MEPs approve the EU’s new volunteering programme | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210517IPR04112/
MEPs approve new, more inclusive Erasmus+ programme | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210517IPR04109/
AI technologies must prevent discrimination and protect diversity | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20210311IPR99709/
EP and EU ministers agree on Erasmus+ programme for 2021-2027 | News | European Parliament
, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20201207IPR93204/
France: is it all about so-called Political Islam?
The Proposed Anti-Separatism Law and the International Obligations of France: is it all about so-called Political Islam?
France is a member of International organisations and indeed a country where the rule of law, democracy and the respect of human rights are fundamental principles of the “République”.
Likewise France is a country with a very diverse population from several backgrounds and belonging to several different linguistic, ethnic and indeed religious or spiritual traditions or none.
President Macron and the Premiere Dame and a number of French politicians have defended the, arguable to say the least, right of Charlie Hebdo to insult the religion of Islam repeatedly by depicting the Prophet of Islam Mohammed, and by insulting the Turkish President Erdogan, and by insulting the religious sentiments of many religious and spiritual groups as such in a number of occasions. All of this in the name of the sacrosanct right to Freedom of Expression.
Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental freedom enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights of 1950 and in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which inspired the ECHR, and in most international human rights instruments and most national Constitutions as well.
Just like the Freedom of Expression is a fundamental human right, also the Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, or in a single expression the Freedom of Belief, is a fundamental human right protected by art. 18 of the UDHR and by art. 9 of the ECHR whose extent can only be limited in compliance with the ECHR provisions not basing on assumed national values or needs in contrast with the spirit of the Human Rights legislation.
Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Art. 9 ECHR should be read in conjunction with art. 2 Protocol 1 to the Convention which reads as follows:
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to education “No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
Arguing that some groups and specifically “Political Islam” tend to isolate within the society and from the society and that a legislation is needed to prevent that from happening, and such legislation causes also to prevent private entities from setting up or to carrying out their activities, or prohibiting home-schooling, is probably not the best answer to problems that may exist from a democratic country like France, considering that France has a set of laws, including also criminal laws, to prevent and tackle extremism, terrorism and any other forms of delinquency whatsoever.
So the wonder is: what is the real agenda behind this proposed legislation? and who is behind such?
Where does it come from? Have we seen anything like this in the past in France?
Well there’s an organisation called FECRIS in France which is funded by the French Government and that advocates, all over the world, the fight against minority groups, derogatorily called cults (sectes in French). FECRIS doesn’t care about the International Human Rights obligations of France and regularly requests the International Organisations to ban Human Rights Organisations advocating Freedom of Religion and Belief from their premises and to stop interacting with them, e.g. FECRIS at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw.
The belief that behind this legislation there may be both the FECRIS and those sharing the same views, may be a legitimate possibility, at least, if we consider that very often the fight against Islam, whether the so-called Political or non Political one, goes hand by hand with the fight against cults.
The proposed legislation may just be a Trojan horse aimed at fighting against extremism but with the real intention to fight against minorities considered as cults – this could be just my own personal opinion and speculation if the Minister Madame Marlène Schiappa had not stated, in an interview she gave to the newspaper Le Parisien, as follows:
“we will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam”.
The United States bipartisan organisation USCIRF, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, has warned that FECRIS is an organisation that threats the human rights of minorities and recommended, inter alia, as follows:
“Counter propaganda against new religious movements by the European Federation of Research and Information Centers on Sectarianism (FECRIS) at the annual OSCE Human Dimensions Conference with information about the ongoing involvement of individuals and entities within the anti-cult movement in the suppression of religious freedom.”
To me it is clear that the proposed legislation if passed would mean a serious drift from the International legal obligations of France, first and foremost the ECHR and its fundamental freedoms and human rights.
The rule of law requires attention and intervention and indeed the extremist activities of any group must be prevented and fought against with all necessary means – but erasing the International obligations that ensure the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms belonging to everyone is not the answer but only an excuse for other ends. The present law is the natural consequence of law no. 504 of 2001 on the prevention and suppression of cultic movements and of her sister law no. 228 of 2004 aimed at suppressing the right to show religious symbols in public places, both of which are a serious concern for a European democracy.
We hope that, while we are fighting against two viruses, the Covid-19 and the virus of intolerance, the actions recommended by the USCIRF Report may be implemented very soon and also be only the beginning of a series of further actions to contrast these hate experts, and finally guarantee everyone their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
Macron gets a request from NGOs around the world to have his anti-separatism bill reviewed by Venice Commission
On October 28, a letter has been sent to Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic, asking for review of the future French “law on separatism” by the Venice Commission and the Office for Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE.
The letter was signed by several NGOs and individuals from all over the world, including the well-known Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, after it had been circulated by the Freedom of Religion or Belief Roundtable Brussels-EU, an informal group of individuals and organizations from civil society who gather regularly to discuss FoRB (Freedom of Religion or Belief ) issues. Writers raise several concerns about the law after the announcements made by Macron and members of his government.
See full letter here:
To:Mr Emmanuel Macron
President of the French Republic
Brussels, the 28th October 2020
Copies to:
- Kishan Manocha, Head, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
- Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
- Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the Venice Commission
- Mr Eric Dupont-Moretti, French Minister of Justice
Re: The announcements on the “Law on separatism”
Dear Mr President,
We write as an informal group of organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious leaders and human rights advocates. We are from many faiths or acting in a secular capacity, representing a high degree of diversity. While there is very little we agree on theologically, or politically, we all agree on the importance of religious freedom for all faiths and none.
We write to you following the announcements that you and members of your government have made regarding the bill on “separatism” that you plan to approve in the Council of Ministers meeting on December 9. While no draft of the bill has yet been circulated, to our knowledge, we have some concerns which have been highlighted by the announcements that have been made.
We acknowledge the cautious approach that you have taken during your official speech. We have noted your insistence on the fact that you are targeting radical Islam, and not Muslims, as well as the fact that you intend to respect freedom of religion or belief. We agree that terrorism is a real issue that needs to be tackled and that a strong response needs to be taken with regards to the dangers that are posed to the French Republic, and we deeply share the traumatisms that result from the recent tragic terrorist events which hit France.
Nevertheless, we are concerned that some of the proposals may lead to the opposite of what you intend. Furthermore, taking into account the statements made by members of your government after your speech, those statements reinforce the conviction that the measures being proposed will violate France’s international commitments towards freedom of religion or belief.
For example, you announced that you plan to ban home-schooling in order to protect children from illegal schools “often administered by religious extremists”. While we understand that these schools pose a threat, a global ban on home-schooling will affect the majority of parents that for many different reasons are using this freedom with satisfying results, regardless of their faith, or none. There is certainly sufficient provision in French law to organize controls and make sure that the children are effectively educated according to established educational programmes.
The “general concept” of the law was unveiled by your Minister of Interior, Gérald Darmanin, on Twitter. It explained that places of worship will be placed under increasing surveillance and “preserved […] from the diffusion of ideas and statements hostile to the laws of the Republic.” However, how will that apply to a priest or pastor criticizing abortion or same-sex marriage, which are part of the laws of the French Republic. What action will be taken against others who may speak out against certain “laws of the Republic” that penalize the poor and the immigrants? Or even if they criticize a law against blasphemy, as it existed still recently for Alsace-Moselle in France? Is anyone now criticising the law an enemy of the state?
Another announced provision that poses a problem is your statement and that of the Minister of Interior, where it is said that the law will allow religious and other associations to be dissolved directly by the Council of Ministers in the case of an “affront on personal dignity” and “use of psychological or physical pressures.” These concepts are vague enough to allow the arbitrary targeting of groups that are acting quite legally and without any violent intent but are in ‘disfavour’ by the administrating body. Furthermore there is no guarantee of judicial process or oversight.
The Minister of Citizenship, Marlène Schiappa, also stated in an interview that, “We will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam.” This shows that there is already a clear intent to deviate from the fight against terrorism and enter the realm of prohibiting religious associations on the basis that they do not please someone, simply because they are categorised as “cults” (sectes, in French).
Legislation aimed at terrorism is not surprising. It is a challenge that many countries face. However, States that have chosen to draft laws with such vague concepts as those cited above are States that have totalitarian tendencies (or are in fact totalitarian). Russia, for example, has passed an anti-extremism law that is now used to prosecute and jail political dissidents as well as members of peaceful religious movements such as the Jehovah Witnesses or followers of Said Nursi on the basis of their definition of “extremism”.
When the Venice Commission gave its opinion on law of the Russian Federation on Combatting Extremist Activity, adopted at its 91st Plenary Session, it stated:
7. The broad interpretation of the notion of ‘extremism’ by the enforcement authorities, the increasing application of the Law in recent years and the pressure it exerts on various circles within civil society, as well as alleged human rights violations reported in this connection have raised concerns and drawn criticism both in Russia and on the international level
(…)
28. The only definition of ‘extremism’ contained in an international treaty binding on the Russian Federation is to be found in the Shanghai Convention [on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 15 June 2001, ratified by Russia on 10 January 2003]. In Article 1.1.1.3) of the Extremism Law, ‘extremism’ is defined as ‘an act aimed at seizing or keeping power through the use of violence or changing violently the constitutional regime of a State, as well as a violent encroachment upon public security, including organization, for the above purposes, of illegal armed formations and participation in them, criminally prosecuted in conformity with the national laws of the Parties’. The latter clause allows signatory states to prosecute such ‘extremist’ actions according to their national laws.
It made clear that the only definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘separatism’ that could be used to take action against individuals or organizations require that violence is an essential element (incitement to, or encouragement of, violence or actual violence).
The European Court of Human Rights has already applied this approach to Russia, regarding a case that involved the prosecution of followers of Said Nursi accused of extremist activities, in IBRAGIM IBRAGIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, which became a final judgment on April 2, 2019.
The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion of Belief, in the unedited version of his last report on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance (October 12, 2020), stated:
17. A concerning number of mandate communications highlight the use of inchoate terrorist offenses that are disproportionately applied to religious or belief minorities. Harassment measures broadly linked to countering terrorism and protecting national security illustrate that in almost every region of the world religious minorities appear to be at particular risk of being designated “terrorist groups” and of having members arrested under “extremism” or “illegal activity” charges. A number of communications addressed the use of national security imperatives as the stated objective by some governments in criminalizing membership in and/or activities of certain religious or belief groups. Such an approach amounts to targeting, and ultimately criminalizing, the peaceful expression of a person’s identity.
19. Numerous State authorities have arrested, detained (sometimes incommunicado) and sentenced members of religious and belief minorities for undefined charges such as intent to ‘disturb political, economic or social structures’ , to ‘disrupt state sovereignty’ or to ‘overthrow the Government’. Such vague provisions fail to fulfil the principle of legality as enshrined in article 15 of ICCPR and give worrying leeway to States to arbitrarily limit the exercise of freedom of religion or belief of certain groups.
The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recently released a new document called “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: Policy Guidance”. It states in its introduction:
While OSCE participating States have adopted different strategies to ensure that their own security measures are fully compliant with their international obligations and commitments pertaining to freedom of religion or belief, certain laws, security policies and practices have placed freedom of religion or belief and other universal human rights under significant pressure. Such measures, especially those that are very broad or applied arbitrarily, are often enacted in the name of “national”, “state” or “public” security, or in the interests of preserving or maintaining “peaceful coexistence”, “social stability” or “social harmony”. Experience shows that such limitations can worsen rather than improve security.
There are many more international human rights documents that deal with this delicate issue, but for reasons of brevity we are unable to carry out a full review in this letter.
We are at your disposal to meet and discuss this issue further. In any case, we respectfully but strongly recommend that you submit to both the Venice Commission and ODIHR the draft of the law when it is ready, in order to get considered international legal expertise as to how the law meets established human rights principles.
We feel that there is a real risk that contrary to your intention, the proposed measures that have been announced will lead to the targeting of Muslims in general as well as other minority faiths, and that it may well lead to a series of human rights violations.
Respectfully yours,
Organizations
Advocates International, Advocates France, All Faiths Network, CAP Freedom of Conscience, CESNUR – Center for Studies on New Religions, EIFRF – European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom, FOREF – Forum for Religious Freedom Europe, HRWF – Human Rights Without Frontiers, International Christian Concern, Law and Liberty International, LDH – Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, LIREC – Center for Studies on Freedom of Religion, Belief and Conscience, ORLIR – International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees, United Sikhs, UPF The Netherlands
Individuals
- Régis Dericquebourg, Président, Observatoire Européen des Religions et de la Laïcité
- Michael P. Donnelly, J.D., LL.M., Senior Counsel, Global Outreach
- The Most Reverend Joseph K. Grieboski, Senior Fellow, The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute
- Rimon Kasher, Prof. Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
- Nancy Lefèvre, Chairwoman, Advocates France
- Brent McBurney, President & CEO, Advocate International
- Kareem P.A. McDonald, Program Associate, Religious Freedom Institute
- Greg Mitchell, Chair, International Religious Freedom Roundtable
- Scott Morgan, President, Red Eagle Enterprise
- Matias Perttula, Director of Advocacy, International Christian Concern
- Malik Salemkour, President, Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)
- Frans de Wolff, Secretary, Dutch Network for Interfaith Dialogue
[you can read more about the initiative at https://www.forbroundtable.org/post/letter-in-support-of-having-the-french-anti-separatism-bill-reviewed-by-the-venice-commission]
From Afghanistan to France: Islamism attacks schools and kills teachers
On 17 October, a teacher at a middle school in a town northwest of Paris was beheaded on the street outside of his school. He was assassinated for facilitating a discussion with his students about caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad during his civic education class, which is in conformity with the National Education curriculum. Police shot his killer to death sometime later that same day. French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the killing an “Islamist terrorist attack”, as it appears that the killer was carrying out a sort of fatwa launched against this teacher on social media.
On Saturday 24 October, a suicide bomber attacked the Kawsar-e Danish centre in Kabul. The death toll was estimated at 24 and the number of wounded at 54, According to officials, many of the victims were teenage students between 15 and 26 years old.
In 2019, UNICEF declared that “attacks on schools in Afghanistan tripled between 2017 and 2018, surging from 68 to 192”. The UN agency added that “an estimated 3.7 million children between the ages of 7 and 17 – nearly half of all school-aged children in the country – are out of school in Afghanistan”, with 60% of them being girls. Schools and girls’ education are clearly priority targets on the agenda of Islamist terrorists.
Teachers are increasingly vulnerable to death, injuries and abduction, not only in Afghanistan but also in other Muslim majority countries torn by conflicts with Islamist extremist groups.
Afghanistan, France and others: different countries, same battle
School education is targeted, including in democratic countries, by extremist Islamist ideology regardless of whether it is done in non-violent or violent ways.
Their objective in democracies is to intimidate teachers so that they self-censure and keep silent about numerous points of their political ideology and governance, including: extra-judicial killing, homophobia, gender-based segregation and discrimination, an inferior status of women and non-Muslim people, discrimination, and so on.
Their objective concerning educational programmes is to obstruct their implementation on a number of issues such as: teaching about the holocaust and anti-Semitism, the theory of evolution, the study of the human body, swimming lessons, and the like.
Their objective is to reach Muslim school children with their extremist Islamist teachings through various channels and mould them into active opponents to points of the curriculum that they disagree with.
Finally, the ‘ideologisation’ and takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood of associations addressing anti-Muslim sentiments and hate speech in democratic countries is an essential component of this strategy.
Islamism is a political ideology, not a new Muslim movement
Islamism is a political ideology and must be treated as such. Radical Islamists are not teaching an alternative theology, like the Tabligh Jamaat followers or the Sufis. They aspire to take power in Muslim-majority countries where populations are peacefully practicing and teaching Sunni, Shia and other forms of Islam. In other countries, they try to undermine and manipulate their political, educational and cultural institutions, their societal weaknesses, vulnerable groups within their societies and their generous freedoms. Their objective is to divide and fracture societies with the intent of inciting community-based violence. Chaos is the fertile ground on which they can prosper.
The battle against Islamism in France and other democratic countries must not be against Islam as a religion or against Muslims as their co-religionists in Muslim majority countries are the main victims of this ideology. An increasing number of Muslim leaders and institutions oppose Islamism in France individually and collectively, such as the Conference of the Imams in France and the Union of the Mosques in France. The French state must provide them with full assistance and must combat Islamism as a political movement on every battlefield with the appropriate weapons and partners.
Home schooling will be “strictly limited”, Macron announced
Accompanied by six ministers, Emmanuel Macron gave a speech on Friday, October 2, detailing his action plan to fight against “Separatism”, a term used by the President of the Republic in the public debate following the attack at the Paris Police Prefecture in October 2019 to target the practice of an Islam that breaks with social and political rules.
The executive plans to finalize its bill by mid-October so that it is presented to the Council of Ministers in early December, then discussed in Parliament in the first half of 2021. Here are the main measures concerning education.
Read also Find Emmanuel Macron’s announcements on secularism and “separatism”
Home instruction will be “strictly limited”
Emmanuel Macron announced, Friday, October 2, that home schooling will be, from the start of the 2021 school year, “Strictly limited, in particular to health requirements”, and that it will therefore become compulsory within the school from the age of 3. ” It is a necessity. I made a decision, undoubtedly one of the most radical since the laws of 1882 and those ensuring the school mix between boys and girls in 1969 ”, underlined the Head of State during this speech on the separatisms which he delivered at Mureaux (Yvelines).
“Today, more than 50,000 children are educated at home, a figure that is increasing every year”, said the head of state. “Every week, rectors find cases of children totally outside the system. “ The president spoke of parents of students who refuse to put their children in music lessons or in the swimming pool, and it is then, according to him, “Deschooling”. In February 2020, the Minister of Education mentioned “From 2,000 to 3,000 situations involving young people that could pose a problem and are closely monitored”. At the time, he claimed that the “Half” of home-educated children were educated for medical reasons.
“These children do not go to CNED [Centre national d’enseignement à distance] but in structures not declared at all ”, continued Mr. Macron. “Walls, almost no windows, women in niqabs who welcome them, prayers, certain classes, this is their teaching”, he said. “Every month, prefects close “schools” often administered by religious extremists ”, he added.
The number of children following home schooling has been rising sharply for several years, even if it still only concerns a low ratio of students (around 0.5%), compared to 12.4 million. children in public and private education. At the start of the 2019 school year, home instruction concerned 41,000 children, and 35,000 in 2018, the Ministry of Education said. Since the introduction of the 3-year instruction obligation at the start of the 2019 school year, inspections have been stepped up, the number of inspectors providing them increased, and their training strengthened.
Emmanuel Macron also confirmed that the devices for optional courses in foreign languages provided by teachers appointed by the governments of other countries (ELCO) would be removed, in accordance with what he announced last February. The calendar, at the time, was set for the start of the 2020 school year. These devices were initially intended to allow children of family reunification to maintain a link with their country of origin – and to facilitate their eventual return.
These ELCOs, which were the subject of contracts with Algeria, Morocco and Turkey, offer courses taught by teachers who are sometimes non-French speaking and without national education control, he recalled. About 80,000 children attend them outside of school time. These establishments have for years harbored suspicions of religious proselytism, criticism of the content taught as much as of the recruitment of teachers, the responsibility of the countries of origin.
Reinforced supervision for schools outside the contract
Finally, non-contract schools which are “More controlled thanks to the Gatel law will be the subject of an even reinforced framework”, assured Emmanuel Macron, insisting on the need to “Carry out administrative closures when they are necessary”.
Some 1,700 non-contract private establishments currently enroll around 85,000 children (50,000 in the first stage, 35,000 in the second). Contrary to popular belief, only a third of these establishments are denominational, the rest being divided between so-called alternative schools (of the Montessori type, which are growing rapidly) and others, which are secular.
These establishments, which do not receive any public money and are free to recruit, may be exempt from school programs but must have transmitted to their students, at the end of their schooling, the same ” common ground “ than that available to their comrades in the public and private sectors under contract.
Two avenues are put forward to strengthen their control: better monitor the educational content of lessons, sometimes described as incomplete or even non-existent during the most problematic inspections, and better control the source of funding for these schools.