the center, Archbishop Nikolai Chashin.
In his second letter to Vladimir Putin, published on 26 June 2018 on the Russian FECRIS website, Amstrong, introduced on the website as a “Christian activist” and good friend of Mr Dvorkin – who is said to have taken care of the translation of the letter in Russian – starts by congratulating Putin for his re-election. Then, he goes on to congratulate Putin for his actions in occupied Crimea: “Congratulations on the opening of the Crimean bridge for vehicular traffic. I congratulate the whole country on such an amazing achievement. This is a blessing both for Crimea and for the rest of Russia.” He then takes the defense of Putin against the campaign by “the West” writing that it is “dangerous, cruel, hypocritical, unreasonable and based on obvious ideological motives”
The letter goes on: “You know that there are people in Canada and other Western countries who do not believe the smear campaign against you, realize it is wrong, see it as a threat, and even admit that it can be used as a pretext or trigger for nuclear war. On the other hand, it’s easy to see that there are plenty of people out there who want this threat and other similar threats to succeed and grow, and to do so, they plot, act, pay, and get paid to make this threat effective. These are the same people who are running a campaign here to defame you.” Again, this is a conspiracy rhetoric that is of great significance, because it puts the blame of war on the West and its so-called “smear campaign”, that would be the underlying cause of Putin’s obligation to start a war in Ukraine.
USCIRF report on the anti-cult movement in Russia
In 2020, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) published a report called “The Anti-cult Movement and Religious Regulation in Russia and the Former Soviet Union”[5]. The reports explains that “While both the Soviet legacy and the ROC [Russian Orthodox Church] are major influences, current attitudes about and approaches to religious minorities also stem from other factors, including post-Soviet socio-economic developments, the Putin regime’s desire for national unity, individual fears about family security or change generally, and transnational concerns about the perceived dangers from new religious movements (NRMs)”. Ironically enough, it goes to the roots of the anti-cult movement which definitely originate in the West.
The report explains that after 2009, “the rhetoric of the anti-cult movement and the Russian state have converged noticeably over the subsequent decade. Echoing Putin’s concerns about spiritual and moral security, Dvorkin claimed in 2007 that NRMs deliberately ‘inflict damage on Russian patriotic feelings’.” And that’s how the convergence began, and why the Russian Orthodox Church and the Anti-cult movement became key in Putin’s propaganda agenda.
Speaking of Dvorkin the report says: “Dvorkin’s influence has also extended outside of the post-Soviet orbit. In 2009, the same year in which he was appointed head of Russia’s Council of Experts, he also became Vice-President of the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS), a French anti-cult organization with panEuropean influence. The French government provides the majority of FECRIS’ funding and the group regularly spreads negative propaganda about religious minorities, including at international forums like the OSCE Human Dimensions conference. Dvorkin’s center is the primary associate of FECRIS in Russia and receives significant financial support from both the ROC and the Russian government.”
Then in a chapter called “exporting intolerance in Ukraine”, USCIRF goes on: “Russia brought along its restrictive religious regulation framework when it invaded Crimea in 2014, including the symbiosis between anti-cult ideas and national security. The occupation regime in Ukraine frequently has used religious regulations to terrorize the general population as well as to target activists in the Crimean Tatar community.” In its conclusion the USCIRF report makes clear that “Alexander Dvorkin and his associates have carved out influential roles in government and society, shaping the public discourse on religion across numerous countries.”
Donetsk and Luhansk’s fight against so-called cults
Interestingly enough, Donbass pseudo-states Donetsk and Luhansk, have been the only places in the world that makes fighting “cults” a constitutional principle. Bitter-Winter magazine on religious liberty concluded from that and other evidence of their brutal denial of religious liberty, that “what is happening in the pseudo-‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’ is a clear representation of the dystopic Orthodox theocracy Putin’s ideologists have in mind for a ‘Russian World’ whose borders they continuously expand.”[6]
It’s also not the first time that the Anti-cult movement in general, and FECRIS in particular, is linked to nationalistic and pro-war propaganda across Europe. In a report published in July 2005 and signed by a French attorney and Miroslav Jankovic, who later became the OSCE National Legal Officer in Serbia, it was pointed out that the FECRIS representative in Serbia was Colonel Bratislav Petrovic[7].
FECRIS’ past in Serbia
Colonel Bratislava Petrovic
According to the report, Colonel Bratislav Petrovic of the Yugoslav Army was also a neuropsychiatrist. During the Milosevic regime, he headed the Institute for Mental Health and Military Psychology of the Military Academy in Belgrade. From that position, he specialized in the selection and psychological preparation of the soldiers of Milosevic’s army before they were sent to war. Colonel Petrovic was also instrumental in forwarding Milosevic’s propaganda that the Serbs were the victims and not the perpetrators of genocide in Bosnia, contrary to all reliable UN reports on the subject.
The report goes further: “Petrovic is now applying his psychological techniques of indoctrination to target religious minorities. Yet this is not new. In 1993, while ethnic and religious cleansing was underway in Croatia and Bosnia, Petrovic used that same ideology to condemn religious minorities within Serbia, accusing them of being terrorist organizations and conveniently labelling them ‘sects.’”
The report goes on by listing all the so-called cults that were targeted by FECRIS in Serbia: the Baptists, the Nazareens, the Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, the Pentecostals, Theosophy, Anthroposophy, Alchemy, Kabala, the Yoga centres, Transcendental Meditation, Karma Center, Shri Chimnoy, Sai Baba, Hare Krishna, Falun Gong, the Rosicrucian Order, the Masons, etc. As you can see, Petrovic was far from falling short of cults to fight against. These were similar to those that have been targeted by Dvorkin and ROC propaganda in Russia in their attempt to justify the protection of “Russian patriotic feelings” and “spiritual security”.
FECRIS backed up by Orthodox leaders and churches in other places
This initiative from FECRIS was backed by the Serbian Orthodox Church, which, through the words of his representative Bishop Porfirije, laid out the need to have “authentic data in exposing sects one by one as groups which are spreading spiritual terror and violence”. Porfirije also stated that the “Fight against this evil will be easier when the Law on religious organizations comes”, referring to a bill that he and Petrovic had tried to get amended. The amendment they filed (but which was rejected) aimed to reduce the rights of minority faiths in Serbia. Again, this is very similar to what happened in Russia, excepting that in Russia the law restricting the rights of religious minorities that had been lobbied for by FECRIS was passed and used extensively against non-violent religious groups.
Interestingly enough, the FECRIS representative in Belarus has a link on the FECRIS website that links directly to the website of the Belarusian Orthodox Church, which is nothing less than a Branch of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Bulgarian Representative of FECRIS, the “Center for Research on New Religious Movements”, publishes on its website calls from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church not to tolerate “non-canonical gatherings”.
Nevertheless, as stated by USCIRF 2020 report: “Dvorkin and his associates do not exercise a monopoly on Orthodox thought and opinion, and dissenting voices within the church [ROC] have criticized the anti-cult movement for relying on discredited theories and non-canonical sources”. Such “dissenting voices” have not been heard amongst FECRIS.
[1] The Rus’ were an early medieval group, who lived in modern Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and other countries, and are the ancestors of modern Russians and other Eastern European ethnicities.
[2] Interview of Alexander Dvorkin on Voice of Russia, 30 April 2014 in the talk show “Burning point”.
[7] Report on “The Repression of Religious Minorities in Serbia: The role played by the European Federation of Centres of Research and Information on Sectarianism (FECRIS)” – 27 July 2005 by Patricia Duval and Miroslav Jankovic.
How is the war being felt inside the Russian Federation? Read here the impact of the invasion in Russia.
The source for this article chose to maintain anonymity.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its 6th day, the situation in Russia gets worse and worse. Not only for the opposition but for all Russians. There are “many” people against the war, but most are afraid to speak out, mainly because most people are public servants or work for oligarch-owned companies, and so don’t want to lose their jobs.
“The people who are against the war want to protest but are too afraid to lose their jobs, get jailed, pay fines or just get hardly beaten by the police…”
The number of people arrested in protests against the war and Putin’s regime are already in the thousands, most sources say.
“The Russian opposition is disorganized, as many left the country or were jailed after Alexander Navalny’s return last year.” – “(…) the Russians aren’t really used to self-organization, especially in protest activity.”
As the western sanctions get tougher and tougher, the economic situation in Russia is starting to get desperate.
“Right now many people are storming shops to buy cars, electronics, and other items before the sanctions go into effect.” – Many international corporations have already said that they will stop imports to Russia.
“My friend told me that many people rushed to buy dollars and euros, as the rouble has become insanely volatile, but the Russian banks are having problems providing for the population.”
According to the source, Russians are having issues entering social media sites like Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. “The Russian state announced that it will slow social media sites on Russian territory as the companies declined to stop calling Russian media outlets reports as “fake news”.
Konstantin Bazhenov was deprived of his citizenship due to his criminal prosecution. See a video report and his testimony in Russian.
In 2021, one of the first Jehovah’s Witnesses that was sent behind bars after the Russian Supreme Court decided to ban the organization was released from prison and deported from Russia. His story is told in this four-minute video.
As soon as Konstantin Bazhenov left the colony, he was detained and deported to Ukraine because his Russian citizenship was revoked due to criminal prosecution.
It all began on June 12, 2018, when searches took place in Konstantin Bazhenov’s apartment, as well as in 6 other dwellings of believers. After that, he was charged with extremism. As a result, Konstantin and five other believers were sent to the pre-trial detention center.
Konstantin Bazhenov: “The FSB, the investigator and the operatives promised me that if I plead guilty, I will start cooperating with them, they will guarantee me a suspended sentence, and that I will not go to prison.” Konstantin refused to cooperate with the investigator, as this would mean giving up his faith. In total, Konstantin spent almost a year in a pre-trial detention center and waited for a court decision under a ban on certain actions for several more months. The investigation accused him of organizing the activities of an extremist organization.
Konstantin Bazhenov: “The main accusation was based on the fact that in the winter, in January 2018, we held a religious meeting. We read the Bible there, sang spiritual songs, discussed how to live according to biblical principles. The investigator interpreted this religious meeting as if we were holding a meeting of a legal entity banned in Russia.”
On September 19, 2019, the judge announced the sentence: 3.5 years in a penal colony. Three months later, the Court of Appeal upheld this verdict and on February 4, 2020, Bazhenov was sent to a correctional colony.
Konstantin Bazhenov: “On February 8, 2020, I was brought to the correctional colony-3 in the city of Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Region. I worked at the prison store. I received a lot of letters. The operational officer called me and said: “Bazhenov, we receive 300 letters a year for the entire colony. You alone received more than 300 letters in a month.” He says: “What are you doing? Do you want our inspector to drown in these letters?” Well, I explained that people want to support me, somehow encourage, encourage me.
Jehovah’s Witness sentenced, enprisoned, released and deported
Konstantin spent another 1 year and 3 months in the colony and was released on parole on May 5, 2021.
Konstantin Bazhenov: “It was a happy moment – I saw Irina, my wife, hugged her. The head of the detachment says: “Konstantin, I didn’t expect so many people to be present! I knew that you have brothers and sisters, they write letters to you. But that so many people will come to meet you … “He says:” Yes, you are a happy person!
When the day of the deportation came, Konstantin’s fellow believers gathered to support him. Konstantin Bazhenov: “On May 19, we arrived at the border. They checked our documents, all issued. I was met by brothers and sisters with a poster, flowers. My dear wife, Irina, was present. And it was such a joy, such an unforgettable moment, how we saw each other, how we could hug. As Jehovah promised that he would provide a way out in trials – behold, he provided me with a way out. I left the colony, left the deportation center. Indeed, he pushed away all the barriers and made it possible for my wife and I to meet on the day of our wedding anniversary. Such a happy moment.”
After his release, Konstantin and Irina Bazhenov live in Ukraine.
Over the past 4.5 years, 322 Jehovah’s Witnesses have been imprisoned. As of February 2022, 65 believers are awaiting sentencing behind bars and another 18 are serving sentences in penal colonies. 8 Jehovah’s Witnesses completed their sentences and were released from prison.
