Submission by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade i CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION...... 6 DFAT’s Submission ...... 7 Australia’s Approach to Human Rights ...... 7 DFAT’s Approach to the Freedom of or Belief ...... 8 International Human Rights Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief...... 9 The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ...... 9 Other Binding Obligations ...... 10 Non-binding Sources of the Freedom of Religion or Belief ...... 10 Implementation of Human Rights Law on Freedom of Religion and Belief...... 10

CHAPTER 2: MULTILATERAL ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT – THE HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM...... 13 The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)...... 13 Resolutions of the Human Rights Council and UNGA Third Committee ...... 16 The Human Rights Council...... 16 The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee ...... 16 The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Resolutions...... 17 The European Union’s Resolution ...... 18 Australia’s Position on the Freedom of Religion or Belief Resolutions ...... 18 Other Resolutions...... 19 Special Procedure Mandates of the Human Rights Council...... 21 The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief ...... 21 Joint Statements at the HRC ...... 23 Human Rights Treaty Body Reporting...... 23

CHAPTER 3: MULTILATERAL ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT – BEYOND THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM ...... 25 UN Alliance of Civilizations...... 25 UNESCO...... 26 International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief ...... 26 International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ...... 27 Ad-Hoc Multilateral Engagement on Freedom of Religion or Belief...... 27

CHAPTER 4: THE ENJOYMENT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF GLOBALLY ...29

Page 2 of 143 ...... 30 Bangladesh...... 31 Bhutan...... 32 Bosnia and Herzegovina...... 33 Brunei Darussalam ...... 34 Cambodia ...... 35 Canada ...... 36 Central African Republic ...... 37 China ...... 38 Hong Kong ...... 39 Croatia...... 40 Cyprus ...... 41 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)...... 43 Djibouti ...... 44 ...... 45 Eritrea ...... 47 Ethiopia ...... 48 Fiji………………...... 49 ...... 50 Greece...... 51 Hungary...... 52 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 53 Indonesia...... 55 and the Palestinian Territories ...... 57 Israel ...... 57 Palestinian Territories ...... 57 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 9 Iraq……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6 1 Kosovo...... 62 ...... 63 Laos…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 64 Malaysia ...... 66 Malta...... 68 Morocco...... 69

Page 3 of 143 Myanmar...... 70 Nepal...... 73 Netherlands ...... 74 ...... 75 Papua New Guinea...... 77 Philippines...... 78 Poland ...... 79 Republic of Korea...... 80 Russia ...... 81 ...... 83 Singapore ...... 84 South Sudan...... 85 ...... 86 Sudan ...... 87 Syria………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 88 Thailand ...... 89 Trinidad and Tobago ...... 90 Turkey ...... 91 Ukraine...... 93 ...... 95 United Kingdom ...... 96 of America ...... 97 Vietnam...... 99

ATTACHMENT A ...... 101 Other Treaty Obligations...... 101

ATTACHMENT B...... 106 Dedicated FoRB Resolutions – Human Rights Council & UNGA Third Committee...... 106 September 2013 – January 2017...... 106

ATTACHMENT C...... 112 Reports of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, September 2013 to January 2017 .112

ATTACHMENT D ...... 113 Australian National Statements in Dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief ...... 113

ATTACHMENT E...... 116

Page 4 of 143 Joint Statements on Freedom of Religion...... 116

ATTACHMENT F ...... 118 Human Rights in the DPRK - A Selection of Australian Statements to the Human Rights Council...... 118

ATTACHMENT G ...... 120 Human Rights in Iran - A Selection of Australian Statements to the Human Rights Council ...... 120

ATTACHMENT H ...... 122 Persecution of Religious Minorities in Iraq and Syria – A Selection of Australian Statements to the Human Rights Council...... 122

ATTACHMENT I...... 126 Human Rights in Myanmar - A Selection of Australian Statements to the Human Rights Council ...... 126

ATTACHMENT J ...... 129 Australia’s Statement during the Universal Periodic Review of Poland...... 129

ATTACHMENT K...... 130 Australia’s Statement during the Universal Periodic Review of Russia ...... 130

ATTACHMENT L ...... 131 Australia’s Statement during the Universal Periodic Review of Sudan...... 131

ATTACHMENT M ...... 132 Australia’s Statement during the Universal Periodic Review of Turkey...... 132

APPENDIX 1...... 133 Amnesty International Australia’s - Short Survey Blasphemy Laws...... 133

Page 5 of 143 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Australia, through successive Governments, has remained committed to the protection and promotion of human rights for all persons, as articulated through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the seven core human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.1 The freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is a human right belonging to all individuals enshrined in the UDHR and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), on behalf of the Australian Government, consistently engages in both multilateral and bilateral discussions on FoRB and related issues. As Australians, we enjoy significant religious freedom. In 2017, Freedom House ranked Australia as the equal third ‘most free nation’ based on the free exercise of civil and political rights and liberties, including FoRB. However, this is not the universal experience, and Australian groups and individuals have expressed concern at both the erosion of FoRB around the globe, and by the rise of violent acts carried out in the name of particular religious traditions.2 There is no single region of the globe, nor a single religious tradition, that does not experience some degree of religious intolerance. In different parts of the world, persecuted religious communities can be identified arising from the Christianity, , Judaism, , and the myriad of other belief systems or . There is no clear link between the developed or developing world when it comes to enjoyment of FoRB. Religious tolerance and freedom is a sensitive issue in a diverse range of countries, from highly developed countries (like France), to the developing world (like Vietnam), the post-conflict States (like Myanmar and Sudan), and conflict zones (like Syria and ). Australia’s advocacy and outreach to protect and promote FoRB is not ‘one-size-fits-all’, but tailored to each context and situation. Belief, in the FoRB context, is a separate and distinct issue from the holding of political, ideological or social opinions and the right to freedom of expression. “Belief” is considered to include theistic, non-theistic and atheistic ‘beliefs’.3 Protection of FoRB therefore includes respect for agnosticism and atheism, tolerance of all religious beliefs (including established and new or emerging philosophies), and acceptance of belief systems that adapt the premises and practices of longstanding religious traditions to new or different purposes. Australia’s ultimate aim when engaging on FoRB issues, in line with our values and international commitments, is to ensure all individuals enjoy the liberty to follow a religious tradition or belief system of their choice (or not), and to do so in a manner which is respected and respectful. This is therefore DFAT’s goal, whether we are engaging at the macro level of thematic or legal human rights discussions, or the micro level of an individual complaint of abuse of this right. Australia’s in protecting and promoting FoRB go beyond the principle level of upholding universal human rights. It is also contributes to global peace and security. How a State treats minority groups – be they ethic, religious, racial, religious, or sexual minorities – is often an indicator of their overall approach to upholding universal human rights. Deteriorating protections of FoRB can be a litmus test for the declining human rights protections, decreasing respect for the rule of law, and ultimately increasing state instability. Lack of respect for religious minorities has also been a repeated cause of conflict between neighbouring and regional states.

1 It should be noted that the UDHR is not a legally binding document. However, the seven human rights treaties to which Australia is a state party are legally binding. This is discussed in further detail in Chapter 1 of this Submission. 2 For example: Christian Faith and Freedom (http://christianfaithandfreedom.org/); Concern (http://www.meconcern.org/); Falun Dafa (Falun Gong) Australia (https://www.falundafa.org/); Australian Baha'i Community (https://www.bahai.org.au/). 3 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4: Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, 27 September 1993 (available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/ layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11).

Page 6 of 143 DFAT’S SUBMISSION DFAT welcomes the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT) Human Rights Sub-Committee’s Inquiry into the Status of the Human Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief. This is an opportunity to highlight DFAT’s engagement in this area and provide a snapshot of relevant activities around the world. DFAT represents Australia in the main processes of the United Nations (UN) human rights system. This engagement is led by DFAT’s missions in New York and Geneva, but strongly supported by DFAT’s posts around the world and staff in Canberra. DFAT also leads several bilateral human rights dialogues (which include FoRB issues) and conducts representations on FoRB issues with a range of countries around the globe. The positions that DFAT officers prosecute, both in multilateral processes and when engaging with other countries, is informed by broad based whole-of-government consultation led from Canberra. For example, DFAT consults closely and regularly with agencies, including but not limited to, the Attorney-General’s Department (which has responsibility for the domestic implementation of Australia’s human rights obligations), the Department of Social Services (which leads Australia’s policy and programming on multiculturalism and resettlement), the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This submission will articulate DFAT’s current policy and practice with regards to FoRB, including how DFAT represents Australia on these issues at the United Nations (UN) and through other multilateral processes and mechanisms that promote religious freedoms and tolerance. The submission will also highlight DFAT’s bilateral engagements to promote and protect FoRB. The timeframe for DFAT’s submission is limited to the period between September 2013 and January 2017. DFAT’s submission should be read in conjunction with submissions made by other Australian Government departments.

AUSTRALIA’S APPROACH TO HUMAN RIGHTS The position of successive Australian Governments is that all individuals are entitled to equal enjoyment of their human rights, respect, dignity, and protections from discrimination and violence. Consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action (1993), Australia considers that human rights are universal (they apply to everyone), indivisible (they all apply equally), and inalienable (they cannot be taken away, denied or transferred). The Australian Government considers human rights an important component of Australia’s overall foreign policy approach, both because the treatment of individuals is itself a matter of concern to Australians and because promoting and protecting human rights underpins Australia’s broader security and economic interests. Respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms, and building them into the fabric of a society, makes everyone safer and more secure. Human rights, security, peace and prosperity go hand in hand. Serious and escalating human rights abuses are often the vital early warning that a country is unstable and heading towards either large-scale internal turmoil or conflict with an immediate neighbour or within their region. With this context in mind, DFAT (on behalf of the Australian Government) is an active and committed yet practical advocate for human rights both bilaterally and multilaterally. International human rights law and a desire to promote and protect the human rights of individuals guide our advocacy. However, our approach is also grounded in an appreciation of the sensitivity of these issues for other countries, and by a ‘do no harm’ principle. Our efforts to advance human rights will be meaningless if they cause a breakdown in Australia’s bilateral relationships or unintentionally influence other countries to disregard their international human rights obligations.

Page 7 of 143 DFAT, and by extension Australia, has a strong reputation as a bridge-builder on many human rights issues. This is because we are principled but pragmatic. We take measured decisions about the most appropriate and effective way to raise sensitive issues with other countries.

DFAT’S APPROACH TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF DFAT plays a key role in projecting Australia’s values to the world, including on FoRB. As outlined in the Australian Government’s 2017 Multicultural Statement, Australia has a direct in promoting social cohesion and countering religious or ethnic hatred or discrimination. Religious freedom and tolerance are fundamental to open, multicultural, resilient and democratic societies. “Regular inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue is critical to reduce the possibility of tensions within communities and to strengthen cohesion and harmony. Such dialogue helps to reduce prejudice, promote cross-cultural understanding, improve relations between different ethnic and religious groups and enhance the sense of belonging and trust. Regardless of cultural background, birthplace or religion, everyone in Australia or coming to Australia has a responsibility to engage with and seek to understand each other, and reject any form of racism or violent extremism.” 4 Equally, Australia maintains that religious rights and views must not be used to limit or veto other rights unjustifiably (for example the rights of women or the LGBTI community, or freedom of expression). As Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Julie Bishop MP, stated in her keynote address on human rights in December 2016 “we believe in fundamental freedoms. Particularly we defend a person’s right to free speech and right to hold personal beliefs – provided they do not impinge on the rights or freedoms of others”.5 Australia condemns violence perpetrated in the name of religion and we believe that both state and non- state actors have a role to play in its elimination. Australia also acknowledges that unreasonable restrictions on FoRB can lead to radicalisation and violence. The Australian Government supports a wide range of efforts to foster religious tolerance and combat those who would seek to extort religion for their own violent purposes. The Australian Government supports the rights of individuals to adopt a religion or belief, manifest their religion without undue interference, enjoy religious tolerance, change their religious beliefs as they see fit, or choose not to assume a religious identity. This understanding is derived from international human rights law.

4 Australian Government’s Multicultural Statement, “Multicultural Australia - united, strong, successful”, March 2017 (available at: https://www.dss.gov.au/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/australian-governments-multicultural-statement/australian- governments-multicultural-statement). 5 The Hon Julie Bishop MP, Human Rights Speech, 12 December 2016 (available at: http://foreignminister.gov.au/speeches/Pages/2016/jb sp 161212.aspx).

Page 8 of 143 Australia’s international human rights law obligations are found in the seven human rights treaties to which Australia is a party, as outlined below.6 These treaties contain binding legal obligations, which the Australian Government implements through domestic legislation, policy and programs. Domestically, the implementation of the rights contained in these treaties for Australians is the responsibility of the Attorney- General’s Department. DFAT’s engagement on human rights internationally is conducted in a manner consistent with the obligations in these treaties.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) The primary legal source of FoRB is Article 18 of the ICCPR (supported by ICCPR Articles 2, 4, 20, 24 and 27). Article 18 States: 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. Article 2 requires States to respect and ensure the rights contained in the ICCPR without distinction of any kind including on the basis of religion. Similarly, Article 24 guarantees the protection of children without discrimination as to religion. Article 4 stipulates that the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in Article 18 cannot be derogated from by States in times of public emergency. Article 20.2 requires the legal prohibition of “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.

6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CEDAW.aspx). Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (1984) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CAT.aspx). Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx).

Page 9 of 143 Article 27 confirms that ethnic, religious or linguistic minority communities must not be denied “the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language”.

Other Binding Obligations In addition to the ICCPR, Australia accepted other, legally binding, obligations which relate directly to the enjoyment of FoRB through the ratification of following treaties and instruments:7  the Charter of the United Nations  the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights  the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination  the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and  the Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. For more the relevant provisions in these treaties and instruments see Attachment A.

Non-binding Sources of the Freedom of Religion or Belief In addition, Australia has endorsed non-legally binding international instruments, which provide further context to the rights to FoRB. These include:  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)  the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981)  the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992)  the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action (VDPA) (1993). DFAT, on behalf of the Australian Government, also supports the further development of international human rights norms, including on FoRB, through our participation in the United Nations Human Rights Council and the United Nations General Assembly. While the resolutions, discussions and decisions of these bodies are non-binding, they have a strong norm-generating effect and can influence the views of governments, policy-makers, judicial authorities, and international experts. Australia is an active and recognised player in these discussions and processes (further detail is provided in the proceeding chapters of this submission).

Implementation of Human Rights Law on Freedom of Religion and Belief Within the UN human rights system, responsibility for monitoring implementation of States’ human rights obligations falls to the Human Rights Treaty Bodies. The relevant Treaty Body for the ICCPR is the Human Rights Committee. The Treaty Bodies routinely publish materials to guide States in the implementation of their human rights obligations – often called General Comments.8 In 1993, the Human Rights Committee produced its ‘General Comment 22’, which sought to define the scope and operation of Article 18 of the ICCPR.

7 Note: the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also expressly mentions the importance of combatting religious discrimination, whilst not creating a binding obligation under this treaty. 8 General Comments of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies are not legally binding and do not always accord with the Australian Government’s understanding of its human rights obligations as articulated in the seven core treaties.

Page 10 of 143 The 169 States Parties to the ICCPR9 have diverse views on how the right to FoRB (Article 18) should be implemented in practice. Not all States align with General Comment 22, and nor are all States parties to the ICCPR without reservation.10

9 For a full list of States Parties to the ICCPR see: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx. 10 For a full list of all reservations and declarations made under the ICCPR see: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg no=IV-4&chapter=4&clang= en#EndDec. Australia has no reservation which pertains to Article 18 of the ICCPR.

Page 11 of 143 In line with ‘General Comment 22’, Australia recognises that Article 18 of the ICCPR:  protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs – this includes an individual’s right to have or retain a religion or belief, renounce or replace a religion or belief with another, and the right not to profess any religion or belief at all  encompasses a broad definition of what constitutes a ‘belief’ or ‘religion’ – not limited to traditional religions or beliefs, or those with institutional characteristics or practices  guarantees the freedom to ‘manifest’ one’s religion or belief individually, communally, publically or privately  protects a broad range of activities under the banner of ‘manifesting one’s religion’, which can include, but is not limited to - ritual and ceremonial acts - building places of worship - using ritual formulae and objects - displaying religious symbols - observing dietary regulations - wearing distinctive clothing, including head-coverings - observing holidays and days of rest - participation in rituals associated with certain stages of life - using a particular language - choosing religious leaders, priests and teachers - establishing religious educational facilities, and preparing and distributing religious publications  permits parents or guardians to provide for the ‘religious and moral education of their children’  bars instruction in a particular religion or belief in public schools, unless provision is made for non-discriminatory exemptions  only permits restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief if those limitations are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, and  considers that no manifestation of religions or beliefs may amount to propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.11 It is important to understand how States understand, interpret and seek to implement the rights articulated in Article 18. Not all countries share the broad view of this freedom that Australia takes, or as is outlined in General Comment 22. State approaches to the implementation of FoRB can have profound impacts on the enjoyment of a range of human rights by individuals, particularly members of minority groups. The failure to recognise minority traditions as religions or beliefs, the imposition of strict registration or permit regimes, limitations on religious education and publication, banning religious symbols or forms of dress; can unjustly infringe on the FoRB. A study by the Pew Research Centre found that “harassment or intimidation of specific religious groups occurred in 159 countries in 2014”.12 This is despite the high number of States that have ratified the ICCPR.

11 CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4: Human Rights Committee, General Comment 22, 27 September 1993 (available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/ layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11). 12 Pew Research Centre, Trends in Global Restrictions on Religions Report, June 2016 (available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/06/23/trends-in-global-restrictions-on-religion/).

Page 12 of 143 CHAPTER 2: MULTILATERAL ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT – THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

Australia has played an active role in the international human rights system since its inception in 1948. Australia was instrumental in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which represented the first international commitment to fundamental human rights after the Second World War. Since that time DFAT has contributed to the development and articulation of international human rights norms and standards, in line with Australian values and government policy, and in the interests of fostering global respect for human rights, stability, peace and security. Today, we are an active participant in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and the UN General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee – the two major contemporary UN human rights forums. We support the HRC’s Universal Periodic Review process, and its Special Procedure Mandates. Australia also regularly reports to the UN on the implementation of our international obligations through the human rights treaty reporting process. All of these processes and mechanisms have aspects that relate to FoRB. This chapter will outline how FoRB is considered and addressed through the UN human rights system, and how DFAT engages to promote Australia’s interests through these forums.

THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR) The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process undertaken by the HRC, which reviews the human rights records of all UN Member States, on a rotating basis, once every four-to-five years. In practice, the UPR process involves each State reporting on its current human rights performance and receiving recommendations from other States. It is Australian Government policy to make recommendations during every country’s UPR appearance. We believe the periodic review of the human rights performance of all countries is inherently useful. All countries have areas where the implementation of human rights could be improved, and much can be gained by countries sharing best practice and technical expertise in this regard. FoRB is a recurring theme of Australia’s recommendations to reporting States during UPR processes. In October 2016, the UPR’s ‘second cycle’ of reviews of all UN Member States concluded. During the second cycle (2010-2016), Australia made recommendations to 14 countries on the protection and promotion of FoRB outlined in Table 1 below.13 At Australia’s appearance before the second cycle, in November 2015, seven recommendations referenced issues that relate to FoRB. For example, Uzbekistan recommended that Australia: “Strengthen anti-discrimination legislation in order to prevent racial, religious and social discrimination”.14

13 The full list of UPR recommendations made by Australia is available through UPRinfo: https://www.upr-info.org/en. 14 For the full list of UPR recommendations made to Australia see A/HRC/31/14: Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Australia, 13 January 2016 (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session31/Pages/ListReports.aspx ). Page 13 of 143 Table 1 – UPR Second Cycle FoRB Recommendations by Australia15

State under State Session Australian Recommendation Review Response

Expedite legal and institutional reforms to fully protect in law and in UPR17 China practice freedom of expression, association and assembly, and religion Accepted 2014 and belief

Strengthen protection of ethnic minorities' religious, socio-economic and UPR17 China political rights, ensuring reports of violations are promptly and Accepted 2014 transparently investigated

Implement fully its 1995 Constitution, including the freedoms of UPR19 Ethiopia association, expression and assembly, for independent political parties, Accepted 2014 ethnic and religious groups and NGOs

Australia recommends Greece continues efforts towards gender UPR25 equality, including ensuring an effective review and control by domestic Greece Accepted 2015 civil courts of decisions made in inheritance and family matters by religious bodies for Muslim minority women in Thrace.

Intensify its efforts to respect and uphold freedom of expression, UPR13 including political expression, and the freedom to manifest one's Indonesia Accepted 2012 religious belief, for all its citizens, including by ensuring effective state protection for minorities

Cease all discrimination against members of religious and ethnic UPR20 Iran minorities, including Baha’is, Dervishes, Christians, Ahwazi , Noted 2014 Balochs and Kurds, and ensure respect for freedom of religion

Ensure all reports of human rights abuses, including those against ethnic UPR20 Iraq and religious minorities, women and girls, are fully investigated and Accepted 2014 prosecuted

15 The full list of UPR recommendations for all States is available through UPRinfo: https://www.upr-info.org/en. Page 14 of 143 That any changes in legislation uphold fundamental freedoms and UPR21 Kyrgyzstan ensure non-discrimination, including on the basis of religion or sexual Accepted 2015 orientation

Repeal or revise the "Protection of Race and Religion" laws and Section UPR23 377 of the 1861 Penal Code to ensure the rights of women, religious Myanmar Noted 2015 minorities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community are protected

Address the root causes of the situation in Rakhine State, including UPR23 Myanmar articulating a clear pathway to citizenship for those who identify as Noted 2015 Rohingya

UPR17 Take steps to ensure that the human rights of all citizens are protected, Nigeria Noted 2014 regardless of their religion, sexual orientation or gender identity

We are aware of reports that some legislators are advocating a ‘conscience clause’ for Poland's pharmaceutical law to allow chemists to UPR13 refuse to sell birth control pills on the basis of religious belief. We Poland Accepted 2012 recommend Poland ensure protection of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children.

UPR14 Republic of Introduce alternative service for conscientious objectors Noted 2012 Korea

Australia remains concerned by restrictions on freedom of religion, UPR25 Sudan including punitive legal decisions. Australia recommends Sudan revise 2016 the 1991 Penal Code and abolish the penalisation of apostasy.

Intensify its commitment to working constructively with religious and UPR21 Turkey other minorities, to address their grievances, including those of Alevi Accepted 2015 groups and the status of cemevis

Page 15 of 143 Address discriminatory practices towards ethnic and religious minorities, UPR16 Turkmenistan including lifting restrictions on their participation in government and Accepted 2013 society

RESOLUTIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL AND UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE

The Human Rights Council The Human Rights Council (HRC) meets three times a year in Geneva. It is the primary forum within the UN system for the exclusive consideration of human rights issues – both country specific and thematic. At each meeting or session, the HRC receives reports, hosts dialogues and discussions, and actions 30-to-40 resolutions or decisions. Australia is not a member of the HRC, which means we cannot vote on resolutions. However, we are able to engage in negotiations on these resolutions and indicate our support for these decisions by becoming a ‘co-sponsor’. This is a public signal that Australia endorses the principles and ideas captured in the negotiated resolution texts. Non-members can also participate in the Council’s discussions and dialogues, join group statements, and make statements in their national capacity on issues of interest or concern. Australia is currently campaigning to become a member of the HRC for the term 2018-2020. Becoming a member of the Council will enable Australia not only to vote, but also to have a wider influence across its discussions and debates. Our campaign for membership is based on five pillars: , indigenous rights, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and capacity building, freedom of expression, and good governance. These pillars are an example of the issues Australia will champion as a HRC member. However, these pillars are not an exclusive list of the issues we do or will actively engage on at the Council, either as a member or an observer. Australia is a well known and effective advocate for a range of other issues on the HRC’s agenda, including abolition of the death penalty, the rights of people with disabilities, LGBTI human rights and FoRB. In a FoRB context, membership of the HRC would enable Australia to have greater impact on the future development of the global community’s understanding of the operation of this right at the principle level, and more influence over the country situations on the HRC’s agenda. The HRC considers two resolutions annually that are solely dedicated to the protection of FoRB. These resolutions, presented by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the European Union (EU), address this freedom from different and potentially competing perspectives. A detailed comparison of these resolutions is provided later in this Chapter.

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee The UNGA Third Committee meets once annually in New York. The Third Committee’s mandate is to consider social, humanitarian, and cultural issues on behalf of the full UNGA. The primary focus of the Third Committee is human rights matters. Each year it considers a range of human rights questions, including the reports and procedures of the HRC, the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the elimination of racism, the right to self- determination, and FoRB. All UN Member States, including Australia, have the ability to participate in all the deliberations and discussions of the Third Committee, and can also vote on resolutions. As with those of the HRC, Third

Page 16 of 143 Committee resolutions are non-binding but do signal how a State understands and intends to implement key human rights commitments. The Third Committee also considers two resolutions annually that are focused on the protection of FoRB, also presented by the OIC and the EU. At both the HRC and the Third Committee, the EU resolution has more consistently aligned with the Australian Government’s interpretation and implementation of FoRB. The OIC resolution, on the other hand, has at times presented an alternative view of the most effective way to give effect to FoRB, that Australian governments have not always been able to support. DFAT has represented Australia’s position in negotiations of both resolutions and is pleased to now contribute to the maintenance of a consensus position between the EU and the OIC.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Resolutions In April 1999, Pakistan (on behalf of the OIC) brought before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (the predecessor of the Human Rights Council) a resolution entitled ‘Defamation of Islam’. The resolution, which was broadened to encompass ‘Combatting Defamation of Religions’, sought to prohibit forms of expression that ‘would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception against religions’, or in simpler terms speech deemed offensive to a faith. The concept of ‘Defamation of Religions’ is concerning for countries such as Australia (and our like-minded partners, including in the EU). It is used to justify laws and regulations that limit freedom of expression and prohibit ‘blasphemy’. While there are valid arguments for the protection of members of faith groups from religiously motivated hate speech, placing ‘religions’ at the centre of the discussion is a significant departure from international human rights law. Human rights apply to individuals, not organisations or groups. Article 18 of the ICCPR establishes the rights of individuals to enjoy freedom of religion or belief, and no such protection is provided to religious traditions or faith-based organisations. Furthermore, under defamation law, only an individual can be defamed, not a religion. Beyond these legal issues, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief found in January 2017 that “…anti-blasphemy laws, which prohibit or criminalise the alleged ‘defamation’ of religions, or religious figures, have a disproportionate impact on members of minority religious communities and ‘non-believers’…”.16 Such regulations are used to limit the dissemination of religious views that do not conform to the majority, can be applied indiscriminately in ways that inhibit individual rights to manifest a religious belief, and are sometimes abused as a ground for unprovoked persecution of minorities. In addition, in practice, there is evidence to suggest the religious defamation concepts can also be used to politically justify the application of anti-blasphemy provisions to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents, and to limit the freedom of expression of minority communities. Some examples of anti-blasphemy and religious defamation provisions are provided in Chapter 4 of this submission. In addition, at DFAT’s request, Amnesty International Australia has prepared a short survey of relevant regulations and cases, which has been provided at Appendix 1. The OIC resolution on ‘Defamation of Religions’ was presented annually until 2011. In 2011, members of the Human Rights Council found a compromise and replaced the ‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ text with a new resolution17 entitled Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.

16 A/HRC/34/50: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, 17 January 2017 (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/34/50). 17 A/HRC/RES/16/L.38: HRC16 Resolution Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/16/L.38) Page 17 of 143 This resolution and its successors aim to protect people rather than religions. It calls on States to combat “…intolerance, negative stereotyping, and stigmatization ... and violence against persons based on religion or belief…” by protecting religious freedom, prohibiting discrimination and hate crimes, and countering offensive expression through interreligious and intercultural dialogue, education, and public debate rather than the criminalization of speech. When the focus of the OIC’s resolution shifted, Australia became a co-sponsor. This was a signal of our willingness to engage with all nations on different aspects of the protection of FoRB, and also a marker of the importance that DFAT, and our partner agencies, place on combatting religious intolerance and discrimination in a manner that is consistent with international human rights law.

The European Union’s Resolution The EU resolution calls on States to protect and promote FoRB and to limit discrimination based on religion. Its language is more closely related to Article 18 of the ICCPR. It was first presented to the HRC in March 2007, as a counter to the OIC’s ‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ resolution. The EU’s resolution was entitled ‘Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief’.18 Both resolutions ran concurrently but in opposition to each other until 2011. Australia has been a co-sponsor of the EU resolution since its inception. When the OIC shifted the focus of its resolution, the EU also softened its resolution and adopted the title ‘Freedom of religion or belief’. Since 2011 both resolutions have been fairly balanced, with textual changes negotiated as compromise positions between the EU and the OIC. The EU resolution is focused on protecting the rights of individuals to enjoy FoRB. It also contains provisions which highlight the interrelatedness and compatibility of a range of human rights (including the rights of women) with the protection of religious freedoms. Both resolutions contain clear articulations that particular religious traditions should not be equated with terrorism and violence, and call for an end to violence carried out in the name of religions. Both also affirm that freedom of expression is not incompatible with FoRB, and recognise the positive role that respecting freedom of expression can play in fostering religious freedoms.

Australia’s Position on the Freedom of Religion or Belief Resolutions Over the period September 2013 to January 2017, Australia’s position has been to support (co-sponsor) both the OIC and the EU resolutions, despite their different approaches. This allows us to constructively engage with both OIC and EU countries on FoRB issues and to help foster compromises. In recent years, changes to the language in these resolutions have been minimal – a symptom of the balancing act between the OIC and the EU texts. The Human Rights Council and Third Committee have considered and agreed fourteen resolutions focused on FoRB since September 2013 – all of which Australia co-sponsored. Attachment B provides a list of these resolutions and links to the full texts. The most notable development in these resolutions during this period occurred in 2016, at the 71st session of the UNGA Third Committee. Australia, working with our like-minded countries, successfully negotiated the inclusion of language in the EU resolution that welcomes and encourages the important role that NHRIs, such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, can play to promote FoRB; highlight cases of religious intolerance, discrimination and persecution; and advance religious tolerance.

18 A/HRC/RES/4/10: HRC4 Resolution Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc id=13040). Page 18 of 143 Other Resolutions FoRB is also a cross-cutting issue at both the HRC and the Third Committee. It arises in a wide range of discussions and debates. FoRB is considered, for example, when these entities examine country situations of concern. The report of the Commission of Inquiry into the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) found evidence of prolific and sustained religious persecution.19 DFAT, on behalf of the Australian Government, is a consistent advocate for UN attention on human rights abuses occurring in the DPRK, including those related to FoRB.

19 A/HRC/25/63: Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx). Page 19 of 143 Violence against persons based on their religious or ethnic affiliation is strongly condemned in resolutions on the human rights situation in Syria. The Syria resolution also firmly states the international community’s view that terrorism, including the actions of the so-called Islamic State (or Daesh), cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or civilization.20 The Australian Government is a strong advocate for the protection of religious minorities in Syria, and DFAT engages closely in negotiations of all related resolutions. The resolution on the human rights situation in Myanmar, while welcoming efforts to promote and protect human rights, calls on the Government of Myanmar to continue efforts to eliminate systematic and institutionalised discrimination against religious minorities and makes specific mention of the situation of the minority Rohingya community in Rakhine State.21 DFAT has been actively involved in the consideration of these issues by the UN human rights system. The HRC’s ongoing consideration of the human rights situation in Israel and the Palestinian Territories touches on differences between the major religious traditions. Further information on the enjoyment of religious rights and freedoms in the DPRK, Syria, Myanmar and Israel and the Palestinian Territories, including where relevant statements have been made to the HRC by DFAT on behalf of the Australian Government, is provided in Chapter 3. FoRB is also a recurring issue in other thematic human rights discussions. Of note in the period September 2013 – January 2017, both the HRC and the Third Committee have increasingly considered the intersection between protecting human rights, countering terrorism, and the preservation of cultural heritage (including protecting religious sites from terrorist action and during conflict). Mexico presents biannual resolutions in both forums on the Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. Adopted in September 2016, the most recent of these resolutions: reaffirms that terrorism and violent extremism should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group; urges States to resist profiling based on ethnic, racial or religious stereotypes; and recognizes the important role of religious leaders and institutions in preventing and countering terrorism.22 Australia is a co-sponsor of Mexico’s resolutions on this issue. Egypt also presents resolutions on human rights and countering terrorism which directly reference FoRB. The most recent of these resolutions was adopted in March 2016.23 It deplores: the targeting of religious minorities; the association of terrorist activities with particular religious traditions; and attacks on religious places, cultural sites, relics and monuments. However, Australia is unable to support this resolution because, on balance, it appears to present States with a choice of either protecting human rights or effectively countering terrorism, and we consider that States must strive to do both. As evidenced by these two resolutions, the interplay between FoRB and efforts to combat terrorism, and the differing views on how best to approach this complex issue, is a live example of the importance of strong engagement by DFAT, and therefore Australia, in the processes of both the HRC and the Third Committee. While these forums can sometimes seem technical or bureaucratic, the issues they consider are live issues relevant to key concerns for Australia that can have an impact on global peace and security. This is one of the drivers behind Australia’s campaign for membership of the HRC for the 2018-2020 term. Membership would allow us to pursue further development of international human rights norms and practices that can have a tangible impact on individuals in Australia and around the world, including their right to enjoy FoRB.

20 A/HRC/RES/31/17: HRC31 Resolution The human rights situation in the Syrian Arab Republic (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/31/17). 21 A/HRC/RES/34/22: HRC31 Resolution Situation of human rights in Myanmar (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/34/22). 22 A/HRC/RES/33/21: HRC33 Resolution Protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/33/21). 23 A/HRC/RES/34/32: HRC34 Resolution Situation of human rights in Myanmar (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/34/22). Page 20 of 143 SPECIAL PROCEDURE MANDATES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL When UN Member States consider that further action should be taken to address a human rights concern, beyond the adoption of a resolution, the HRC can create a mandate for an expert (or a group of experts) to conduct in-depth analysis of that issue. These expert mandates (Independent Experts, Special Rapporteurs, or Working Groups) are collectively known as Special Procedures. There are currently around 80 HRC Special Procedures.24 Each Special Procedures mandate has a different geographic or thematic area of focus, defined in a resolution adopted by the HRC. Generally speaking, the Special Procedures examine, monitor, and advise on respect for human rights. Their activities can include: preparing thematic studies, collating best practices, responding to individual complaints, or making recommendations to national authorities and the international community.25 The Special Procedures are guided by a ‘Code of Conduct’, which requires them to act in an independent capacity, and exercise their functions in accordance with their mandate.26 While the reports and testimonies of the Special Procedures of the HRC are non-binding, they can have an influential effect on the development of the international community’s understanding of how a human right operates. The themes which they investigate are also often taken up in subsequent resolutions and thereby can influence the ongoing development of international human rights law.27 Country Specific mandate holders, such as the Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Myanmar, have a remit to examine and report on the human rights situation in particular countries. Holders of thematic mandates, such as the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, can visit countries to assess human rights situation under their respective mandates, and also conduct studies clarifying the scope of a specific right. The Thematic Special Procedures generally report to both the HRC and the Third Committee annually. These reports are usually submitted in writing and followed by an appearance before the Council or the Committee. During their appearances, the Special Procedures generally speak to the content of their most recent report and engage in a dialogue with States on those issues. Australia has maintained a standing invitation to all thematic Special Procedures Mandate Holders since August 2008. This demonstrates our willingness to engage with the international community on Australia’s human rights record and our commitment to continued improvement in the domestic implementation of our human rights obligations. Australia has had 14 visits by Thematic Special Procedures since the 1990s. This included a visit by the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in 1997.28

The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief identifies existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to FoRB and present recommendations on ways to overcome these obstacles.

24 Further information on the HRC Special Procedures, including a Visual Directory of all current Mandate Holders can be found online (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/Welcomepage.aspx). 25 Confederation Suisse, The Human Rights Council: A Practical Guide (available at: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiswennt- 7SAhWKkJQKHe- 1BDcQFggeMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eda.admin.ch%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Feda%2Fen%2Fdocuments%2Fpublications%2 FInternationaleOrganisationen%2FUno%2FHuman-rights-Council-practical-guide en&usg=AFQjCNG-ibkaihPdLoWKyL9sCP5- myzhFw&bvm=bv.150729734,d.dGo). 26 A/HRC/RES/5/2: HRC5 Resolution Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc id=13360).

28 A full list of all visits by Special Procedure Mandate Holders, including to Australia, is available online: http://spinternet.ohchr.org/ Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/ViewCountryVisits.aspx?Lang=en. Page 21 of 143 This position has existed since 1986 when the UN Commission on Human Rights appointed a ‘Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance’. The current mandate for the HRC’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief was created in 2007, and is renewed every three years in the EU’s FoRB resolution.29 The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, as established by States through the Human Rights Council, is as follows: (a) To promote the adoption of measures at the national, regional and international levels to ensure the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief; (b) To identify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief and present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles; (c) To continue her/his efforts to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and to recommend remedial measures as appropriate; (d) To continue to apply a gender perspective, inter alia, through the identification of gender- specific abuses, in the reporting process, including in information collection and in recommendations; The current holder of this mandate is Mr Ahmed Shaheed. Appointed in November 2016, Mr Shaheed is experienced in international human rights law and the conduct of the UN human rights system. In the early 2000s he served as the first Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the of Iran. His first report, released for the 34th Session of the HRC in March 2017, is a summary of contemporary global trends that impact on the enjoyment of FoRB, and how misconceptions of Article 18 of the ICCPR have negative impact on this and other related rights.30 Mr Shaheed’s predecessor, Mr , held this position for two consecutive terms, from August 2010 to November 2016. Over the term September 2013 to January 2017 Mr Bielefeldt released seven reports which considered the operation of FoRB in contemporary contexts and in relation to other human rights. His investigations included: examinations of the intersection between FoRB and gender equality, and FoRB and the freedom of expression; a discussion of the problems posed by ‘violence carried out in the name of religions’; and a consideration of ways to eliminate religious intolerance and discrimination in the workplace. Attachment C provides a full list of Mr Bielefeldt’s reports. DFAT regularly engages with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, through our engagement in the HRC, demonstrating our support for this mandate and our willingness to engage in ongoing debate about this right. In addition to co-sponsoring the resolutions which perpetuate this mandate31, Australia engages in public dialogues with the Special Rapporteur when his annual reports are presented to the HRC. Attachment D provides a selection of national statements delivered during these dialogues by DFAT on behalf of the Government. As outlined above, the value of our engagement with written and oral reports of the Special Rapporteur derives from the potentially norm generating nature of these investigations. Engaging in these discussions can also give us a sense of how other countries are interpreting and implementing human rights norms at any given time. Despite the current consensus between the EU and

29 The resolution which articulates the responsibilities and remit of mandate is A/HRC/RES/6/37, while the most recent renewal of this mandate can be found in A/HRC/RES/31/16, both can be found online (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc id=13540 and http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/31/16). 30 A/HRC/34/50: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, 17 January 2017 (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/34/50). 31 For example Australia co-sponsored A/HRC/RES/31/16 (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/31/16). Page 22 of 143 the OIC FoRB resolutions discussions in March 2016, in response to a report of the then Special Rapporteur, resulted in a renewed debate on the utility of restrictions on the freedom of expression in order to protect religions. The Special Rapporteur presented a report to the 31st session of the HRC on the intersection of FoRB and freedom of expression.32 In his report, Mr Bielefeldt confirmed his understanding that these two rights do not stand in opposition to each other, and he argued that the mutual reinforcement of both rights is particularly relevant when combating intolerance, stereotyping, discrimination and violence based on religion or belief. In response to this report, numerous States, including Iran and other members of the OIC, made statements rejecting the Special Rapporteur’s findings and contending that restrictions on the freedom of expression can be required to protect religious traditions. DFAT will remain engaged in these discussions and negotiations to ensure that, as international human rights norms continue to be developed, a balanced approach is taken to protecting and promoting both FoRB and freedom of expression. DFAT will engage in line with the Australian Government’s position that all human rights are equal, and that all individuals are equally entitled to the protection of their human rights.

JOINT STATEMENTS AT THE HRC Joint or Group Statements at the HRC or the Third Committee are another mechanism through which States can publically signal their concern or interest in a human rights issue. These statements also provide an important opportunity for different groups of States to find consensus on contentious issues. Australia is routinely asked to join, or help develop such statements, as they are can be a powerful signal of how a broad-ranging, sometimes cross-regional group of States consider a thematic or country specific human right situation. In forums like the HRC, on matters of FoRB, Australia works closest with Canada, New Zealand, the US, the UK and the EU. We do this because their understanding of the operation of this right is broadly consistent with ours. However, Australia also places a great deal of emphasis on working on religious freedom issues with ‘non-like-minded’ States, and within cross-regional and multi-faith groups. This kind of broader engagement helps foster a common understanding and respect for FoRB across all countries and traditions. In March 2015, Australia joined two Joint Statements on FoRB issues. Russia, the Holy See and Lebanon prepared and presented a Joint Statement Supporting the Human Rights of Christians and Other Communities, particularly in the Middle East. This statement highlighted the persecution of Christian minority populations across the Middle East, particularly by ISIS, and called on States to protect the human rights of individuals in these communities. In the same session of the HRC, the US presented a short Concurrent Statement on Freedom of Religion or Belief. This statement noted the persecution of Christians, but also drew the Council’s attention to the situation of many Muslim populations, whose communities comprised the majority of victims of terrorism. Australia also joined this Concurrent Statement along with France and the UK. Copies of both statements can be found at Attachment E.

HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODY REPORTING Monitoring the implementation by States of the human rights of individuals is a key concern of the UN human rights system. At its core, much of the business of the HRC and the Third Committee is concerned with considering whether rights are being implemented consistently with treaty obligations, or whether country situations suggest that States are not meeting these obligations. Beyond these forums, the Human Rights Treaty Bodies also provide capacity for independent oversight of the implementation and enjoyment of relevant rights, and in doing so they form a crucial part of the UN

32 A/HRC/31/18: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, 23 December 2015 (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/31/18). Page 23 of 143 human rights system. As discussed earlier, the Human Rights Committee is the relevant treaty body for the ICCPR. As a State Party to the ICCPR, Australia is required to participate in a regular schedule of reporting to the Human Rights Committee. The purpose of this reporting is to assess the effectiveness of domestic implementation of the rights contained in the treaty. States report in writing, and then appear before the Committee for an interactive dialogue in Geneva. The Committee then delivers an assessment of each reporting State’s track-record in protecting and promoting ICCPR rights. These are called the Committee’s ‘Concluding Observations’. Australia’s last appearance before the Human Rights Committee was held on 23 and 24 March 2009. In its Concluding Observations regarding Australia’s implementation of the ICCPR, the Committee acknowledged measures taken by Australia to tackle ‘Islamophobia’ but also called on the government to do more in this area, including tackling hate speech and implementing a contemporary project aimed at promoting FoRB.33 On 2 May 2016, Australia submitted its sixth periodic written report under the ICCPR. Australia has accepted the Committee’s invitation to use the ‘simplified reporting procedure’, Australia’s sixth report was therefore a response to a List of Issues Prior to Reporting (LOIPR) provided by the Committee. Paragraph 21 of the LOIPR provided an opportunity for Australia to discuss how FoRB is protected and promoted domestically.34 Australia’s next appearance before the Human Rights Committee has been scheduled for November 2017.35 The Attorney-General’s Department is the lead agency at the Commonwealth level with responsibility for treaty reporting under the ICCPR.

33 CCPR/C/AUS/CO/5: Human Rights Committee, Consideration of Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Artic;e 40 of the Covenant, Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, Australia, 7 May 2009 (available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/ layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fAUS%2fCO%2f5&Lang=en). 34 Australia’s report can be accessed online (available at: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/ layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=45&DocTypeID=29). 35 The Human Rights Committee will also publish its assessment of Australia’s implementation of the ICCPR online. This will be made available following the Australian appearance in November 2017. Page 24 of 143 CHAPTER 3: MULTILATERAL ADVOCACY AND ENGAGEMENT – BEYOND THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

Beyond the UN human rights system, Australia engages when UNESCO and the UN Alliance of Civilisations consider FoRB issues. We take part in a range of other multilateral processes and mechanisms that support and foster FoRB, including the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. We also seek opportunities to engage with a broad range of States in international dialogues that investigate and promote religious tolerance and inter-faith understanding.

UN ALLIANCE OF CIVILIZATIONS The UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) was established through an UNGA Resolution in 2005, presented by Spain and Turkey. The initiative came out of a recognition that there was a need to counter the root causes of polarisation and extremism through improving understanding and cooperative relations across cultures and religions. The UNAOC is headed by a High Representative who coordinates and promotes intercultural and interfaith dialogue and facilitates activities within four ‘pillars’ of focus: youth, education, media and migration. Work under these pillars has included consideration of how effective protection of FoRB can promote peaceful co-existence globally. Australia has been a member of the Group of Friends of the UNAOC, which now has 146 members, since 2007. The Group of Friends is open to UN Member States and international organisations, who are the main financial contributors to the UNAOC. The UNAOC holds regular Global Forums. The Global Forum is the highest-profile event of the UN Alliance of Civilizations, bringing together prominent personalities, current and potential partners, and others from different sectors. A Ministerial Declaration, which is pre-negotiated by Group of Friends Member States, is usually adopted by consensus during UNAOC Global Forums. Australia participates in these negotiations and endorses these declarations in support of the work of the UNAOC. The most recent UNAOC Global Forum was held in Baku in April 2016. The Baku Ministerial Declaration contains several references to religion, including an acknowledgement of the importance of initiatives that enable dialogue between different religions and cultures, and a confirmation of the complementarity of FoRB and the freedom of expression.36 Then Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd attended the UNAOC Fourth Global Forum in Doha in December 2011 and Australia subsequently provided A$250,000 to the Voluntary Trust Fund in 2013/14 to support the Youth Support Program, Youth Solidarity Fund in South East Asia and the Pacific. Australia also provided US$50,000 for Engaging the Somali in Countering Radicalisation. Australia has not provided further financial contributions.

36 The Baku Ministerial Declaration can be accessed online (available at: http://baku.unaoc.org/). Page 25 of 143 UNESCO The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is responsible for coordinating international cooperation in education, science, culture and communication. Its mandate is to ensure that each child and citizen:  has access to quality education; a basic human right and an indispensable prerequisite for sustainable development  may grow and live in a cultural environment rich in diversity and dialogue, where heritage serves as a bridge between generations and peoples  can fully benefit from scientific advances, and  can enjoy full freedom of expression; the basis of , development and human dignity.37 Australia has been a member of UNESCO since its inception in 1946. Our membership provides Australia with opportunities to promote our commitment to the protection of indigenous culture, the promotion of human rights, and the protection of heritage. Engagement with UNESCO, both from Canberra and by our Australian mission in , is led by DFAT working closely with our whole-of-government partners. Australia is a party to a number of UNESCO Conventions, this allows DFAT (in consultation with the Department of Social Services, the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Attorney-General’s Department, and others) to promote our model of multiculturalism and our efforts to promote respect for cultural heritage, which supports the enjoyment of FoRB. These Conventions include:  Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005)  Convention on Illicit Trafficking (1970)  Convention on Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954). Our efforts across the range of UNESCO activities are useful avenues to reflect our Australian values, including respect for FoRB. UNESCO is a global forum for Australia to promote our human rights, which include the active promotion of both freedom of expression and religious beliefs. Australia also participates in UNESCO education programmes designed to promote global citizenship, peace and tolerance. UNESCO’s role as a specialised agency also helps us shape global norms in this area. For example, Australia has recently taken a lead role in UNESCO’s emerging work on Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE), which supports the global enjoyment of FoRB. On 4 October 2016, the Minister for Justice, the Hon Michael Keenan MP, announced that the Australian Government had invested $100,000 in education initiatives focused on PVE and other online dangers through a new partnership with UNESCO. The funding will support UNESCO's new PVE Unit to develop digital materials for students and teachers that help build resilience to violent extremism.

INTERNATIONAL CONTACT GROUP ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF Australia actively seeks out options for coordinated State-to-State initiatives to support FoRB in specific countries or regions. There is often more utility in a group of States joining together to call for action on a human rights issue, or to highlight a case or situation of concern, than one country making a representation on its own – particularly if a cross-regional or multi-faith group of States can be mobilised on single issue. In 2015, Australia joined the Canadian-led International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief (the Contact Group). The Contact Group is a cross-regional group which provides a platform for States to

37 UNESCO, Introducing UNESCO (available at: http://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco). Page 26 of 143 exchange information and best practices, discuss emerging issues, and facilitate responses to violations of religious freedoms when and where they arise. Our membership of the Contact Groups complements our other multilateral efforts to promote religious freedoms and liberties, particularly through the UN system. Other members of the Contact Group include: Austria, Belgium, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Denmark, the EU, France, Germany, the Holy See, Indonesia, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Tunisia, the US and the UK. The Contact Group is still determining the most effective methods for coordinated FoRB advocacy. To date, it has convened cross-regional discussions on FoRB issues, and has served as a conduit to highlight cases of concern. The Contact Group may also build on existing diplomatic networks which provide effective avenues for information sharing. An example of such information sharing occurred in December 2016, in the wake of attacks against the Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan. Following a raid on the Ahmadiyya community headquarters and mob violence against an Ahmadiyya place of worship in Punjab Province, members of the diplomatic network and wider international community shared information in order to inform their separate advocacy to the Pakistan Government. In late December 2016 Pakistan’s National Human Rights Commissioner, Nawaz Chowhan, initiated a suo moto action in response to these incidents, and requested an investigation and report into the attack on the place of worship. Punjab Province Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif indicated that there would be a policy inquiry into the raid. While States acted individually in response to this concerning case, the Contact Group could serve as a facilitator of international attention in situations like this where FoRB appears to be under pressure in the future.

INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE ALLIANCE While the ethnic cleansing and mass murder of the Holocaust was broader than religious-motivated violence, it undeniably included the systematic targeting of a religious community. In addition to the persecution of members of the Roma ethic group, people with disabilities, LGBTI persons, and members of left-wing political parties, the elimination of members of the Jewish faith was central to Nazi policy. Australia has been an Observer State member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) since 2015. IHRA is an intergovernmental body that promotes Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally. As an Observer State member of the IHRA, Australia attends the twice-annual plenary meetings, and appoints independent experts to participate in the IHRA’s working groups. The Australian experts that served on the IHRA’s working groups for the 2015-2016 term were: Andre Oboler, Suzanne Hampel, Suzanne Rutland, Pauline Rockman, Noah Shenker, Steven Cooke, Avril Albaand Donna-Lee Frieze. DFAT attends IHRA meetings on the Government’s behalf, and provides limited support to the Australian experts.

AD-HOC MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF Beyond the formal processes, mechanism and groups discussed above, Australia also seeks out ad-hoc opportunities to raise the profile of FoRB and related issues of concern with the wider international community. For example, over the last twelve months DFAT officers have represented Australia in a number of multilateral discussions on these topics including:  the EU, UK and Commonwealth Symposium on Cooperation in the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief, Brussels, 25 January 2017

Page 27 of 143 Page 28 of 143  the High-Level Forum on Combating Anti-Muslim Discrimination and Hatred, UN Headquarters New York, 17 January 201738  the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Conference on Preventing Violent Extremism and Promoting Freedom of Religion or Belief, , 19-20 October 201639, and  the US Department of State Consultation on Threats to Religious and Ethnic Minorities under Da’esh, Washington, 28-29 July 201640. In addition to providing a further platform for State-to-State coordination and the building of cross-regional or multi-faith consensus, active participation by Australia in these forums helps contribute to the global communities’ understanding of how individuals are able to enjoy FoRB today, what factors are inhibiting this human right, and what States and international organisations are doing to protect and promote FoRB.

38 Further information on the High-Level Forum on Combating Anti-Muslim Discrimination and Hatred can be found online (available at: http://eu-un.europa.eu/event-high-level-forum-combating-anti-muslim-discrimination-hatred-17-january/ and https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage en/18773/High%20Level%20Forum%20on%20Anti- Muslim%20Discrimination%20and%20Hatred and http://www.un.org/pga/71/2017/01/17/statement-on-combatting-anti- muslim-discrimination-and-hatred/). 39 Further information on the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Conference on Preventing Violent Extremism and Promoting Freedom of Religion or Belief can be found online (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fco-leads-global-action- on-freedom-of-religion and https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/julianbraithwaite/2016/10/18/fco-conference-on-preventing-violent- extremism-how-freedom-of-religion-or-belief-can-help/ and http://forbforeignpolicy.net/preventing-violent-extremism/). 40 Further information on the US Department of State, Consultation on Threats to Religious and Ethnic Minorities under Da’esh can be found online (available at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/s/d/2016d/260664.htm). Page 29 of 143 CHAPTER 4: THE ENJOYMENT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF GLOBALLY

DFAT’s commitment to advancing the protection and promotion human rights goes beyond our multilateral engagement. Through the Department’s network of geographic desks and posts, we monitor the enjoyment of FoRB and make representations on specific human rights cases of concern, including those motivated by religious intolerance. This Chapter of our submission reports on the enjoyment of FoRB in a range of countries, across the Indo- Pacific region and beyond. It indicates, where relevant, if the Department has engaged on FoRB issues in particular countries, or with relevant government authorities. This is not intended as a definitive list of countries that may or may not be operationalising commitments to FoRB. It is a snapshot of the enjoyment of this right in countries covered by Australia’s diplomatic network. The material in this Chapter is derived partly from Australia’s diplomatic network, and partly from open- source resources. These open-source resources are highly regarded, well researched sources of information on human rights and FoRB. The main resources include the:  United States State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor’s International Religious Freedom Report for 201541 - where referenced this report is called the ‘State Department Report 2015’.  United States Commission on International Religious Freedoms’ 2016 and 2015 Annual Reports42 - where referenced these reports are called the ‘USCIRF 2015 Report’ or the ‘USCIRF 2016 Report’.  European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religions Tolerance’s Annual Report on the State of Freedom of Religion or Belief in the World 201543 - where referenced this report is called the ‘EU Intergroup Report 2015’.  Pew Research Centre’s Trends in Global Restrictions on Religions Report, released June 201644 - where referenced this report is called the ‘Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016’.  Human Rights Watch’s 2017 World Report – Events of 201645 - where referenced this report is called the Human Rights Watch 2017/2016 Report.  Amnesty International’s State of the World’s Human Rights Report 2016/17.46 - where referenced this report is called the Amnesty 2016/2017 Report. The JSCFADT may wish to access these sources directly for more detailed information on country situations, or for information on countries not covered in DFAT’s submissions.

41 Available at: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper. 42 USCIRF 2016 Report available at: http://www.uscirf.gov/reports-briefs/annual-report/2016-annual-report. USCIRF 2015 Report available at: http://www.uscirf.gov/reports-briefs/annual-report/2015-annual-report. 43 Available at: http://www.religiousfreedom.eu/. 44 Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/06/23/trends-in-global-restrictions-on-religion/. 45 Available at: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017. 46 Available at: https://www.amnesty.org.au/annual-report-2016-17/.

Page 30 of 143 AFGHANISTAN Approximately 80 per cent of the population of Afghanistan are adherents of and approximately a further 19 per cent of the population Shia (mainly Hazara). There are very small populations of Hindus, Sikhs and other religions in Afghanistan, many of whom are emigrating. The Afghan constitution establishes Islam as the state religion (Article 2). Islam also plays an explicit and central role in Afghan society. Legislation and the charters of political parties and other organisations may not contravene the tenets of Islam. Educational curricula are also required to conform to Islamic requirements. Article 2 of the constitution also provides that followers of other faiths shall be free to exercise their religions within the bounds of the law. Despite these constitutional protections on the freedom of exercise of religion, there are gaps in implementation. For instance, where legislation is silent, it is possible for a court to rely upon Islamic Shari'a law to determine a case. The Afghan Government has attempted to promote interfaith harmony and diversity through the appointment of members of different Islamic groups to various Government commissions. The Moderation Center of Afghanistan has also been established to promote a moderate form of Islam. The Moderation Center has previously sent both Sunni and Shia clerics to Kuwait for religious training. The Australian Embassy in has not made representations related to freedom of religion or belief during the period September 2013 to January 2017. This is because the primary threat to religious tolerance and freedom of religion or belief in Afghanistan comes from anti-government elements, including the and Islamic State-Khorasan Province (ISKP), not generally from the implementation of government policies. Although there is a constitutional freedom to exercise religion, public displays of worship for non- are few. This is potentially as result of a combination of factors including societal pressure in an overwhelmingly Islamic society, and the possibility that displays of non-Islamic worship may become a target for anti-government groups, including the Taliban and ISKP. Given the close link between ethnicity and religion in Afghanistan, it can be difficult to categorise harassment or violence against a group on purely religious grounds.

Page 31 of 143 BANGLADESH “Approximately 90 percent of Bangladesh’s estimated 160 million population is Sunni Muslim. Hindus constitute 9.5 percent of the total population, and all other faiths, including Christians and Buddhists, are less than one percent.”47 A principle of secularism, laid down in the 1972 Constitution of Bangladesh, provides a framework for accommodating religious and belief-related pluralism for everyone without discrimination. That commitment has been confirmed through Bangladesh’s ratification of international human rights conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Constitution also provides that the State religion of Bangladesh is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the republic (art. 2A). The fifteenth amendment of the Constitution reaffirmed secularism as a fundamental principle and aspires to eliminate: communalism in all its forms; the granting by the State of political status in favour of any religion; the abuse of religion for political purposes; and any discrimination against, or persecution of, persons practising a particular religion (art.12). Besides the guarantees provided by the Constitution, the Government has enacted various laws and acts to uphold and protect religious values, and undertaken a range of different initiatives to promote religious harmony through the 2006 National Cultural Policy, the 2010 National Education Policy, the 2011 National Women Development Policy and other social welfare policies. A wide diversity of religious festivals are celebrated across Bangladesh’s calendar. The Bangladesh Government provides basic education on religion for children and adults as well as budgetary allocations for the development of religious minority groups through separate religious welfare trusts for Hindus, Buddhists and Christians to establish and repair religious institutions. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief conducted a mission to Bangladesh from 31 August to 9 September 2015. The Special Rapporteur was broadly positive about the commitment among different stakeholders to maintain harmonious interreligious coexistence, in the face of rising religious polarisation.48 Bangladesh’s penal code makes it an offence to make statements or commit acts that demonstrate a ‘deliberate and malicious’ intent to insult religious sentiments. The periodic arrests of secular bloggers for publishing ‘atheist material’ is concerning. A rise in Islamic militancy since 2015 resulted in attacks against religious minorities, security forces and foreigners.49 In 2015, Islamist militants killed four secular bloggers and one anti-Islamist publisher in separate machete attacks in Dhaka and Sylhet. A further killing occurred on 23 April 2016, when a university professor was murdered for his activities considered to be ‘un-Islamic’. ‘On July 8 [2016], three people were killed at a checkpoint when gunmen carrying bombs tried to attack a gathering to mark the Muslim Eid holiday.’50 The Australian High Commission in Dhaka has made representations to the Government of Bangladesh on broad range of human rights issues including in response to heightened levels of Islamist militant violence against atheists, Hindus, Ahmadis, Buddhists and foreigners since 2015.

47 USCIRF 2016 Report, Bangladesh Chapter. 48 A/HRC/31/18/Add.2: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief on his mission to Bangladesh (available at: https://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/6459637.88032532.html). 49 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 113. 50 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 113.

Page 32 of 143 BHUTAN The US government estimates that, at July 2015, the total population of Bhutan was approximately 742,000. Three-quarters of the population are followers of the Drukpa Kagyu or Nyingma schools of Buddhism. Hindus account for a further 22 percent. Estimates of the size of the Christian community range from 2,000 to 25,000. There are also communities of followers of the animist Bon tradition and of Tibetan Buddhism.51 While recognising Buddhism as Bhutan’s ‘spiritual heritage’ which all religious institutions and personalities have a responsibility to promote, the Bhutanese Constitution also provides for religious freedom and prohibits discrimination based on religious belief. Bhutanese law restricts divisive religious speech and bans forced conversions. However, religious groups must register and obtain licenses to hold public gatherings. Robust civil society and media are still emerging as Bhutan consolidates its eight-year-old democracy.

51 State Department Report 2015, Bhutan Chapter.

Page 33 of 143 BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Bosnia and Herzegovina is a secular state. Its constitution includes the right to FoRB. According to the 2013 census, 50.7 per cent of the population are Muslim, 30.74 percent Serb Orthodox, and 15.18 per cent Roman Catholic. Human Rights Watch recently raised concerns about the exclusion of members of certain religious faiths from political office in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The constitution restricts eligibility to stand for election to the House of Representatives or Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina to members of the country’s ‘constituent peoples’– Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. Human Rights Watch considers this discriminatory against religious and ethnic minority groups, including the Jewish and Roma populations, and has criticised the government for failing to amend the constitution to remove this discrimination.52 The Australian Embassy to Bosnia and Herzegovina (in Vienna) met with the Grant Mufti of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Husein ef. Kavazovic in November 2014 and October 2015.

52 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 133.

Page 34 of 143 BRUNEI DARUSSALAM According to the Brunei Darussalam Statistical Yearbook 2015, the total population of Brunei Darussalam is 417,000, of which 87,000 are temporary residents. The most recent data available (2011 census), indicates that approximately 78.8 percent of the population is Muslim, 8.7 percent Christian, and 7.8 percent Buddhist, while the remaining 4.8 percent consists of other religions, including indigenous beliefs. There is significant variation in religious identification among ethnic groups. The Brunei Darussalam Statistical Yearbook 2015 states that ethnically Malay Bruneians, who comprise 66 percent of the population, are all Muslims, as this is presumed to be an inherited status. The US government estimates that a majority (65 percent) of the Chinese population, which is approximately 10 percent of the total population and includes both citizens and permanent residents, is Buddhist, and 20 percent is Christian. Indigenous tribes such as Dusun, Bisaya, and Murut make up approximately 4 percent of the population and are roughly 50 percent Muslim, 15 percent Christian, and the remainder other religious groups, including adherents of traditional practices. The remaining quarter of the population includes foreign-born workers, primarily from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, , and stateless residents. Approximately half of these temporary and permanent residents are Muslim, more than one quarter Christian, and 15 percent Buddhist.”53 The official religion of Brunei Darussalam is Islam. Islamic practices and messaging are tightly controlled, and restricted to Sunni teachings. Propagation of religions other than Islam is an offence under Brunei’s 2013 Syariah Penal Code, although worship is permitted. A Fatwa from the State Mufti in 2005 specifies that believers of other religions may practice their religion and celebrate their religious festivities among their community, provided they are not displayed publicly to Muslims. This Fatwa has been used to restrict practices such as Christmas decorations and lion dances at Chinese New Year in public places. The Australian High Commission in Bandar Seri Begawan has made regular representations to the Brunei Government on human rights issues, including the introduction of the Syariah Penal Code, the harsh penalties it includes and its application to non-Muslims.

53 State Department Report 2015, Brunei Darussalam Chapter.

Page 35 of 143 CAMBODIA It is reported that over 90 percent of Cambodia’s estimated 16 million people are follows of Buddhism. While Buddhism is the religion of the state, freedom of religion is generally respected in Cambodia. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Cambodian Constitution (1993) (Article 43) which states: ‘Khmer citizens of either sex shall have the right to freedom of belief. Freedom of religious belief and worship shall be guaranteed by the State on the condition that such freedom does not affect other religious beliefs or violate public order and security.’ The Cambodian Government generally respects freedom of religion and has a policy of promoting peaceful relations among religious groups. Religious groups are required to apply to the Ministry of Cults and Religions (MCR) if they wish to conduct religious activities, but the MCR has no authority to punish or penalise religious groups for failing to register. Places of worship and religious schools must also be registered. According to the MCR, Buddhism, Islam and Christianity are the three major religions in Cambodia. However, Buddhism is favoured by the Government and promoted through the observance of holidays, religious training and financial support to Buddhist institutions. Cambodia’s last Universal Periodic Review took place in March 2014. No recommendations relating to freedom of religion or belief were made. There have been reports of the Government calling for the removal or relocation of Vietnamese temples and shrines, such as on Bokor Mountain, usually citing as justification the failure to secure appropriate permits. Since late 2014, increasing numbers of Montagnard people, the indigenous peoples of the Central Highlands of Vietnam, have sought refuge in Cambodia, alleging persecution in Vietnam on the basis of their Christian beliefs and practices. According to human rights organisations, Cambodia has refused to allow most Montagnards to register as asylum seekers and they have been deported to Vietnam where they are at risk of persecution.

Page 36 of 143 CANADA According to the 2011 Canadian census, ‘approximately 67 percent of the population is Christian. Roman Catholics constitute the largest group, followed by Protestants. The United Church of Canada, Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, and Pentecostal denominations are the largest Protestant groups. Approximately 3 percent of the population is Muslim and 1 percent Jewish. Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Scientologists, Baha’is, and adherents of Shintoism, Taoism, and Aboriginal spirituality together constitute less than 4 percent of the population. Approximately 24 percent of the population claims no religious affiliation.’ 54 Canada consider respect for human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and diversity to be a core Canadian value. Freedom of religion is enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter was included as Part I of the Canadian Constitution under the Constitution Act of 1982. Robust debate on these issues is a longstanding feature of Canadian public discourse. Canada’s government is active in advocating these values in its foreign policy. Canada and Australia are close partners in efforts to protect and promote FoRB across the globe. Canada led the creation of the International Contact Group on Freedom of Religion or Belief (discussed in Chapter 2), and it continues to provide secretariat support. The Australian High Commission in Ottawa engages with Canada on FoRB matters. Canada is also a member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Through the IHRA, Canada supports Holocaust education, remembrance, and research both domestically and abroad.55 Canada recently reconfigured Global Affairs Canada’s Office of Religious Freedom as the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion, reflecting the Trudeau’s government’s focus on plurality and inclusiveness.

54 State Department Report 2015, Canada Chapter. 55 State Department Report 2015, Canada Chapter.

Page 37 of 143 CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC Northern Central African Republic (CAR) is predominantly inhabited by Muslims while the south is majority Christian. The US government estimated the total population of CAR, as at July 2015, was around 5.4 million. ‘According to the 2003 census, the population was 51 percent Protestant, 29 percent Roman Catholic, 10 percent Muslim, and 4.5 percent other religious groups, while 5.5 percent have no religious beliefs.’56 The constitution, adopted by referendum in December 2015, provides for freedom of religion under conditions set by law and equal protection under the law regardless of religion. It prohibits all forms of religious intolerance and ‘religious fundamentalism’. It specifies an oath of office for the head of state made ‘before God’ that includes a promise to fulfil the duties of the office without any consideration of religion or faith.57 ‘Religious groups, except for indigenous religious groups, are required to register with the Ministry of Territorial Administration. To register, religious groups must prove they have a minimum of 1,000 members and their leaders have adequate religious education, as judged by the ministry. The law permits the ministry to deny registration to any religious group it deems offensive to public morals or likely to disturb social peace, and to suspend the operation of registered religious groups if it finds their activities subversive. Registration is free and confers official recognition and certain limited benefits, such as customs duty exemptions for vehicles or equipment. There are no penalties prescribed for groups that fail to register’.58 A takeover of political power by the Muslim Seleka rebels in 2013 opened religious fault lines in the country and led to serious intercommunal fragmentation among its people, making trust, justice and establishment of a stable political order difficult. Religious differences have also been exploited by warring factions since 2013, further fuelling insecurity and undermining efforts to demobilise armed militias. Rebel combatants are perceived as protectors of their religious communities, allowing for Seleka fighters to be considered protectors of Muslims in the north and the centre and anti-Balaka groups as vanguards of Christian communities. It is estimated that ‘before 2012, 85 percent of CAR’s population was Christian and 15 percent was Muslim. By the end of 2014, 80 percent of the country’s Muslim population had been driven out of CAR’.59 More recently, Human Rights Watch reported that, in 2016, over 460,000 people were displaced from CAR, living as refugees in neighbouring countries and that the majority of this group were Muslim.60 Australia was active, during our term on the UN Security Council, in crafting the Council’s response to the crisis in the CAR. We made various statements expressing concern at the religious dimensions of the crisis in CAR during this term. Religious leaders have, in recent years, played a high profile and constructive role in reconciliation efforts in an attempt to overcome intercommunal violence.

56 State Department Report 2015, Central African Republic Chapter. 57 State Department Report 2015, Central African Republic Chapter. 58 State Department Report 2015, Central African Republic Chapter. 59 USCIRF 2016 Report, Central African Republic Chapter. 60 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 175.

Page 38 of 143 CHINA While the constitution refers to protecting ‘normal’ religion or belief, freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs in China is constrained. FoRB varies greatly throughout China, with local authorities in different parts of the country demonstrating different levels of tolerance. Individuals who practice within state sanctioned boundaries are generally able to do so easily. Individuals who practice in unregistered religious organisations face a greater risk, although some are able to worship discreetly. Individuals involved in religious groups designated as ‘cults’ face the highest risk. The Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016, ranked China, as a whole, as having the highest level of government restrictions globally during the reporting period (2014).61 ‘In its report to the Human Rights Council, during China’s Universal Periodic Review in October 2013, the Chinese Government stated there were more than 100 million religious believers, 360,000 clergy, 140,000 places of worship, and 5,500 religious groups.’62 However, other sources contend that official figures underestimate the numbers of Chinese religious adherents. For example, in 2015, a European Parliament report on FoRB assessed that between 100 and 300 million Chinese held a religious conviction.63 China officially recognises five religions – Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism (Confucianism, one of China’s traditional ‘three teachings’, along with Buddhism and Taoism, is now regarded as a philosophy rather than a religion in mainland China). The practice of any other religion is officially prohibited and members of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (over 100 million people) must be declared atheists. Religious organisations must be registered, may only practice in officially approved premises, and the government closely monitors religious personnel appointments, publications, finances and seminaries.64 Chinese legislation classifies a number of minority religious groups as ‘cults’. These groups include Falun Gong, the Guanyin Method (Guanyin Famen or the Way of the Goddess of Mercy), Zhong Gong (a qigong discipline), a number of evangelical Christian groups, and Eastern Lightning (a newer Chinese Christian movement). Under Article 300 of China’s Criminal Law, those who participate in so-called ‘superstitious or secret societies or weird religious organizations’ or other similar activities are subject to imprisonment.65 In practice, the interpretation of what is considered a cult and the treatment of adherents varies throughout China. Both registered and unregistered religious communities may face restrictions or penalties if they are considered to challenge government authority. There is widespread reporting of restrictions on religious freedoms and the destruction of religious buildings (including Christian Churches and Buddhist monasteries). Concerns are repeatedly raised over religious discrimination and other alleged human rights abuses against Falun Gong practitioners, Uighur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Han Christians.66 For example, USCIRF has reported that in 2016 crosses were removed or churches demolished at over 1,500 locations. Chinese authorities are also alleged to have arrested Christians for displaying crosses in their homes and for printing religious materials.67 NGOs and human rights activists have also raised concerns about the treatment of leaders of registered and unregistered religious groups in China, citing a number of cases where they have been detained or prosecuted. In 2016-17, a range of groups highlighted

61 Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016, pages 8, 14 and 35. 62 State Department Report 2015, China Chapter. 63 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page, page 81. 64 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 196. 65 USCIRF 2016 Report, China Chapter. 66 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, pages 193-195. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 121. 67 USCIRF 2017 Report, China Chapter (available at: http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/2017.USCIRFAnnualReport.pdf).

Page 39 of 143 cases of Christian pastors, and lawyers acting on behalf of Christian groups, which they consider examples of undue limitations and repression of FoRB.68 In September 2016, the Chinese Government released a series of proposed amendments to legislative controls on religions aimed at protecting national security. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have expressed concern at the potential impact of these provisions.69 Amnesty has argued that, ‘the amendments, which emphasized national security with a goal of curbing “infiltration and extremism”, could be used to further suppress the rights to freedom of religion and belief, especially for Tibetan Buddhists, Uighur Muslims and unrecognized churches.’70 Australia regularly raises concerns about FoRB with China. We note China’s restrictions on the religious and cultural practices of Uighurs and Tibetans exacerbate tensions in Xinjiang and Tibetan regions and raise concerns about China’s treatment of Falun Gong practitioners. At its 2014 appearance before the Universal Periodic Review, China received 20 recommendations from 18 states pertaining to FoRB and the treatment of religious minorities, including two from Australia.71

Hong Kong Freedom of ’s Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Basic Law (Hong Kong’s mini constitution) and other relevant legislation, and unlike in mainland China, religious groups do not need to be state-sanctioned. Approximately 43 per cent of Hong Kong’s population (over 3 million of a total population of 7.1 million) practices some form of religion. Buddhism (over 1,000,000 followers and 400 temples) and Taoism (over 1,000,000 followers and 300 temples) are the most prevalent religions, followed by Christianity (mainly Protestants and Catholics, about 870,000), Islam (300,000) and (40,000). There are also Sikh and Jewish communities, and Confucianism is widespread.72 In addition to traditional Chinese festivals, important religious festivals such as Good Friday, Easter, Buddha’s Birthday and Christmas, are listed as public holidays in Hong Kong. Some NGOs and academics have asserted that Christianity has a disproportionate influence on Hong Kong society, which has been reflected in many socially conservative policies and legislation, especially on same sex matters. This is partly explained by a legacy of Protestant and Catholic-funded schools, NGOs and community groups that have fostered a generation of influential policy-makers now in senior government roles. The Australian Consulate-General in Hong Kong engages in advocacy promoting tolerance, diversity and human rights, and also meets with advocacy groups seeking greater equality and tolerance in society.

68 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 196. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 121. 69 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 196. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 121. 70 Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 121. 71 The full list of Universal Periodic Review recommendations is available through UPRinfo: https://www.upr-info.org/en. 72 Further information on religious populations in Hong Kong can be found online (available at: https://www.gov.hk/en/about/abouthk/factsheets/docs/religion.pdf).

Page 40 of 143 CROATIA The Croatian constitution guarantees freedom of religion. While a predominately Catholic country, other religions are officially recognised and legally protected. There are 54 registered religious groups in Croatia. These include the Catholic Church, the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, the Christian Adventist Church, the Church of Christ, the Church of God, the Croatian Old Catholic Church, the Evangelical Church, the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Pentecostal Church, the Reformed Christian Church, the Union of Baptist Churches, the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement, the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Union of Pentecostal Churches of Christ, the Coordination of Jewish Communities in Croatia (an umbrella group of nine distinct Jewish communities), the Jewish Community of Virovitica, Bet Israel (a Jewish group), and the Islamic Community of Croatia73. A faith-based group needs at least 500 members and five years of registered operation to be recognised as a religious organisation in Croatia. Registered religious groups are equal under the law and free to publicly conduct religious services and operate schools and charitable organisations with assistance from the state. ‘The state recognizes marriages conducted by registered religious groups, eliminating the need for civil registration. To be recognized legally, marriages by non-registered religious groups require civil registration. Non-registered religious groups also cannot conduct religious education in schools or access state funds in support of religious activities.’74 The government has four written agreements with the Roman Catholic Church that provide state financial support and other benefits, while the law accords other registered religious groups the same rights and protection. According to the latest Census (2011), 86.3 percent of Croatian residents are Catholic, 4.4 percent Serbian Orthodox and 1.5 percent Muslim. Nearly 4 percent identify themselves as non-religious or atheist. Other religious groups present in Croatia include , Protestants and other Christians. Religious affiliation is closely linked to ethnicity, and as such can become the target of acts of intolerance stemming from the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Members of the Serbian Orthodox Church continue to report cases of intimidation and vandalism, though such incidents appear to be becoming less common. The Jewish and Islamic communities have not suffered incidents of vandalism in recent years, although Jewish communities report some social intolerance. The current Croatian Government has publicly identified freedom of religion as one of its priorities, and is expected to explore opportunities to pursue this issue both domestically and internationally. The Australian Embassy in Zagreb has engaged with religious leaders as part of its advocacy on human rights.

73 State Department Report 2015, Croatia Chapter. 74 State Department Report 2015, Croatia Chapter.

Page 41 of 143 CYPRUS When Cyprus gained its independence – as the Republic of Cyprus - from the United Kingdom in 1960, its constitution provided for power-sharing between the Greek Cypriot majority (Orthodox Christian) and the Turkish Cypriot minority (Sunni Muslim). However, intercommunal clashes occurred between 1963 and 1974, and the communities split into ethnic zones. In 1974, the Turkish military established Turkish Cypriot control over the northern third of the island. The island has remained physically divided since 1974. Attempts to achieve a successful reunification deal under UN auspices continue. The Republic of Cyprus, an EU member since 2004, continues in the south/Greek-Cypriot controlled areas. In 1983, the Turkish-held area declared itself the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/TRNC’ – which only Turkey recognises. Australia, with all other governments (and the United Nations), only recognises the Republic of Cyprus as the sole legitimate legal authority over Cyprus’ 1960 borders (which excised a UK- controlled overseas territory). A UN peacekeeping force (UNFICYP) monitors and maintains order in the demilitarised/buffer zone between the Republic of Cyprus controlled area and the ‘TRNC’. Movement for Greek and Turkish Cypriots across the buffer zone was restricted until 2003, when several crossing points were opened.

The Republic of Cyprus controlled areas As an EU member state, and underlined by the EU acquis, Republic of Cyprus laws allow for freedom of thought, speech, belief and religion. As part of the creation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, official recognition and representation in Government was bestowed upon the two main religious ethnic and religious community groups, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In addition, the Maronite, Armenian and Latin (Catholic) communities of Cyprus were also recognised as official communities and given permanent seats as observers in Parliament. These freedoms are largely respected and upheld in the Republic of Cyprus. However, resident Muslims report a lack of support for upkeep of (primarily left behind by Turkish Cypriots moving north following the 1974 war). The main mosques in the southern cities are properly maintained and used by local non-Cypriot Muslim residents/visitors, but smaller mosques in villages abandoned by Turkish Cypriots are not maintained, primarily due to lack of population and user demand, and consequent ‘non- prioritisation’ by the Republic of Cyprus Government.

Turkish Cypriot-controlled areas The legislative regime of the Turkish-Cyprus controlled north also allows for freedom of thought, speech, belief and religion. However, there has been international concern regarding the protection of religious freedoms in this region for a number of years.75 Greek Orthodox and Maronite communities in the region have reported restrictions on regular religious services and access to religious premises. These communities are required to submit applications to local authorities, in advance of holding religions services and accessing premises. Australia’s High Commission in Nicosia has noted that these applications are often rejected on the grounds of ‘security’ or ‘inappropriate conditions’. A significant proportion of former Christian churches in the north are currently derelict, used for other purposes (e.g. farm storage) or as mosques, or are in Turkish military areas (i.e. off limits).

Recent Developments A UN-backed Swedish initiative brought together the Republic of Cyprus government, “TRNC” authorities, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Chrysostomos II, and Turkish Muslim Grand Mufti Dr Talip Atalay to advance

75 USCIRF 2015 Report, Cyprus Chapter.

Page 42 of 143 interfaith understanding, religious freedom, and access to religious sites.76 Twice a year Turkish settlers living in the north are allowed to cross south with special permits to conduct ceremonies under the auspices of the Religious Track of the Cyprus Peace Process (RTCYPP). (Turkish Cypriots – regarded as Republic of Cyprus citizens – are free to enter and reside in the Republic of Cyprus-controlled south). The UNDP, diplomatic missions (including the Australian High Commission in Nicosia) and NGOs collectively and individually support the work of the Bi-communal Technical Committee for Cultural Heritage (BTCCH) which has been working island-wide with the various authorities to rehabilitate and restore cultural and heritage sites, including mosques and churches. The BTCCH has restored approximately 10 churches in the north and four mosques in the south, removing obstacles to free use of the sites. A major recent accomplishment was the completion of the first phase of restoring the Apostolos Andreas Monastery in the Karpasia peninsula in the north, one of the most important pilgrimage sites for Greek Cypriot Orthodox faithful. The BTCCH has also launched the restoration of Agios Panteleimonas Monastery in Myrtou-Morphou, another very important religious site, currently in ruins, also in the north. The Australian High Commission in Nicosia has supported freedom of religion in both Greek and Turkish Cypriot controlled areas by facilitating dialogues, including through meetings with senior religious figures, via logistical and financial support for the Cyprus Academic Dialogue NGO that promotes peace and coexistence, and by marking significant local religious festivals.

76 USCIRF 2015 Report, Cyprus Chapter.

Page 43 of 143 DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (DPRK) In 2014 the UN Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Human Rights in the DPRK found that there is ‘almost complete denial’ of the right to freedom of religion in the DPRK. In 2015, the Database Centre for North Korean Human Rights (NKDB) released a ‘White Paper on Religious Freedom in North Korea’.77 It reported the DPRK Government regards all religious beliefs as ‘anti-regime’, and therefore treats all religious practices as political crimes. DPRK defector statements collected by NKDB report that religious activity in the DPRK can be punishable by execution, or internment in political prison camps, labour camps, or regular prisons. According to the Korea Institute for National Unification’s (KINU) 2016 ‘White Paper on Human Rights in North Korea’, there are no religious facilities in the DPRK, with the exception of a few regime-controlled churches and Buddhist temples, which are used for external propaganda purposes (allowing regime- sanctioned religious exchanges). Australia’s Embassy in Seoul engages on the human rights situation in the DPRK, including the right to freedom of religion. Official visits to the DPRK are also used to make direct representations to the DPRK Government about Australia’s concerns about continued human rights violations, particularly in the context of the UN COI’s report. We have urged the DPRK to implement the recommendations of the COI report, including the recommendation that the DPRK allow religious believers to exercise their religion independently and publicly, without fear of punishment, reprisal or surveillance. The Australian Embassy in Seoul also provided consular assistance for an Australian who was detained in the DPRK in February 2014 for carrying religious material. Australia is a strong advocate for improvement of the human rights situation in the DPRK and for accountability for the DPRK’s leadership. Australia co-sponsored the Resolution on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRK at the 34th Regular Session of the Human Rights Council (adopted 24 March 2017), which strengthens the UN’s work to assess and develop strategies to hold DPRK authorities for human rights violations in North Korea. During our term as a member of the UN Security Council, Australia led efforts to focus the international community’s attention on these issues. In May 2014 when DPRK appeared before the Universal Periodic Review, we recommended the government implement its obligations under the ICCPR. We are a strong supporter of the COI and of the ongoing work of the Special Rapporteur on the DPRK.78

77 Center for North Korean Human Rights, White paper on religious freedom in North Korea 2015 (available at: https://ohchr.tind.io/record/19935). 78 Australia’s UPR recommendations to North Korea and our statement upon the release of the Commission of Inquiry’s Report can be found at Attachment F.

Page 44 of 143 DJIBOUTI Djibouti is a Muslim country, which enjoys widespread tolerance of a variety of religious views and practices. Djiboutian society integrates a mix of religious and non-religious ways of life. This is partly attributable to its history and geography, and cultural linkages and integration with people of different faiths and cultures. Djibouti’s population is predominantly Muslim, with 96 percent identifying as belonging to Sunni Islam and the remaining 4 percent to various Christian denominations. The majority of these Christians are Ethiopian Orthodox or Roman Catholic. The Djiboutian constitution declares Islam a state religion and all citizens are officially considered Muslim, unless they declare to be a follower of a non-Islamic faith. The constitution, however, also guarantees freedom of religious practice. Djibouti’s Sharia court was replaced in 2004 by a Family Court (that combines secular and religious codes) to try legal disputes related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance. The US State Department 2015 Report noted that ‘societal norms and customs discouraged conversion from Islam, but conversions still occurred…There were no reports of physical abuse against converts to Christianity by members of the converts’ communities. There were reports of discrimination in employment and education against converts to Christianity who changed their names. Some representatives of Christian denominations reported incidents of animosity by individuals, such as throwing stones at church property.’79 As many as 30 people were killed in an incident in December 2015, which may have been partially religiously inspired. The Government did not hold any police officers allegedly responsible to account. Notwithstanding this incident, reports of religious discrimination and intolerance in Djibouti are rare, and in this context the Australian Embassy in Addis Ababa has not made representations on FoRB issues since 2013.

79 State Department Report 2015, Djibouti Chapter.

Page 45 of 143 EGYPT The 2014 Egyptian Constitution recognises the ‘heavenly religions’ of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and identifies the principles of Shari’ah as the primary source of legislation. The Egyptian Criminal Code prohibits citizens from ‘ridiculing or insulting heavenly religion or inciting sectarian strife’. Sunni Muslims comprise approximately 90 per cent of the population; Coptic Christians make up between 8-10 per cent; and the remainder consists of small numbers of other religious minorities, including Shia Muslims, non-Coptic Christians, Baha’is and Jews.80 Unrecognised religions, such as Baha’ism, are not legislatively banned, but the lack of official recognition can create difficulties for personal status matters (including marriage) and obtaining identity documents. Since Baha’i marriage is not recognised, married Baha’is cannot obtain identity cards, making it impossible to conduct daily transactions like banking, school registration, or car or home ownership.81 There is no statutory prohibition on conversion from Islam to other religions in Egypt, but those that do so are more likely to face difficulty having such conversions legally recognised – in comparison to converts to Islam. Publicly questioning a religion in writing or speech has increasingly led to charges of defamation of religion in the past five years. Such charges have been used against an increasingly wide range of groups across the country, including atheists, Christians (including converts from Islam) and artists. In August 2016, the Parliament passed a law which relaxed restrictions on how Christians are able to build and renovate churches. It has traditionally been extremely difficult for Christians to secure permission to build a new church. However, there remains significant concern both within the Christian community and in civil society about how the new law will operate in practice, and whether it will actually make it easier for Christians to build new churches. Coptic Orthodox Christians are the largest religious minority in Egypt and the largest of the country’s 12 recognised Christian denominations. There are a number of prominent and influential Copts in politics, business and the arts. There are thirty-six Christian MPs in the current parliament and one Christian Minister in Cabinet. Small scale disputes such as neighbourhood disagreements can on occasion adopt religious overtones and escalate into community-level violence, particularly in poorer and rural areas. Most communal incidents in Egypt take the form of vandalism and destruction of property. The majority of incidences of communal violence in recent years have taken place in the provinces of Upper Egypt. Egyptian authorities are generally committed to preventing communal violence, although this commitment may vary between individuals and locations. President Sisi has consistently called for Egyptians to place national unity ahead of religious differences, and has made significant public gestures in support of the Christian community. These include attending Christmas mass (the first serving Egyptian leader to do so), calling personally on the Coptic Pope after the murder of 21 Christians in Libya, ordering the Armed Forces to quickly rebuild a church damaged in a terrorist bombing in December 2016, and declaring a nationwide state of emergency after twin terrorist bombings in April 2017. Discrimination faced by Christians in Egypt is more likely to be societal than official in nature, and is likely to vary considerably according to geographic location. Since December 2016, the Islamic State terrorist organisation has claimed responsibility for a series of major attacks targeting Coptic Christian churches. On 11 December 2016, an Islamic State suicide bomber targeted a church service in Cairo, killing 29 and injuring 49. On 19 February 2017, a group calling itself ‘IS Egypt’ released a video calling for the targeting of Coptic Christians. Two major attacks against Palm Sunday church services occurred on 9 April, both claimed by Islamic State. The first attack occurred in

80 USCIRF 2016 Report, Egypt Chapter. 81 USCIRF 2016 Report, Egypt Chapter.

Page 46 of 143 Tanta, killing 27 and injuring over 70. The second occurred at St Mark’s Cathedral in Alexandria, the historical seat of the Coptic Pope, killing at least 16 and injuring 66. The attacks were strongly condemned by Muslim religious authorities. Australia’s human rights engagement with Egypt prioritises engaging with the National Human Rights Council, Members of Parliament, officials and NGOs to raise issues of civil society restrictions, political prisoners, restrictions on media freedoms and police misconduct. The Australian Embassy in Cairo, has taken an active role in monitoring the situation facing Coptic Christians in Egypt and has maintained high- level engagement with the Coptic clergy in Egypt and Australia.

Page 47 of 143 ERITREA The Eritrean population is estimated between 3.5 and 6.5 million. There are no reliable statistics on religious affiliation. Government, religious, and local UN sources estimate the population is approximately 48-50 percent Christian and 48-50 percent Sunni Muslim.82 While the historically peaceful coexistence of Eritrea’s Christian and Muslim communities is a point of pride for the country, religious activities are strictly controlled in Eritrea. The only recognised religions are the Coptic Orthodox Church of Eritrea, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Church of Eritrea. These groups are required to submit activity reports every six months and are not permitted to receive funds from abroad. Human Rights Watch alleges that ‘the government persecutes citizens that practices religious other than the four it recognises…[and also] interferes in the practices of the four religions it recognises.’83 The Patriarch of the Coptic Church of Eritrea and the Mufti have both been appointed by the Government. The previous Orthodox Patriarch Antonios, who protested government interference in the church’s affairs, has been under house arrest since 2007. To date, no other religious communities have successfully registered in Eritrea, despite attempts to do so (including Baha’is, the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church and Seventh Day Adventists). Unregistered religious communities lack a legal basis and those that do practice these religions face arrest. Jehovah’s Witnesses face a high risk of official discrimination based on their inability to freely practice their faith and the lack of a form of national service that does not include military training (all Eritreans, other than priests and nuns, are required by law to undertake military training as part of their compulsory national service). Human Rights Watch reports on multiple cases of persecution and imprisonment of Jehovah’s Witnesses.84 The Government of Eritrea and UNDP entered into an agreement to implement Eritrea’s Universal Periodic Review and mainstreaming of human rights in May 2016. The Australian Embassy in Cairo has encouraged the Eritrean government to engage with UN procedures and visits, reduce the country’s compulsory national and military service, and increase government transparency.

82 State Department Report 2015, Eritrea Chapter. 83 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 248. 84 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 248.

Page 48 of 143 ETHIOPIA In Ethiopia, religious tolerance and inter-faith harmony have contributed to social stability despite complex political and ethnic tensions. The US State Department 2015 Report found that ‘there were no reports of religiously motivated societal violence during [2015]. Some religious leaders reported interreligious tensions were at a five-year low.’85 It is estimated that almost two thirds of the population is Christian (Ethiopian Orthodox 43% of the population, approximately a further 19% other Christian denominations) and about one-third Muslim.86 Ethiopia’s constitution since 1991 has guaranteed religious freedom, and prohibited the association of religious entities with government as well as discrimination based on religious belief. Although there have been incidents of religiously inspired clashes in some parts of the country (predominantly in the south and south west), Ethiopia generally enjoys a high degree of tolerance for religious diversity. People of different beliefs are accustomed to living peacefully in mixed faith neighbourhoods across many parts of the country. In parts of north-eastern Ethiopia, inter-faith marriages are commonplace while Christian enclaves in majority Muslim areas in the south and east enjoy a general acceptance and freedom to exercise their right to worship. There have been some concerns raised about growing interest in the activities of Wahabi groups in select areas of the country, notably in the eastern and southern parts. There have also been concerns that the Federal Government has interfered in elections of Ethiopia’s Supreme Islamic Council and the selection of preachers at mosques. These events resulted in a sustained three-year long series of Friday protests in Ethiopia, which have now come to an end.

85 State Department Report 2015, Ethiopia Chapter. 86 State Department Report 2015, Ethiopia Chapter.

Page 49 of 143 FIJI Religious affiliation in Fiji runs largely along ethnic lines. The majority (65 per cent) indigenous population is overwhelmingly Christian (with over half Methodist, but many other denominations represented). The Indo-Fijian population (35 per cent) is predominately Hindu, with significant Muslim and Christian minorities. In total, 65 per cent of Fijians are Christian, 28 per cent are Hindu and 6 per cent are Muslim. Fiji’s Constitution establishes a secular state. Article 22 protects freedom of religion, conscience and belief, and recognises the right of individuals and communities to practice their faith and establish places of education. The rights and freedoms set out in Article 22 are limited to the extent necessary to protect the rights of others; public safety, order, morality or health; and to prevent public nuisance. Freedom of religious belief is widely respected in practice in Fiji. Fiji’s Government underlines its commitment to addressing discrimination and promoting a vision of equal rights and equal treatment for all Fijians regardless of race, including freedom of religion and belief. Christian, Hindu and Muslim holy days are all celebrated as public holidays. Despite widespread respect for religious freedom, the association of religion with ethnicity has, at times, seen religion become entangled with politics. For example, the Methodist Church, linked to Fiji’s traditional indigenous leadership, has been a prominent political actor in Fiji (though since 2013 it has moved away from a political role). The Fiji Government justifies as necessary legal limits on freedom of speech, assembly and the media by the need to address lingering ethnic prejudices, including over religion. The opposition, however, argues there is a political motivation in the Government’s strong enforcement of those laws. In addition, the idea of defining Fiji as a Christian state (even if only symbolically) retains some currency – this has been promoted by some groups who wish to restore indigenous prerogatives such as a more prominent role for Fiji’s chiefs. The current Government abolished those prerogatives as inconsistent with democracy and equal treatment of Fijians. Proposals for a recognition of Fiji as a Christian country were rejected by the Government during the 2013 consultations in the lead-up to the drafting of Fiji’s new Constitution. Two (small) groups were charged with sedition in 2016 after they sought to proclaim the existence of regional ‘independent Christian states’ in the provinces of Ra and Nadroga-Navosa to challenge government policy on indigenous issues. Australia has productive relationships with Fiji’s strong and diverse religious communities who are important partners for Australia’s bilateral development program. Australia’s support for religious freedom and diversity is evidenced through the provision of funding to a range of community organisations with different religious affiliations.

Page 50 of 143 FRANCE French laws, underpinned by France’s secular constitution, protect the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB). France is a strong international advocate for both FoRB and the freedom of opinion and expression. As a staunchly secular state, which imposes a strict separation of state and religion, the French Government does not keep statistics on its population’s religious affiliations. The National Institute of Demographic Studies makes periodic estimates of followers of the main religions in France. In a 2008 study, 45 percent of respondents aged 18-50 reported no religious affiliation, 43 percent identified as Catholic, eight percent as Muslim, two percent as Protestant, and the remaining two percent as Orthodox Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, and others.87 Religious groups can apply for official recognition and eligibility for tax-exempt status. Blasphemy is not recognised under French law. Advocacy of hatred of religion that incites discrimination, hostility and/or violence is illegal. Further, the ‘Gayssot Law’ of July 1990 made Holocaust denial in France a criminal offence and there have been convictions under this law. It is illegal to wear face coverings, including veils, in government buildings or to wear religious symbols at State-run schools (including Muslim veils and headscarves, Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and conspicuous Christian crosses). These laws have been widely discussed in France with particular regard to the impact on Muslim women, with proponents pointing to the equalising effect of a ban on face coverings, and critics suggesting the laws inhibit Muslim women’s ability to access government services and participate in everyday activities. In April 2016, the French Government launched a three-year action plan to combat racism and anti- Semitism, prompted partly by a spike in media reports of religiously motivated violence following the January and November 2015 terror attacks in Paris. A survey published in January 2017 on attitudes towards religion showed that, since November 2014 – a period marked by a number of terrorist attacks – the overall perception of Muslims in France had not significantly deteriorated, although attitudes towards the visibility of Islam in public had become more negative, with 87 percent of people feeling hostile towards the full-face veil. The survey results indicated that existing prejudice and negative opinions towards minorities and immigrants in France had not been significantly affected over the last two years. Sixty-one per cent of participants indicated that they had good relationships with people identifying as Muslim in their daily lives and three quarters of participants believed that the majority of Muslim immigrants had integrated well into French society. France continues to value highly both the principles of secular government and freedom of religion and belief.

87 State Department Report 2015, France Chapter.

Page 51 of 143 GREECE Greece presents itself as a largely mono-ethnic and mono-religious state. The Greek Orthodox Church has long and close association with the Greek State. Article 3 of the Greek Constitution states ‘the prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ’. The US State Department 2015 Report estimated that of a total population of 10.8 million people, 98 per cent were Greek Orthodox, 1.3 per cent Muslim, and 0.7 per cent other religions. According to recent research by the Pew Research Centre, 54 per cent of Greeks believe being Christian is important to be truly Greek. Overall religious demographic figures differ between sources. A private Greek research firm estimated that in 2015, 81.4 percent of the population self-identified as Greek Orthodox and 14.7 percent as atheist. This would make atheism the second largest group after Greek Orthodox Christians. Yet, atheists complain of being subject to belief-based discrimination, including in the workplace. Their activities are the target of bullying and harassment by far-right groups. They seek the separation of the state from the church, the repeal of the compulsory recording of private citizens’ religious affiliation, the possibility for students to opt out of religious classes, and the implementation of legislation on crematoria. (The Orthodox Church does not allow cremation.) Greece has a sizeable (estimated at over 100,000 people) indigenous Muslim community in Thrace, a region located in the area of Greece’s land border with Turkey and Bulgaria. This minority consists of people of Turkish origin, Pomaks and Roma. Their incorporation in Greece dates from the treaties which regulated the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Despite some progress, their social, educational and economic indicators remain at a disadvantage when compared to the broader Greek society. Greece’s neo-nazi extreme right party, Golden Dawn, which scores around 7-8 per cent in national polls, has targeted Muslims in Thrace, among other groups.88 The question of minority rights in Thrace continues to be perceived as a sensitive one for the Greek Government. Greece has allowed the Muslim minority to use sharia law to regulate family and inheritance issues. During Greece’s Universal Periodic Review appearance in January 2015, Australia recommended inter alia that Greece continue efforts towards gender equality, including ensuring an effective review and control by domestic civil courts of decisions made in inheritance and family matters by religious bodies for Muslim minority women in Thrace. The Greek Government and the EU fund a program for the education of Muslim minority children in Thrace. The program is called KESPEM (Kentro Ekpedefsis Pedion Mousoulmanikis). As part of its efforts to promote social inclusion, tolerance and engagement with religious minorities, the Australian Embassy in Athens has assisted KESPEM to connect with schools and organisations in Australia that will share their know-how and best practice in promoting language skills and intercultural awareness, as well as in minority language education and remote learning. In addition to the indigenous Muslim minority in Thrace, Greece is home to an estimated 300,000 Muslim migrants from Egyptian origin, who settled in Greece in the late 1970s and are well established. Another wave of migration began in the late 1990s and was augmented by the irregular migrations from 2015. These communities are less well integrated. Greek Muslims lament the lack of mosques or Muslim graveyards outside Thrace. One is being built in Athens and, according to media reports, may be finished by mid-2017. Other religious groups with a presence in Greece include Roman Catholics (50,000), Protestants, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the long-standing Jewish community (a large community before World War II now numbering around 5,000), polytheistic Hellenic religions, Scientologists, Baha’is, Mormons, Sikhs, Seventh-day Adventists, and Hare Krishnas.

88 State Department Report 2013, Greece Chapter (available at: https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2013religiousfreedom/#wrapper).

Page 52 of 143 HUNGARY Hungary’s Fundamental Law provides the right to freedom of religion and belief. While the preamble to the Constitution makes specific reference to the Christian roots of the country, Hungary is a secular state. According to the 2011 census, approximately 55 per cent of the population belong to a religious denomination, down from 75 per cent in 2001. Thirty nine per cent of the population is Catholic and fourteen per cent is Protestant (mainly Calvinists - 12 per cent). Another two per cent of the population belong to other faith groups, including 0.1 per cent to the Jewish faith, although this may be an under- representation. The Jewish community plays an active role in Hungarian public life and politics. The US State Department has reported incidents of anti-Semitism, as well as rising anti-Muslim sentiment in Hungary as a result of the migrant crisis in . ‘The Muslim community [has] reported physical and verbal attacks and threats, including 10 to 15 physical assaults against Muslim women wearing headscarves. Manifestation of anti-Semitism included assaults and verbal attacks, Holocaust denial and revisionism, and cemetery desecration and other vandalism.’89 Australia supports activities aimed at fostering tolerance and interfaith understanding in Hungary and has engaged the Government and religious leaders regarding anti-Semitism. Increased religious intolerance in Hungary has been attributed to the emergence of the far-right Jobbik party, which holds 24 out of 199 seats in the federal parliament.90 The Australian Government closely monitors Jobbik’s influence on Hungarian politics and society.

89 State Department Report 2015, Hungary Chapter. 90 State Department Report 2015, Hungary Chapter.

Page 53 of 143 INDIA India’s Constitution mandates a secular state. Article 25 guarantees the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion (subject to ‘public order, morality and health’), and Article 15 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion. Article 26 guarantees every religious denomination or sect the freedom to manage its own religious affairs. In addition, Indian law provides minority community status for six religious groups – Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, , Jains and Buddhists – which affords special rights including the right to establish educational institutions. Some religious groups have judicially enforceable personal laws governing marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance. Six out of India’s 29 state governments have enacted anti- conversion laws, preventing conversion by force, allurement or inducement. India has a deeply religious and religiously diverse society. The most recent disaggregated population estimates indicate that ‘Hindus constitute 79.8 percent of the population, Muslims 14.2 percent, Christians 2.3 percent, and Sikhs 1.7 percent. Groups that together constitute less than 1 percent of the population include Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians (Parsis), Jews, and Baha’is. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs officially classifies the more than 104 million members of Scheduled Tribes, indigenous groups historically outside the caste system who often practice animism and indigenous religious beliefs, as Hindus in government statistics.”91 Despite robust black letter legal protection of FoRB and an anti-discrimination framework at the official level, reports of religiously motivated violence, allegedly forced conversions and other forms of societal discrimination and intolerance, including divisive commentary by political leaders, are not uncommon. Human Rights Watch has reported that in 2016 ‘Hindu vigilante groups attacked Muslims and Dalits over suspicions that had killed, stolen, or sold cows for beef.’ Human Rights Watch alleges a link between these violent acts and supporters of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who they claim ‘are indifferent to growing [religious] intolerance’.92 Mass communal violence on a large scale is rarer, with the last incident occurring in Muzaffarnagar in Uttar Pradesh in 2013, and prior to that in in 2002. 2016 saw convictions for the 2002 Gujarat riots, in which 69 people were killed by a Hindu mob in a Muslim neighbourhood in Ahmedabad. Human Rights Watch reported has that ‘in June [2016] a special court in Gujarat convicted 24 people for their involvement.’ The court was clear in its denunciation Gujarat riot. However, Human Rights Watch claims the families’ of victims, lawyers and activists have criticised the acquittal of senior BJP leaders and a police official associated with these events.93 India has a strong tradition of debate across civil society organisations and a vibrant, free media. The Indian Government is sensitive to rights-based advocacy perceived as paternalistic or lecturing and in particular, objects sharply to foreign criticism of its protection of FoRB. For instance, in response to the content of the USCIRF 2015 Report, the Indian Government released a statement questioning ‘the locus standing of a foreign entity like USCIRF to pronounce on the state of Indian citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.’94

91 State Department Report 2015, India Chapter. 92 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 316. 93 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, pages 316-317. 94 Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Question No. 1307 Denial of Visa for Delegates of USCIRF (available at: http://www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/26765/QUESTION NO1307 DENIAL OF VISA FOR DELEGATES OF USCIRF).

Page 54 of 143 Civil society groups and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights have raised concerns that India’s Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) is being used to restrict activities of NGOs, including religious charities operating in India, such as Compassion International.95 Australia registered its concerns about restrictions placed on the civil society, which includes major international religious charities, during India’s appearance before the Universal Periodic Review on 4 May 2017. Australia’s statement noted that “Australia sees civil society as playing an important role in a vibrant democracy, and is concerned that Indian legislation may overly restrict activities of civil society and NGOs. “ The Australian High Commission in New Delhi hosts celebrations observing religious holidays and provides locally engaged staff with the flexibility to select from a number of religious holidays based on personal observance. Australia also provides support to programs that promote inter-faith understanding and contributes to the revitalisation of places of worship.

95 (“UN rights experts urge India to repeal law restricting NGO’s access to crucial foreign funding” http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20112&LangID=E)

Page 55 of 143 INDONESIA Indonesia’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion or belief, however there are limitations in law, policy and practice. Under the Indonesian constitution:  ‘every person is free to choose and to practice the religion of their choice’ (article 28E(1))  ‘every person has the right of the freedom to believe in their faith’ (article 28E(2))  ‘freedom of religion cannot be limited under any circumstances’ (article 28I(1))  ‘every person has the duty to accept the restrictions established by law for the sole purposes of guaranteeing the recognition and respect of the rights and freedoms of others, and of satisfying just demands based upon considerations of morality, religious values, security and public order in a democratic society’ (article 28J(2))  ‘the State is based upon the belief in the One and Only God’ (article 29 (1))  ‘the State guarantees all persons freedom of worship, each according to his/her own religion or belief’ (article 29 (2)). The US State Department estimates, as at July 2015, 87 percent of Indonesia’s total population of 255.9 million identified as Muslim. According to the US State Department, “while the vast majority of Indonesia’s Muslims are Sunni, up to three million are Shi’a and up to 400,000 Ahmadi”. 96 Other religious traditions present in Indonesia include Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christian denominations, and small communities of Sikhs, Baha’is, Jews and Falun Gong practitioners. ‘An estimated 20 million people, primarily in Java, Kalimantan, and Papua, practice various traditional belief systems, often referred to collectively as aliran kepercayaan. There are approximately 400 different aliran kepercayaan communities throughout the archipelago.’97 The Government extends official status to six religions (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Confucianism), although traditional belief systems exist outside the main religions. Atheism is not recognised by the Indonesian Government, despite its ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Relevant Indonesian laws prohibit deliberate public statements or activities that insult or defame a religion adhered to in the country.98 “Individuals can be prosecuted for blasphemous, atheistic, or heretical statements under either of these provisions or under the laws against defamation, and can face a maximum jail sentence of five years.”99 Christians make up approximately 10 per cent of Indonesia’s total population (approximately seven per cent of whom are Protestant and three per cent Catholic). The provinces of Papua, West Papua, East Nusa Tenggara, and North Sulawesi are predominantly Protestant Christian. Catholics mostly reside in East Nusa Tenggara, Central Java and the sub-district of Muntilan. Large numbers of Christians also reside in Ambon (Maluku), Central Sulawesi and Northern Sumatra. Religion is a sensitive issue in Indonesia. The 9 May blasphemy conviction of Jakarta governor Basuki Tjajaha Purnama (‘Ahok’), an Indonesian of ethnic Chinese descent, who is Christian, is a pertinent example. Some Muslim communities in Christian majority provinces (e.g. Papua, East Nusa Tenggara) can face problems when seeking permits for new mosques. In 2015 for example, construction was stopped at the Nur Musafir Batuplat Mosque in Kupang (East Nusa Tenggara) and authorities banned the use of the Mushalla As Syafiiyah prayer room in Denpasar (Bali). Christian communities in Muslim majority provinces similarly have at times faced problems when seeking permits for new churches (e.g. the GKI Yasmin church

96 USCIRF 2016 Report, Indonesia Chapter. 97 State Department Report 2015, Indonesia Chapter. 98 State Department Report 2015, Indonesia Chapter 99 State Department Report 2015, Indonesia Chapter.

Page 56 of 143 in Bogor, West Java which remains unresolved dispute a Supreme Court ruling in favour of the congregation). There is evidence of discriminatory legislation being used to restrict the activities of members of minority religious groups, who also face harassment, intimidation and attacks,100 and some local authorities impinge on the rights of religious minorities through discriminatory policies and practices. Cases of religious intolerance or inter-religious tensions occur regularly, although these have not typically escalated into the sort of large-scale violent incidents seen in previous decades. Human Rights Watch has raised concerns about persecution of the Gafatar religious group in 2016 which they claim was state sanctioned.101 It is also alleged that moves by regional authorities to curtail the activities of Ahmadiyah communities, also in 2016, elicited no response from the Indonesian Government.102 Australia regularly encourages religious tolerance, pluralism, and respect for diversity in engagement with government counterparts, with regional authorities, at universities, and civil society. Australia and Indonesia are partners in efforts to counter violent extremism in our region. Our joint efforts include a focus on preventing radicalisation by maintaining a strong, cohesive and pluralist society.

100 Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 188. 101 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, pages 325-326. 102 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 326.

Page 57 of 143 ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

Israel A predominantly Jewish country, Israel maintains a strong legal framework for religious freedom. Nevertheless, due to the highly politicised nature of religion in Israel, relations between the various faith groups are often strained. According to the 2016 report of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), the Israeli population is 8.46 million (including settlers living in the Palestinian Territories), of which approximately 75 percent are Jews, 17.5 percent are Muslim, 2 percent are Christian, and 1.5 percent are Druze103. The remaining four percent consists of relatively small communities of Baha’is, Samaritans, Karaites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and those classified as ‘other’ – which are mostly persons who identify as Jewish but do not satisfy the Orthodox definition of ‘Jewish’ the government uses for civil procedures. The country continues to undergo demographic changes due to the higher birth-rate of the Haredi (Jewish ultra-orthodox) and Muslim communities. Although there is no constitution, laws and policies provide for religious freedom in Israel, and the government generally respects these rights in practice. The Supreme Court of Israel has repeatedly upheld that the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty protects freedom to practice religious beliefs, and its rulings incorporate the religious freedoms provisions of international human rights agreements into the country’s body of law. The Basic Law describes the country as a ‘Jewish and democratic state’ and references the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, which promises freedom of religion and conscience and full social and political equality, regardless of religious affiliation.

Palestinian Territories According to 2016 figures from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), the population of the Palestinian Territories is 4.8 million, of which 2.9 million live in the West Bank and 1.9 million live in the Gaza Strip. (These figures do not include Israeli settlers living in the Palestinian Territories.) The CIA World Fact Book estimates that, in the West Bank, approximately 80-85 per cent of the population is Muslim (predominantly Sunni) and 1-2.5 per cent is Christian (mainly Greek Orthodox, but also Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic and Lutherans, Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, amongst others). There is also a small community of Samaritans. In the Gaza Strip, Muslims (predominantly Sunni) constitute around 98 per cent of the population and Christians less than one per cent. The Fact Book notes that the proportion of Christians in the Palestinian Territories continues to fall, mainly as a result of the growth of the Muslim population, but also because of migration and the declining birth rate of the Christian population. The Palestinian Basic Law serves as the interim constitution. It states that Islam is the official religion but that respect for the sanctity of all other ‘divine religions’ shall be maintained (Article 4.1). The Basic Law further states that:  the principles of Islamic Sharia shall be a principal source of legislation (Article 4.2); Palestinians shall be equal before the law and the judiciary, without distinction based upon race, sex, colour, religion, political views or disability (Article 9)  freedoms of belief, worship and the performance of religious functions are guaranteed, provided public order or public morals are not violated (Article 18)

103 The are a monotheistic religious community found primarily in Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Jordan.

Page 58 of 143  freedom of opinion may not be prejudiced, and every person shall have the right to express his opinion and to circulate it orally, in writing or in any form of expression or art, with due consideration to the provisions of the law (Article 19)  matters governed by Sharia law and matters of personal status, shall come under the jurisdiction of Sharia and religious courts (Article 101.1)  in line with Article 101.1, Islamic or Christian religious courts handle matters related to personal status (e.g. marriage, divorce, inheritance, child support). The rights and policies around religious freedom, as set out in the Basic Law, are generally respected by the Palestinian Authority and society in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Further, some specific policies aim to guarantee Christian representation despite their small proportion of the population (e.g. a number of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council are reserved for Christians, as are certain municipal positions, including the Mayors of Ramallah and Bethlehem). In the Gaza strip however, Hamas (listed as a terrorist organisation under Australia’s Criminal Code Act 1995) exercises de facto authority, and reportedly enforces restrictions on Gaza’s population based on its interpretation of Islam and Sharia. In Israel and the Palestinian Territories, relations between various faith groups are often strained. Upticks in violence, such as in late 2015 and early 2016, frequently have religious undertones and vandalism of religious sites during these periods is not uncommon. Much of this tension plays out in Jerusalem and, in particular, centres on the status of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, an important holy site for Jews, Christians and Muslims. In addition, areas of the West Bank that are close to Jewish settlement populations, including (but not limited to) Hebron, often witness tensions between religious groups. Israeli policies and practices around travel permits, movement and access to religious sites can also impact on various religious groups in the Palestinian Territories. The Australian Embassy in Tel Aviv and the Australian Representative Office in Ramallah maintain contact with a broad range of leaders from the various faith communities in Israel, the Palestinian Territories and Jerusalem and periodically make statements in support of religious freedom and tolerance.

Page 59 of 143 IRAN Iran’s population of approximately 80 million is nominally 99 per cent Muslim (90 per cent percent Shia, and around 9 per cent Sunni and Sufi). The remaining one percent includes Baha’is, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians.104 Iran has been an Islamic Republic since 1979. The Iranian Constitution names Ja’afari as the official state religion, and decrees that all law and regulations, as well as the exercise of all rights by citizens, must conform to Islamic criteria. The Iranian Constitution also recognises Christianity, Judaism and as protected religions and allocates five seats in parliament to members of these faith groups. Other non-Muslims can not hold political or military office105, nor engage in public religious expression; and proselytising or the converting of Muslims is illegal. In March 2017, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights called the Government’s restrictions on freedom of religion and belief ‘deplorable’ in his Annual Report and Oral Update to the 34th session of the Human Rights Council.106 While Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian communities in Iran are active, including in commerce, elected office and public worship, there is widespread reporting of discrimination against religious minorities – including affiliates of the three constitutionally recognised non-Muslim faith groups. For example, the UN Secretary-General and the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran have repeatedly reported on discrimination against religious minorities including the local Protestant community, Christians from Muslim backgrounds, members of various Sufi groups, Orthodox Armenians and Assyrians.107 These findings are consistent with those of international human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.108 Reporting of discrimination and harassment of the Baha’i community is especially common. Both the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur have also consistently noted that a lack of constitutional and legal protections for Baha’is leaves them vulnerable to discrimination, harassment and persecution.109 Most recently, in March 2017, the Special Rapporteur expressed her ‘particular concern’ about what she considered to constitute ongoing systematic discrimination, harassment and targeting of adherents to the Baha’i faith.110 Again, these findings correlate with the observations of groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. 111 Iran also demonstrates a low tolerance for behaviour considered to denigrate Shia Islam. Forms of expression that are considered detrimental to Islam are constitutionally prohibited. Some commentators have argued that the Iranian Government uses laws designed to regulate religious expression to silence reformers and journalists.112 Human Rights Watch has recently observed that a number of ‘non-violent crimes such as ‘insulting the Prophet’ and apostasy” continue to attract the death penalty’.113 However, it should be noted that a draft bill has been proposed to remove the death penalty for non-violent crimes and, in the last twelve months, most executions in Iran have stemmed from drug related offences.

104 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 45. 105 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 46. 106 Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21316&LangID=E#sthash.E6NrvPVx.dpuf 107 A/HRC/31/26: Report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/IRIndex.aspx). A/HRC/34/40: Report of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session34/Pages/ListReports.aspx). A/HRC/34/65: UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session34/Pages/ListReports.aspx). 108 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 338. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 194. 109 A/HRC/31/26, and A/HRC/34/40. 110 A/HRC/34/65. 111 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 338. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 194. 112 See for example: Iran shuts reformist paper over comments on law, Reuters via Yahoo! News, 21 February 2014 (available at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/iran-shuts-reformist-paper-over-comments-law-170350709--sector.html). 113 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 334.

Page 60 of 143 Australia has called upon Iran to implement its international human rights law obligations with respect to all citizens, including members of religious minorities.114 Australia has also co-sponsored the Human Rights Council’s annual resolution on the Human Rights Situation in Iran and supports the mandate of the relevant UN Special Rapporteur.

114 See Attachment G for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council.

Page 61 of 143 IRAQ The 2005 Iraqi constitution makes Islam the official religion of the State and the main foundation of all legislation. The constitution also provides for freedom of religious belief and practice for all individuals including Christians, Yazidis and Sabaean-Mandeans and religious institutions operate with little official oversight. However, legislation bans the practice of the Bahai faith and the Wahabi branch of Sunni Islam.115 Regulations founded on Islamic law (Sharia) prohibit individuals from converting from Islam, although DFAT is not aware of any prosecutions for this. Under Iraq’s Civil Status Law, if one parent is Muslim, the child must be Muslim. This provision leaves no remedy for a non-Muslim parent to pass their religious identity onto their children, and prevents children from choosing their own religion as adults. The perceived concentration of political power in the hands of the majority religious group (Shi’a) since the overthrow of the Ba’ath Party regime in 2003 has left some ethnic and religious minorities (particularly Sunnis) feeling aggrieved. This sense of grievance and disenfranchisement in part facilitated the rise of ISIS and has been further exacerbated by the perceived association of parts of the Sunni community with ISIS and the dislocation and hardship caused by terrorism and counter-ISIS operations. There have been reports of Sunnis being mistreated or illegally detained by authorities and armed groups regardless of their personal affiliations. Some Sunnis report being prevented from returning to their homes, while others have reported looting and destruction of their properties following the liberation of ISIS-controlled areas. Despite the dominance of Shi’a politicians, Sunnis, Kurds and others are present and active in the Government and bureaucracy, and hold a number of ministerial positions. However, Sunnis have been disproportionately affected by an election law that allows candidates to be excluded from the ballot. The vast majority of those barred from the April 2014 Council of Representatives elections were Sunnis. The Iraqi Government provides some support to the Christian and Yazidi communities and has demonstrated its willingness to provide protection where it has the capacity to do so. This has been limited by ISIS’ control of areas traditionally inhabited by Christians and Yazidis. According to the 2015 US Department of State’s Human Rights Report, ISIS had systematically infringed the religious freedom of minority religious communities in areas under its control. It had conducted executions, kidnapping, rape, enslavement, forced marriage, forced abortions, expulsion, theft and destruction of property. Yazidis are considered apostates by ISIS, and have not been given the option of paying a jizya (a toleration / protection tax) unlike Christians (as ‘People of the Book’). In areas it does not control, ISIS has used suicide and vehicle bombings to attack religious sites and has targeted Shi’a civilians in places such as markets, parks and cafes. Across Iraq, the levels of religious tolerance and diversity at a societal level have decreased in recent years, with areas previously considered religiously mixed becoming more mono-religious. Non-Muslim minorities have reported increased pressure to observe Islamic customs. There have been reports of Sabean- Mandaean women in particular governorates feeling pressure to wear . The Australian Embassy in Baghdad maintains contact with leaders from various religious communities in Iraq. Australia regularly raises the importance of security, inclusion and protection of all religious groups in engagements with Iraqi leaders, members of parliament and senior officials. The Embassy has also raised concerns about sectarian-based human rights abuses and emphasised the importance of ethno-sectarian reconciliation.

115 State Department Report 2015, Iraq Chapter.

Page 62 of 143 KOSOVO Kosovo is a secular state. Its constitution guarantees FoRB, subject to limitations to protect public safety and order or the health or rights of other persons. The constitution also provides some protections for FoRB, including provisions for an ombudsperson’s office responsible for monitoring religious freedom, among other human rights.116 According to the 2011 census, approximately 95.6 per cent of the population of Kosovo are Muslim, 2.2 per cent are Roman Catholic, and 1.5 per cent Orthodox (a boycott of the census by ethnic Serbs is reported to have resulted in an undercounting of Serbian Orthodox Church members). Frictions between Kosovo’s majority Albanian Muslim population and its Serbian Orthodox minority exist. In spite of government protection for religious sites, there have been several reports of vandalism targeting Serbian Orthodox Church properties, and assaults on Kosovo Serb pilgrims and Serb internally displaced persons during attempted visits to Serbian Orthodox Church sites during the period September 2013 to January 2017. While access to religious sites of Serbian Orthodox Church groups has improved, obtaining licenses and approval to reconstruct S Serbian Orthodox Church OC religious sites in Kosovo remains an issue. Land ownership is also subject to ongoing disputes. The draft Kosovo Law on Freedom of Religion was criticised for failure to include a mechanism for religious groups to register and obtain legal status. The adoption of the law is on hold until after the general election, scheduled 11 June 2017. Throughout 2015 and 2016 the Australian Embassy to Kosovo (in Vienna) held a number of high-level meetings, on the topics of religious freedom and inter-faith advocacy, with senior members of the Government and representatives of religious communities in Kosovo.

116 State Department Report 2015, Kosovo Chapter.

Page 63 of 143 KUWAIT Kuwait’s constitution guarantees the freedom to practice religion, provided such practice does not conflict with public policy or morals. While the constitution declares Islam to be the religion of the state, Kuwait is broadly tolerant of religious freedoms, including the open worship of non-Muslim beliefs. Kuwait’s citizen population of approximately 1.5 million is estimated to be 70 per cent Sunni, and most of the remaining 30 per cent Shia (the national census does not distinguish between Sunni and Shia Muslims). The Public Authority for Civil Information reports non-citizen residents include approximately 750,000 Christians, 100,000 Hindus, 100,000 Buddhists, 10,000 Sikhs, and 400 Baha’is (2015 figures). The Holy See Ambassador for the Gulf region is based in Kuwait, and in 2015 Prime Minister Sheikh Jabar Mubarak Al- Hamad Al-Sabah met with Pope Francis in Rome to discuss religious tolerance. Non-Muslim religious groups are able to apply for a licence to establish places of official worship, subject to approval from the Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs. Private worship services are permitted as long as they do not cause disturbances within neighbourhoods. This caters to non-citizen Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Baha’i resident populations. Non-Muslims must observe rules prohibiting eating, smoking and drinking in public between sunrise and sunset. However, as the US State Department International Religious Freedom Report for 2015, noted, Kuwaiti ‘hotels, stores, and other businesses continued their past practice of acknowledging non- Muslim holidays with religious displays, and the media printed information about the religious significance of these holidays’117 (for example Christmas and Diwali). Kuwaiti legislation ‘prohibits the defamation of Islam or any other religions, including the denigration of Islamic and Judeo-Christian religious figures, and prescribes a punishment of up to 10 years in prison for each offense. The law does not specify which religions are included in the phrase ‘other religions’.’118 Human Rights Watch has expressed some concerns about the impact of convictions under this legislation on freedom of expression and electoral processes.119 Legal limitations are imposed on apostates, and converts from Islam to other religions lose some rights and may have their marriages annulled.120 In addition, ‘minority religious leaders reported continued societal pressure against conversion from Islam.’121 While there is evidence that in 2015 ‘self-proclaimed Islamists continued to engage in anti-Israeli rhetoric, which often had anti-Semitic overtones,’122 a national unity law prohibits promoting the supremacy of one religious group over another, as well as activities that could lead to ‘sectarian strife’. Australia has not had occasion or need to make representations in support of religious freedom in Kuwait, during the period September 2013 to January 2017.

117 State Department Report 2015, Kuwait Chapter. 118 State Department Report 2015, Kuwait Chapter. 119 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 386. 120 State Department Report 2015, Kuwait Chapter. 121 State Department Report 2015, Kuwait Chapter. 122 State Department Report 2015, Kuwait Chapter.

Page 64 of 143 LAOS Laos has a culturally and ethnically diverse population of 6.8 million people, with 49 official ethnic groups, and a mixed record on the protection and promotion of FoRB. There is no official state religion in Laos, although the Lao Government recognises four religions: Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Baha’i. Theravada Buddhism is the most common religion, practised by 64 per cent of the population, most of whom come from the majority ‘lowland’ ethnic group. Buddhism has experienced somewhat of a revival in the last two decades, since the Lao Government lifted controls on the Buddhist clergy. The Lao Government now incorporates Theravada Buddhism into its national narrative. Many of the 49 official ethnic groups have their own religious or spiritual beliefs. These are referred to broadly as ‘animist’ beliefs and traditions, which can differ from group to group. While some of these traditions have also been incorporated into mainstream Lao Buddhist practices, the Lao Government does not officially recognise these animist traditions and instead counts adherents to these beliefs as having ‘no religion’. Christians constitute 1.7 per cent of the population. Although the Lao Government recognises Christianity as a religion, some officials consider Christianity as a ‘foreign’ influence associated with both French colonialism and American proselytising during the second Indochina war. As a result, Christianity has at times been seen as a subversive force that threatens the Lao state. Freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed under the Lao Constitution (1991). This guarantee is, however, qualified in the interest of preserving national unity and state control. A noteworthy legal constraint to the guarantee is found in the Lao Prime Ministerial Decree No 92 (promulgated in 2002) which defines the rules for religious practice and establishes the government as the arbiter of permissible religious activities. In practice, the Government closely observes most religious institutions, especially Christian groups. The Lao Front for National Construction (LFNC), a national party organisation, has responsibility for monitoring religious groups and managing relations with their representative institutions. The LFNC also works with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Treaties and Law Department on freedom of religion matters, within the context of Laos’ engagement with international human rights mechanisms. Religious institutions in Laos must report on membership numbers and activities to the LFNC. In 2009, Laos ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Upon ratification of the ICCPR the Lao Government also submitted a reservation intended to ‘safeguard’ against activities which directly or indirectly coerce or compel an individual to believe or not believe in a religion, or to convert his or her religion or belief. This reservation has given the Lao Government significant latitude to regulate the practice of religion or belief in the country. Particular regulations include requirements for religious groups to register, and seek state approval for, a wide range of religious activities. For example, religious groups are required to seek state approval to congregate and erect or modify a place of worship. These regulations restrict the environment for the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. All religious groups in Laos (including those recognised by the state) are subject to the regulations, but non-recognised religious groups, foreign religious groups and those unable to secure government approval to conduct religious activities are most adversely affected. For example, only three Christian organisations, the Roman Catholic Church, the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the Laos Evangelical Church (LEC), are formally recognised by the Lao Government. All Protestant groups are required to be part of either the LEC or the Seventh Day Adventist Church. Other denominations operate outside of the official system, rendering them de facto illegal and potentially subject to harassment or detention. Reporting on her 2009 visit to Laos, the then UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, , assessed the situation for freedom of religion had improved. In the 12 years prior to the visit, the Special Rapporteur and her predecessors had received a number of serious allegations of human rights

Page 65 of 143 violations by the state. These included alleged arrests and detentions on the basis of religion or official campaigns aimed at forcing Christians to renounce their faith. The Lao Government has made efforts to become more open towards religious freedom, including by educating sub-national government officials about their responsibility to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief. While cases of persecution of Christians continue to be evident, particularly in the provinces, the situation in Laos has been gradually improving over recent years. The numbers of long-term Christian prisoners of conscience and reported levels of active harassment have reduced. The Australian Government maintains ongoing and constructive engagement with the Lao Government on a range of human rights issues, including FoRB. We regularly emphasise the importance of allowing the practice of religion or belief without undue government interference through our biennial Australia-Laos human rights dialogue. At the most recent Australia-Laos Human Rights Dialogue (March 2015), Australia also encouraged Laos to implement the recommendations from their recent Universal Periodic Review, including those regarding freedom of religion.123 Prior to the 2015 dialogue, Australia hosted a roundtable meeting with religious leaders based in Vientiane to inform our advocacy through the human rights dialogue. We will do the same before the next Australia-Laos human rights dialogue, which is scheduled for July 2017.

123 A full list of UPR recommendations received by Laos can be accessed online: https://www.upr-info.org/en.

Page 66 of 143 MALAYSIA Malaysia’s Constitution establishes Islam as the religion of the Federation, but states that other religions may be practised in ‘peace and harmony’. The Constitution protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. However, other parts of the Constitution, along with laws and government policies, have the effect of restricting freedom of religion or belief as a matter of practice. For example, state and federal governments have the power to ‘control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.’124 Of the total Malaysian population of 30.5 million people, 61.3 percent practice Islam, 19.8 percent Buddhism, 9.2 percent Christianity, 6.3 percent Hinduism, and 1.3 percent Confucianism, Taoism, or other traditional Chinese philosophies and religions. Other minority religious groups include animists, Sikhs, and Baha’is. Ethnic Malays, who are defined in the Constitution as Muslims from birth, account for approximately 55 percent of the total population. Rural areas – especially in the east coast of peninsular Malaysia – are predominantly Muslim, while the states of Sabah and Sarawak on the island of Borneo have relatively higher numbers of non-Muslims.125 Malaysia’s federal and state governments regulate religion and manage the practice of Islam. The Sunni tradition is the only form of Islam officially recognised by the Malaysian Government. Malaysia’s states have legislative power over Islamic matters. The titular head of Islam is the monarch in each of the nine states with royal rulers, and the King of the Federation (Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a position which rotates through the nine state monarchs) in the four states without hereditary rulers and the Federal Territories. The Conference of Rulers, which comprises the nine state monarchs, has the Constitutional authority to deliberate on national policies relating to Islam. Muslims in Malaysia are subject to state-based Sharia courts which have jurisdiction over family law and religious observances. For Muslims, the High Court has no jurisdiction over matters that fall under the Sharia courts – creating a dual legal system within the country. National identity cards specify religious affiliation and are used by the Government to identify who is subject to Sharia law. This is considered contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Malaysia is not a party to this Covenant. Freedom to change religion is limited for Muslims, proselytising of Muslims by non-Muslims is illegal and those who want to change their religion need approval from the Sharia courts (which is rarely granted). Apostasy has been criminalised in some states and apostates can be placed in enforced rehabilitation. Religious freedom is significantly eroded for non-Sunni Muslims as all other forms of Islam are deemed illegal and viewed as ‘deviant’, and can be subject to action by religious authorities. Groups seen to be deviating from the approved interpretation of Islam are sometimes subject to restrictive rulings by religious authorities. ‘ Non-Muslims face some limitations to their religious freedoms. Despite not being subject to Sharia courts, non-Muslims can be affected by Sharia judgements, particularly in the area of family law, but have no representation or form of redress in these courts. This is an issue in cases of unilateral conversion of children to Islam by one parent in an attempt to secure custody of the children. Laws to address such custody disputes have yet to be passed by Parliament, but the Government has committed to reform. Where Sharia and civil courts come in to conflict, civil courts tend to cede jurisdiction to Sharia courts. Non-Muslims have also experienced difficulties when seeking to build places of worship, with state governments having authority over land use and construction. The Government has denied legal status to some religious groups including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

124 Malaysian Constitution, Article 11. 125 State Department Report 2015, Malaysia Chapter.

Page 67 of 143 Freedom of expression on matters of religion is increasingly curtailed. Many of the publications banned in Malaysia are prohibited because they are deemed to contain ‘deviant’ teachings that could incite religious disharmony. The use of the word ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims was banned by the courts in 2013, on the basis that Article 10 on the Constitution on freedom of expression must be read in conjunction with other provisions, namely Article 3(1) that holds Islam as the religion of the Federation. The Federal Court unanimously upheld this ruling in 2015. While the government rarely intervenes in instances of religious persecution, harassment or criticism of non-Muslims, there are increasing reports of non-Muslims being censured for commenting on any matter pertaining to Islam, such as a recent private member’s Bill seeking to extend and increase punishments under Sharia law. Commentators and community groups have been criticised, and in some cases harassed, for expressing concern over a perceived increase in the Islamisation of government and shrinking space and freedom for non-Muslims to practice their faith. Despite this, there are few reported incidents of violence against religious ‘dissenters’. The Australian High Commission in Kuala Lumpur frequently engages government, civil society and the general public in activities and discussions promoting interfaith understanding, diversity, gender equality, and inclusive societies for example through our public diplomacy program, support for exchanges and visits, and engagement on countering violent extremism.

Page 68 of 143 MALTA The Maltese Constitution guarantees freedom of belief, conscience, and practice of religious worship. The Constitution also recognises Roman Catholicism as the state religion. As at 2006, over 90 per cent of Malta’s population was estimated to be Roman Catholic. Other religious groups (comprising less than 5% of the total population) include Muslims (estimates 10,000) many of whom are foreign citizens, Coptic Christians, Greek Orthodox, Baptists, Evangelicals, Hindus and others. Malta has one Mosque and a Muslim faith school, and one Jewish congregation. Catholic religious education is mandated in state schools. However, the current Government is undertaking a pilot program that allows non-Roman Catholics to exempt themselves from religious worship or instruction in Maltese schools and instead take an ethics class. The government has not provided figures on how many students have participated in this program.126 The biggest minority religious group is Muslim. There is little evidence of discrimination on religious grounds against them or other minorities such as the Jewish and Sikh communities. ‘By law persons convicted of vilification of Catholicism or “any other cult tolerated by law’ are liable to imprisonment for one to six months or one to three months, respectively. The government interprets ‘any other cult’ to mean other religious groups.127 Malta is broadly considered to fulfil its human rights obligations towards the protection of religious freedoms, both as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and as an EU member. Malta’s position on sexual and reproductive rights, which is informed by the society’s deep- seated Catholicism, have been criticised as denying gender equality.128 However, Malta is a leading international advocate for non-discrimination and non-violence against LGBTI persons. The current Archbishop of Malta, His Grace Mons. Charles J Scicluna, has been inclusive of other faiths, particularly the Muslim community. The Maltese Government is also moving towards a more inclusive approach. The Maltese President is a strong social conscience voice and advocates tolerance, inclusion and community, as does the Minister for Social Dialogue Helena Dali. Catholic masses are often held for official events, such as the annual Pontifical Mass held for Independence Day. Inter-faith ceremonies are increasingly also held for events such as Armistice Day. The Diplomatic Corps, including Australia’s High Commissioner, has regularly attended both Catholic and inter-faith official events. Australia’s High Commission in Malta has made no representations on the issue of religious freedom between September 2013 and January 2017, but has engaged with members of different religious affiliations and various religious leaders, including the Archbishop of Malta, and the President of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community Malta, Mr Laiq Ahmed Atif.

126 State Department Report 2015, Malta Chapter. 127 State Department Report 2015, Malta Chapter. 128 Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 247.

Page 69 of 143 MOROCCO Over 99 percent of Morocco’s population (33.3 million as at July 2015) is considered to belong to the Sunni Muslim tradition. The remaining one percent of the population includes Shia Muslims, Jews, Baha’is and Christians (Anglicans, Evangelicals, other Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox). Sunni Islam and Judaism are recognised by the Government. All other religions are required to register with government authorities. However, once registered these groups can operate easily. ‘Legal provisions provide tax benefits, land and building grants, subsidies, and customs exemptions for imports necessary for the religious activities of recognised religious groups (Sunni Muslims and Jews) and registered religious groups, such as foreign resident Christian groups.’129 Morocco’s 2011 constitution provides that ‘Islam is the religion of the State, which guarantees to all the free exercise of beliefs’ (article 3). Morocco is a moderate Islamic country, with its success in resisting extremism attributed to the promotion of tolerance, in large part by King Mohammed VI in his role as ‘Commander of the Faithful’ and his moderating and modernising influence. Attempts to convert Muslims to other faiths are prohibited by law, and non-Muslims can be fined or imprisoned for ‘employing enticements’ to encourage conversion. Voluntary conversion, however, is not criminalised.130 Human rights groups consistently raise concerns about limitations on the freedom of expression in Morocco and this has overlays with FoRB. In 2016 Morocco enacted laws that provided some additional protections for freedom of expression, but strong penalties are still applied to persons whose expression is considered to have caused harm to Islam.131 Human Rights Watch has reported concerns that ‘hundreds of Islamists’, arrested in 2003 in the wake of attacks in Casablanca, remain in detention. In January 2017, the Government banned the production and commercialisation of the burqa. Most women in Morocco tend to wear a or headscarf that does not often fully cover the face. The banning of the burqa, which was justified on security grounds, received a mixed response.132 Recent years have witnessed increased electoral success for Morocco’s Islamist parties, notably the Justice and Development Party (PJD). The PJD presents itself as a secular party concerned about social justice and economic issues, but but includes members advocating more socially conservative policies on religious grounds. Freedom of religion has arisen regularly in conversations between Morocco and Australia. Moroccan interlocutors often raise this issue in the context of broader discussions about Moroccan society, emphasising respect for religions other than Islam and highlighting inter-religious harmony as a key feature underpinning social cohesion in the country.

129 State Department Report 2015, Morocco Chapter. 130 State Department Report 2015, Morocco Chapter. 131 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 432. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, pages 258-259. 132 Morocco bans production and sale of burqas, News.com.au, 11 January 2017 (available at: http://www.news.com.au/world/africa/morocco-bans-production-and-sale-of-burqas-reports/news- story/96784d326aceaf35411f15fc4fedc0a4). Reports: Morocco bans sale of full-face veil, Aljazeera, 11 January 2017 (available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/01/reports-morocco-bans-production-sale-burqa-170110140716164.html). Agerholm H., Morocco bans burqa over security concerns, Independent, 10 January 2017 (available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/morocco-bans-burqa-security-fears-bandit-a7520156.html).

Page 70 of 143 MYANMAR According to the 2014 Census, 88 per cent of Myanmar’s population is Buddhist, 6 per cent Christian and 4 per cent Muslim, with 2 per cent belonging to animist or other religious groups. Theravada Buddhism dominates, both officially and societally. Rohingya Muslims, who live predominantly in Rakhine State near Bangladesh, are widely discriminated against, though the issue is also one of citizenship and race, rather than simply religion. Myanmar’s Constitution (2008) grants every citizen the right to freely practice their religion. Section 34 of the Constitution states that ‘every citizen is equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess and practise religion subject to public order, morality or health’. Section 361 ‘recognises the special position of Buddhism’ as the faith professed by the majority of citizens, while Section 362 further recognises Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Animism as ‘the religions existing in the Union at the day of the coming into operation of this Constitution’. Several other Constitutional provisions prohibit discrimination against citizens on the basis of religion. A number or provisions limit the enjoyment of FoRB in Myanmar. There are other issues that serve to erode Constitutional anti-discrimination protections in practice. For example, Section 352 of the Constitution specifies that religious non-discrimination should apply to filling public service positions. In practice, evidence suggests that military officers of religions other than Buddhism are unable to rise above a certain rank (usually Major). Section 364 of the Constitution specifies that ‘the abuse of religion for political purposes is forbidden’, and that ‘any act which is intended or is likely to promote feelings of hatred, enmity or discord between racial or religious communities or sectors is contrary to this Constitution’. This has given rise to a number of laws aimed at protecting religion, including from defamation, the operation of which has been broadly criticised by international observers. For example, in its 2015 report on Myanmar, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom noted “while hateful and intolerant expression should be strongly condemned, the right to freedom of expression is indivisible from the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief, and laws making religious defamation a crime violate international human rights norms”.133 It should also be noted that constitutional FoRB and anti-discrimination protections do not apply to those groups not recognised as full citizens, including groups living in Rakhine State. Myanmar’s Penal Code Sections 295-298 define offending religion as a crime. Myanmar authorities have used this law in the past to prosecute nationalist Buddhists for anti-Muslim remarks. There is a high level of anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar, particularly against the Rohingya community. Buddhist nationalist groups, particularly the Committee for the Protection of Nationality and Religion, an organisation led by radical Buddhist monks and commonly referred to by its Myanmar-language acronym of ‘Ma Ba Tha’, are vocal and influential advocates of discrimination against Muslims, and have promoted boycotts of Muslim-run businesses. In April 2017, Buddhist nationalists forced the closure of two Islamic schools in Yangon, which they claimed were operating as illegal mosques. In May 2017, Buddhist nationalists demanded police search an apartment in a Muslim area of Yangon for illegal immigrants and then attacked Muslim bystanders after no illegal immigrants were found. While these developments point to an increasing boldness on the part of Buddhist nationalists, police moved quickly to arrest and charge those responsible for the latter incident.

133 USCIRF 2016 Report, Myanmar Chapter.

Page 71 of 143 The Government has also taken steps to limit the influence of Ma Ba Tha. In July 2016, Ma Ba Tha was declared illegitimate by the government-appointed State Sangha Committee, Myanmar’s highest clerical authority. In March 2017, the Committee banned U Wirathu, Ma Ba Tha’s high-profile leader, from delivering sermons for one year because he had delivered hate speech against other religions. In May 2017, the State Sangha Committee imposed further restrictions on Ma Ba Tha, banning it from operating under the name ‘Ma Ba Tha’ and ordering all Ma Ba Tha-branded signboards within Myanmar be taken down by July 2017. While intercommunal violence remains a persistent risk in Myanmar, other religious communities (other than the Rohingya) tend to experience a lower level of discrimination.134 A law against hate speech (which, among other things, would criminalise verbal attacks on other religions) is currently being developed by Parliament. An early draft of this law (entitled the Interfaith Law for Peaceful Co-Existence) did not define hate speech and included some language that could be misinterpreted. For example, individuals are encouraged to refrain from any speech, writings or behaviour that could lead to ‘interfaith and interpersonal disunity and quarrel as well as disturbance to stability and peace’. As with provisions contained within the Constitution, the draft hate speech law only protects citizens from discrimination, thereby excluding the minority Rohingya group (and others) from protection under this law. A number of organisations have raised concerns that the proposed law may have the potential to unlawfully limit the freedom of expression above and beyond combatting hate speech.135 The Four Laws In 2015, Myanmar’s Parliament passed four laws known as the ‘Protection of Race and Religion Laws’, which include restrictions on religious conversion, monogamy, interfaith marriage and childbirth. The laws are considered by many to be an ‘infringement on religious freedom and other basic rights’ that may disproportionately target minority religious groups.136 In practice, the laws require by-laws to be enforced, and only one (the Monogamy Law) has been used to date. Media sources indicate the overwhelming majority of men charged under the Monogamy Law have been Buddhist men who were allegedly unfaithful to their wives. Three major ethnic groups in Myanmar have significant Christian populations: the Chin, Kachin and Kayin (also known as Karen). Each has a home state in which a substantial proportion of its population lives. Christmas is a national holiday and is observed in most parts of the country, but Christians can face some official and societal discrimination in Myanmar. For example, Christians are rarely promoted to senior levels in the government, military or police, although Myanmar’s first Vice President, U Henry Van Thio, is a Christian. Christians have reportedly encountered obstacles in obtaining land on which to build new churches and there are reports of isolated attacks on new or repaired church buildings.137 In Kayin State there have been repeated incidents in which an influential monk has encouraged local Buddhists to construct Buddhist pagodas within the compounds of Christian churches. Human Rights Watch recently reported that ‘Muslim minorities [Myanmar], in particular the 1.2 million ethnic Rohingya, continue to face rampant and systematic human rights abuses.’138 Rakhine State is the second-poorest state in Myanmar — 78 per cent of its population lives in poverty. Of its 3.2 million people, 35 per cent are Muslim, many of whom identify as Rohingya. Some 120,000 Muslims, most of them Rohingya, live in internally-displaced person camps in the outskirts of the state capital Sittwe, in the central part of Rakhine State, following clashes with the majority Buddhist ethnic Rakhine in 2012. While Rakhine State’s low level of development impacts all communities, the situation is particularly acute for the

134 USCIRF 2016 Report, Myanmar Chapter. 135 USCIRF 2016 Report, Myanmar Chapter. 136 State Department Report 2015, Myanmar Chapter. 137 USCIRF 2016 Report, Myanmar Chapter. 138 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 150.

Page 72 of 143 Rohingya given restrictions on their freedom of movement. These restrictions limit the Rohingya’s ability to access healthcare, education and livelihoods, and heighten the risk of irregular migration.139 Australia works closely with Myanmar, bilaterally and multilaterally, to improve human rights. Australia routinely raises human rights concerns in Myanmar at the Human Rights Council, including the situation in Rakhine State.140 We consistently encourage Myanmar to work cooperatively with the international human rights machinery to address ongoing human rights issues. Australia assisted Myanmar to prepare for its most recent Universal Periodic Review (UPR) appearance, in November 2015. As part of its UPR, Australia recommended that Myanmar repeal or revise the Protection of Race and Religion Laws and Section 377 of the Penal Code (1861) to ensure the rights of women, religious minorities and the LGBTI community were protected. Myanmar noted the recommendation.141 Australia makes direct representations to the Myanmar Government in relation to Rakhine State. Australia has encouraged the Myanmar Government, as an interim measure, to ease restrictions on the freedom of movement of Muslim communities in Rakhine State and, in the longer term, to address issues of citizenship and legal status. Australia is also a significant donor to Rakhine State, providing more than $32 million in humanitarian and development assistance since 2012. Australia has made representations to the Myanmar Government cautioning against reported plans to demolish mosques and other illegally built structures in northern Rakhine State. Australia has also made direct representations to the Myanmar Government about the Protection of Race and Religion Laws and their possible discriminatory effects. In a resolution on the situation of human rights in Myanmar in March 2017, the Human Rights Council extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for a further period of one year. It also decided to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission to be appointed by the President of the Human Rights Council to establish the facts and circumstances of the alleged recent human rights violations by military and security forces, and abuses, in Myanmar, in particular in Rakhine State. The Council called upon the Government of Myanmar to continue efforts to eliminate statelessness and the systematic and institutionalized discrimination against members of ethnic, and religious minorities, including the root causes of discrimination, in particular relating to the Rohingya minority.

139 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, pages 150-151. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, pages 263-264. EU Intergroup Report 2015, pages 80-81. 140 See Attachment I for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council. 141 See Attachment I for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council.

Page 73 of 143 NEPAL The last census held in 2011 showed Hindus constitute 81.3 percent of the population, Buddhists 9 per cent, Muslims 4.4 per cent, and Christians 1.4 per cent. Other groups, which together constitute less than 5 per cent of the population, include Kirats (an indigenous religion with Hindu influence), animists, adherents of Bon (a Tibetan religious tradition), Jains, Bahais, and Sikhs. Religious leaders say the official numbers do not reflect the reality of their individual communities, often arguing that they constitute a bigger proportion of the total population. 142 Nepal’s new Constitution, adopted in September 2015, defines the country as a secular state; provides for the right to profess and practice one’s own religion; allows for the operation and protection religious sites and trusts; and prevents anyone from conducting religious activities that are contrary to public health, decency and morality or breach personal peace. The provisions also prohibit seeking to convert a person from one religion to another, or acting to jeopardise another’s religion. It should be noted a section of the population would like to see Nepal reinstate Hinduism as the state religion.143 Reports indicate that religious tolerance is broadly practiced, and official restrictions on religion are rare. The Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016 found that social hostilities based on religion declined notably in Nepal during their reporting period (2013-2014).144 However, Christian groups have reported substantial difficulty registering as religious organisations, which in practice leaves them unable to own land.145 Buddhists and Muslims do not have any issues in practising their . Madrassahs, Buddhist monasteries and Hindu schools operate. The slaughter of cows still remains prohibited and a few cases of confrontation between Hindus and non-Hindus have occurred over cow slaughter. Some localised violence has occurred between individuals of Hindu and Muslim communities but quite infrequently. Land for cemeteries for Christians remain unguaranteed and becomes an area of concern for these communities from time to time. In September 2015, following promulgation of the new Constitution, minor improvised explosive devices detonated on the grounds of three churches in Jhapa district, causing minor damage. According to local administrative officials, Hindu nationalists claimed responsibility for the attacks.146 In December 2016, eight persons, who had been charged with proselytising after giving out a pamphlet about Jesus in a Christian school, while helping children through the trauma of the 2015 earthquake, were acquitted of the charges. The Australian Embassy in Kathmandu, regularly participates in cultural-religious events organised by the Government of Nepal and other groups. In 2013 and 2014, the United Missions Nepal (UMN), a Christian INGO involved in long-term development work based in Kathmandu, sought the assistance of Australia and several European posts to flag concerns to the Nepal Government over attempts by the Ministry of Energy to take ownership of UMN’s headquarter building in the capital. Apart from a contentious and long-standing land ownership argument, UMN considered the ultimate reason for the Ministry’s actions were likely driven by individual officials’ antipathy towards a Christian faith based INGO. A subsequent court case found for UMN ownership.

142 State Department Report 2015, Nepal Chapter. EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 89. 143 State Department Report 2015, Nepal Chapter. 144 Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016, page 18. 145 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 90. 146 State Department Report 2015, Nepal Chapter.

Page 74 of 143 NETHERLANDS The Netherlands is strongly committed to the protection and promotion of the freedom of religion or belief domestically and across bilateral and multilateral fora. In December 2016 the Dutch Government agency Statistics Netherlands (CBS) published findings that half of the adult population in the Netherlands said they do not belong to any religious denomination or ideological movement, while the other 50 percent are made of: 23.7 percent Roman Catholics, 15.5 percent Protestants, 4.7 percent Muslims and 5.7 percent other, including Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews. In a separate poll by Amsterdam based research agency Motivaction, it was found that of those surveyed 43 percent consider blasphemy unacceptable and 81 percent consider freedom of religion important. The freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right in the Dutch Constitution (safeguarded by article 6 on the freedom of religion and article 1 on non-discrimination, among others). Responsibility for the implementation of this right is shared across the Dutch government. In practice, constitutional and legislative aspects are handled by the Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and the Ministry of Security and Justice, while social policy aspects fall within the domain of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment. Dutch compliance with its obligations under international human rights treaties and instruments and the broader promotion of the freedom of religion abroad is undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Dutch Government’s national human rights policy document ‘Justice and respect for all’ states it is a long-standing supporter of the right for every individual to have the freedom to express his or her identity, as informed by religious or other beliefs: this includes the right to hold theist, non-theist or atheist convictions and the right to change one’s faith.147 Australia works closely with the Netherlands, as a member of the EU, on FoRB issues through the Human Rights Council and UNGA Third Committee annual resolutions. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights is the independent body mandated to monitor the observance of human rights. Their mandate includes freedom of religion. The Netherlands has recently witnessed a rise in anti-Muslim sentiment largely associated with the firmly anti-Islamic Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (English: Party for Freedom) as well as reports of an increase in anti-Semitic incidents. A Bill banning the wearing of face-covering clothing, including the burqa and niqab, in various public buildings is expected to be passed by the Senate in 2017 despite criticism in some quarters of the policy’s infringement on the freedom of religion or belief.148

147 Government of the Netherlands, Human Rights Policy – Justice and Respect for All, August 2013 (available at: https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2013/06/14/justice-and-respect-for-all). 148 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 271.

Page 75 of 143 PAKISTAN Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB) is protected by Pakistan’s Constitution. Pakistan ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2010, along with a number of other major human rights instruments. But evidence suggests that minority rights are not always respected. Over the last ten years, the Government of Pakistan has adopted a number of measures to create new human rights structures and introduced legislation to protect human rights and women’s rights, but implementation appears to have lagged. In 2015 the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that: ‘Pakistan is an ethnically and religiously diverse country of over 190 million people’.149 The 1998 census of Pakistan found that 95 percent of the population identified as Muslim. Of that, 75 percent identified as Sunni, but that figure comprises numerous Sunni sects and denominations. One quarter of the Muslim population identified as Shia. The Ahmadiyya population of Pakistan is estimated at between two to four million. Members of the Ahmadiyya community identify as Muslims, but are deemed not to be Muslims under Pakistan’s Constitution. Non-Muslim faiths constitute roughly five percent of the population, and include Christians, Hindus, Parsis, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. Human Rights Watch reports that Pakistan retains a number of legislative provisions that, in practice, are discriminatory against religious minorities and that law enforcement agencies are often not held to account for human rights violations.150 The combination of these influences can feed societal pressure and worsen the situation for minority religious communities. Attacks targeting religious and ethnic are frequent. In a 2016 suicide attack on Christians celebrating Easter in Lahore, Human Rights Watch estimates that over 70 people were killed and over 330 people injured.151 In 1974, a suite of legislative changes and an amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan effectively declared Ahmadis non-Muslims. The community has subsequently reported ongoing hostility and discrimination, coupled with government inaction, in what they describe as an effort to appease hardline Islamists. Pakistan retains a number of blasphemy laws, which apply to all religions, and which also specifically prohibit defiling the Qur’an and insulting the Prophet . Human rights defenders consider these laws to act as restrictions on freedom of expression, contend that these laws are used to target religious minorities, and suggest that in some cases their application is not prompted by actual instances of restricted speech but by other social issues and a prevailing climate of distrust of religious difference. There are increasing reports of private citizens taking Pakistan’s blasphemy laws into their own hands, resulting in public attacks, often with tragic consequences. The potential punishments under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws include death, life imprisonment or a fine. There is no clear definition of blasphemy, which empowers the accuser to decide if a blasphemous act has occurred. No proof of intent or evidence is required after allegations are made. Penalties for false allegations are not part of the blasphemy laws, though they may exist in other criminal code provisions.152 Under Pakistan’s constitutional arrangements, the federal government is responsible for compliance with its international human rights obligations, but provincial governments also have obligations concerning human rights. Advocates report that while the country’s blasphemy laws are used nationwide, there is a predominance of cases under these provisions in Punjab province.

149 USCIRF 2015 Report, Pakistan Chapter. 150 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 469. 151 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 470. 152 USCIRF 2015 Report, Pakistan Chapter.

Page 76 of 143 The Australian Government is concerned by the plight of persons convicted under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and by the potential for these provisions to be applied in a discriminatory manner. Human Rights Watch estimated that in 2016, at least 19 people remained on death row following blasphemy convictions, hundreds were awaiting trial, and a large component of this group were members of religious minorities.153 In 2010 Ms Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman, was accused of insulting the Islamic prophet Muhammad during the course of her work. She was convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. In 2011 Mr Salmaan Taseer, the then Governor of Punjab Province, was assassinated in response to his opposition to the blasphemy laws and his defence of Ms Bibi. In October 2016, the Lahore High Court upheld the application of a death sentence for Mr Taseer’s assassin, Mumtaz Qadri, who was executed in February 2016, sparking large protests in Islamabad. Ms Bibi’s case remains on appeal to the Pakistan Supreme Court. This case is controversial, both domestically and internationally. In October-November 2012, at its second appearance before the Universal Periodic Review, seven countries and the Holy See recommended that Pakistan modify or repeal blasphemy laws, and a further 10 countries called upon Pakistan to abolish the death penalty. Australia has called upon the Government of Pakistan to fully implement its international human rights law obligations with respect to all citizens, including members of religious minorities. Australia universally opposes the death penalty. The Australian Government has raised the treatment of minorities, in individual cases and collectively, with the Government of Pakistan (including at the Ministerial level) on a number of occasions, and has encouraged the Government of Pakistan to ensure protection of human rights. We have also made representations to the Pakistan High Commission in Canberra.

153 Human Rights Watch Report 2017/2016, page 470.

Page 77 of 143 PAPUA NEW GUINEA The 2000 National Census (the last census in PNG outlining religious affiliation) indicating that 98 per cent of Papua New Guinean citizens identify as Christian. Approximately 27 per cent identified as Roman Catholic; 20 per cent Evangelical Lutheran; 12 per cent United Church; 10 per cent Seventh-Day Adventist; 9 per cent Pentecostal; 5 per cent Evangelical Alliance; 3 per cent Anglican; and 3 per cent Baptist. Many Papua New Guineans maintain indigenous practices and beliefs alongside their Christian faith.154 The 2000 National Census indicated that only 5,000 people in PNG identified as Muslim.155 However, the Head of the Port Moresby Mosque, Imam Mikaeil Abdul Aziz, has estimated that numbers at the Mosque continue to grow steadily. PNG’s Muslim community is largely Sunni and based in Port Moresby, although there are other small Muslim communities in Lae and across the Highlands. The PNG Constitution guarantees individuals the right to ‘the freedom of conscience, thought and religion and the practice of his religion and beliefs,’ except to the extent that the exercise of the right infringes on another person’s rights or where it violates the public interest. PNG has no state religion, although the prominence of Christianity in PNG is recognised in the preamble of the Constitution. There is an ongoing debate about whether Christian traditions should be preferenced or the worship of non-Christian faiths prohibited. Religious groups must register to operate in PNG, however there is no evidence of groups being denied registration. Proselytization is permitted and there is a special visa system for religious workers and missionaries to operate in PNG.156 Development Program PNG’s religious communities are important partners for Australia’s bilateral development program in PNG. One example is the Church Partnership Program (CPP) which is an Australia funded partnership with PNG churches and their counterpart Australian faith-based non-government organisations (the Anglican Board of Mission Australia; Transform Aid International; Caritas Australia; Australian Lutheran World Service; Salvation Army; Adventist Development and Relief Agency; and Uniting World). Through the CPP, Australia has supported the PNG churches to improve their organisational capacity to deliver crucial services to the most remote and disadvantaged communities, and to advocate for good governance. The program has delivered a broad range of activities in support of health, education, social inclusion, peace and prosperity and disaster risk reduction objectives. The CPP has also facilitated policy discussions leading to collective interventions by the churches on issues of concern. These have included support for greater women’s rights and advocacy on issues including sorcery-related violence, good electoral practices and anti-corruption. Australia has also supported, through our technical partner CBM Australia, the delivery of disability awareness training in partnership with the national disabled persons organisation, Papua New Guinea Assembly of Disabled Persons (PNG ADP). As part of this project, a toolkit was developed to support pastors and church leaders to increase disability inclusion and awareness in their communities and increase access for person with disability to church and community events (this was for all denominations represented under the CPP program). The Australian High Commission in Port Moresby regularly engages with religious communities and activities in PNG.

154 State Department Report 2015, PNG Chapter. 155 State Department Report 2015, PNG Chapter. 156 State Department Report 2015, PNG Chapter.

Page 78 of 143 PHILIPPINES According to the 2010 census, approximately 81 percent of the population of the Philippines is Roman Catholic. Around 9 percent belong to other Christian groups including internationally based denominations (Seventh-day Adventists, United Church of Christ, United Methodists, other Protestant, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and the Bible Baptist Church), and domestically established churches (Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ), Philippine Independent Church (Aglipayan), Members Church of God International, the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the Name Above Every Name). Approximately 6 percent of the population is Muslim and the remainder is made up of agnostics or people who hold various indigenous or animistic beliefs. (More recent estimates put the number of Muslims in the Philippines as high as 11 percent).157 Philippine law and policies, including the Constitution, protect religious freedom. ‘The Constitution provides for the free exercise of religious profession and religious worship and prohibits the establishment of religion by law. No religious test is required for the exercise of civil or political rights.’158 Philippine law treats intentional attacks directed against buildings dedicated to religion as war crimes or crimes against international humanitarian law. Organised religious groups are required to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission to obtain tax exempt status. There is no non-tax penalty for not doing so and some groups choose not to. The registration process is non-discriminatory. The Code of Muslim Personal Laws recognises Islamic (Sharia) law as part of national law, though it does not apply in criminal matters and applies only to Muslims. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) support religious tolerance and Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB), but they are not core concerns of these agencies. The CHR monitors cases of FoRB abuse. The NCMF is mandated to uphold and protect the economic, educational and cultural rights of Muslim Filipinos but is not mandated to advocate FoRB. Some of NCMF’s programs include the coordination of the annual pilgrimage to Makkah, participation in international Qur’an reading competitions, and other educational and cultural activities. While NCMF conducts interreligious activities such as interfaith dialogues, they are primarily geared towards supporting peace-building measures. Although freedom of religion is enshrined in Philippine law, and the Philippines Government has generally respected religious freedom, discrimination against the Muslim minority is known to occur. Evidence suggests ongoing distrust between the Christian majority and the Muslim minority. The US State Department has reported that 2015 saw ‘instances of discrimination in economic opportunities and public statements – via the internet and social media – denigrating the beliefs or practices of particular religious groups, particularly Muslims, or non-believers’.159 Although various bills have been filed in the past three years which would explicitly disallow discrimination, including on the basis of religion, none has been approved by Congress. Seven anti-discrimination bills tabled in the current Congress remain in committee as at January 2017. Australia promotes enhanced inter-faith cooperation and understanding in the Philippines, particularly in Mindanao, in the country’s south, including through our aid program. DFAT has promoted better relations between different religious communities, particularly in Mindanao.

157 State Department Report 2015, Philippines Chapter. 158 State Department Report 2015, Philippines Chapter. 159 State Department Report 2015, Philippines Chapter.

Page 79 of 143 POLAND The Polish Government estimates 87 that percent of Poland’s population is Roman Catholic. Minority religious traditions present in Poland include Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Greek Catholics, Pentecostals, and members of the Polish Orthodox Church.160 Religious freedoms are legally protected in Poland. The Polish Government takes its image on this matter seriously – the Chief Rabbi and Grand Mufti are often publicly recognised at official and diplomatic events. Poland’s candidacy for the United Nations Security Council for 2018–19 prioritises two key FoRB issues– the need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue to prevent terrorism and the need to protect cultural and religious sites during war. The Catholic Church is highly influential in Poland, and takes an active role in political life and public debate. The Church has a close relationship with the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) government. There is official resistance to extending human rights protections to LGBTI persons, largely on religious grounds. During its term, the Government has sought to further tighten already restrictive abortion regulations, but had to back down due to overwhelming public opposition.161 In line with its conservative Catholic approach the Government has withdrawn public funding for IVF treatment and uses generous child benefits to support traditional families (heterosexual, married couples with multiple children). During Poland’s appearance before the Universal Periodic Review process in 2012, Australia recommended ending restrictions on women’s rights, particularly around access to abortions, that had been justified on religious grounds.162 Polish NGOs have reported a marked rise in hate crime over the last year. Although Poland’s Muslim community is tiny, the 2015 refugee crisis played on public fears of Muslim immigration: ‘Protests and demonstrations against immigration often involved anti‑Islamic, and sometimes anti‑Semitic, messages. For example, on September 11 and 12, fans of the two largest soccer clubs in Poland displayed anti‑Islamic banners during soccer matches in Poznan and Warsaw. Several anti‑immigrant marches were accompanied by anti‑Muslim messages. Vandals targeted Muslim, Jewish, and Catholic religious sites and private property.’163 Most recently, ethnic Poles attacked a kebab shop in rural Poland in response to the death of a Polish man after altercations with Middle Eastern men. Isolated anti-Semitic incidents have taken place, including the burning of an effigy of a Jew in Wroclaw in western Poland (which was punished by a jail term). While the Government does not endorse far right groups, it has thus far not moved to label them as hate groups. The most notable is the ONR (the Nationalist-Radical Camp), one of the key organisers behind annual Independence Day marches. The ONR is notorious for occupying a church in Bialystok in eastern Poland last year, compelling the local university to advise foreign students to stay in their rooms. In April 2016 the Government abolished its Council for the Prevention of Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.164

160 State Department Report 2015, Poland Chapter. 161 For examples: Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 299. 162 See Attachment J for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council. 163 State Department Report 2015, Poland Chapter. 164 Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 299. Poland abolishes anti-discrimination council, World Bulletin, 5 May 2016 (available at: http://www.worldbulletin.net/europe/172329/poland-abolishes-anti-discrimination-council). Poland abolishes anti- discrimination council, Visegrad Post, 4 May 2016 (available at: http://visegradpost.com/en/2016/05/04/poland-abolishes-her- anti-discrimination-council/).

Page 80 of 143 REPUBLIC OF KOREA The Republic of Korea (ROK or South Korea) is religiously diverse and freedom of religion is respected. The ROK Constitution provides for freedom of religion; prohibits discrimination based on religion; declares there shall be no state religion; and declares that church and state shall be separated. The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism is responsible for promoting interfaith dialogues. According to Statistics Korea, as of 2015, 56.1 per cent of South Koreans had no religion; 15.5 per cent were Buddhist; and 27.6 per cent were Christian. Many South Koreans (including Christians, Buddhists and those who profess no religion) also engage in native shamanism traditions, Confucian rites and ancestor worship. Followers of other religious groups are present throughout the ROK, including around 120,000 Muslims. The ROK houses the largest Christian congregation in the world (Yoido Full Gospel Church, with about 480,000 members). Religious groups are influential voices on some policy issues in the ROK, including on the human rights agenda. Their advocacy is considered to have slowed progress on anti-discrimination provisions aimed at protecting LGBTI persons. Conscientious Objectors The ROK requires virtually all male citizens to complete around two years of military service between the ages of 18 and 35 years. There are no exemptions for those who have religious (or other) objections to military service. Alternative forms of civil service do exist, but are not generally seen to be acceptable by conscientious objectors, as they are still under the direction of the Ministry of National Defense. Most conscientious objectors are sentenced to around 18 months imprisonment. Watchtower International, a Jehovah’s Witness organisation, regularly highlights this issue. In November 2016, it estimated that 399 people were serving prison sentences for conscientious objection, the vast majority of whom were Jehovah’s Witnesses. Since 1950, 18,883 individuals have been criminally punished. The ROK Constitutional Court has twice ruled on the legality of imprisoning conscientious objectors, most recently in 2011. The Court is currently re-considering the issue, and a ruling is expected in 2017.165

165 For further information on the issue of Conscientious Objection: Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 223.

Page 81 of 143 RUSSIA Russia has a religiously diverse population and strong Constitutional protections of FoRB. However, in practice there are many barriers to the exercise of freedom of religion. The Pew Research Centre has reported that, based on evidence it gathered in 2014, Russia exhibits the highest level of both government restrictions and social hostilities towards religions in all of Europe.166 Of the Russian Federation’s approximately 142.4 million people, some 42–68 percent consider themselves Orthodox Christian and 7 percent Muslim. Together, Buddhists, Protestants, Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hindus, Baha’is, Hare Krishnas, Pagans, Tengrists, Scientologists and Falun Gong adherents probably constitute fewer than 5 percent of Russia’s people.167 Article 28 of Russia’s 1993 Constitution protects ‘the right to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religious worship, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion, or to profess no religion, to freely choose, possess and disseminate religious or other beliefs, and to act in conformity with them’. However, subsequent legislation has limited this broad protection in practice. For example, the 1997 Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations marked a significant step backwards for religious freedom and belief, allowing officials to block the registration and actions such as property rental on ill-defined grounds.’168 Changes to this legislation, which came into force in July 2015, introduced further obstacles, requiring all religious communities that do not have legal status to notify the authorities of their existence, activity and members’ names and addresses. The EU Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religions Tolerance has suggested that these legislative changes appear ‘designed to make state control easier’.169 While Russia is a secular state, the 1997 Religion Law names Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity as Russia’s four traditional faiths. In practice, the Kremlin and the Russian Orthodox Church work closely together to extend the power and influence of both at home and abroad. No other enjoys such autonomy and government largesse.170 Evidence of religious intolerance increased in 2015–16, with a rise in anti-Semitism and higher levels of persecution of Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses.171 Many commentators have raised concerns about Russian anti-extremism legislation which ‘defines extremism in a religious context and does not require the threat of use of violence’. ‘In February 2015, the Constitutional Court ruled that freedom of speech, conscience, and religion is not infringed if material is banned as ‘extremist’ for proclaiming the truth or superiority of one religion or belief system.’172 In practice this law has been used to censor free expression online (regardless of whether it is inciting violence) and to ban certain religious texts. A number of Muslims and Jehovah’s Witnesses have been prosecuted for possessing so called ‘extremist literature’, and there are allegations of failures of due process during these trials. Australia has called upon Russia to implement its international human rights law obligations with respect to all citizens, with a particular focus on freedom of expression. Australia’s recommendations during Russia’s 2013 Universal Periodic Review appearance called for action to respond to human rights violations in the North Caucasus region (home to the Salafist community – a minority Islamic group.)173

166 Pew Research Centre Global Restrictions Report June 2016, page 54. 167 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 69. 168 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 69. 169 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 69. 170 USCIRF 2016 Report, Russia Chapter. 171 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 70. 172 USCIRF 2016 Report, Russia Chapter. EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 69. Amnesty 2016/2017 Report, page 307. 173 See Attachment K for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council.

Page 82 of 143 On 30 March 2017, Australia joined an EU statement expressing concern at actions to suspend activities by Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, and calling on Russia to respect its international commitments regarding FoRB. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of banning the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation in Russia on ‘extremism’ grounds in April 2017.

Page 83 of 143 SAUDI ARABIA The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a population of over 30 million, roughly a third of whom are resident expatriate workers. Approximately 85-90 percent of the roughly 20 million Saudis are Sunni Muslim and the remaining 10-15% are Shi’a. The expatriate workers are from various faith traditions, including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism. Freedom of religion or belief is a sensitive topic in Saudi Arabia. The foundations of the Saudi state trace to an alliance between the House of Saud and religious leader Mohammed Ibn Abd Al-Wahhab – the father of, what has become known as Wahhabi Islam – in 1744. This remains the basis of the relationship between the religious authorities and monarchy in Saudi Arabia today. The official interpretation of Islam – a strict Sunni variant – is privileged above all others. Other forms of Islam are often circumscribed and in some cases banned. Saudi Arabia does not tolerate public worship by adherents of religions other than Islam and discriminates against Muslim religious minorities, notably Shia and Ismailis, including in public education, the justice system and employment. Some religious authorities disparage Shia Islam in public statements and documents. Saudi Arabian legislation criminalises dissent, apostasy, blasphemy, and sorcery, and a 2014 law classifies blasphemy and advocating atheism as terrorism. Blasphemy is a crime that may attract a death penalty. In practice, courts have not sentenced individuals to death for blasphemy in recent decades. Sentences for blasphemy are commonly lengthy prison sentences and lashings.

Page 84 of 143 SINGAPORE Singapore’s laws and policies support freedom of religion and belief. Religious harmony is a priority for the Government of Singapore. Around 82 percent of the population claims a religious affiliation, 33 percent of citizens and permanent residents are Buddhist, 14 percent Muslim (predominantly Sunni), 12 percent Protestant, 11 percent Taoist and other folk religions, 6.7 per cent Roman Catholic, 5 percent Hindu, and 0.7 per cent are Zoroastrians. Other religions count for less than 0.3 per cent. ”174 The Government restricts certain religious groups (including Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church) by application of the Societies Act. Religious, ethnic and cultural harmony are key topics in Singapore’s political and public discourse. Harmony Day is widely celebrated with a religious emphasis in Singapore, and major religious and ethnic festivals are widely recognised and officially celebrated via public holidays. Racial ratios are applied in Housing Development Board blocks (in which over 80 per cent of Singaporeans reside) to prevent the emergence of religious enclaves in concentrated geographic areas. Crimes that disrupt social, racial or ethnic harmony attract severe penalties. The behaviours which constitute disruption of harmony are broadly defined and include racial insults or otherwise promoting ill- will and hospitality between different races, groups or classes in Singapore. Under the Penal Code, ‘wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person’ or ‘knowingly promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial groups’ can result in detention and/or imprisonment. Prompted by terrorism concerns, the government introduced new measures in 2016 to “promote religious harmony” and guard against extremism and intolerance, including a compulsory recognition scheme for all Muslim religious teachers and scholars. Under the government’s SG Secure initiative, the former Community Education Program has been upgraded so that religious community leaders have a stronger role to play in maintaining religious and ethnic harmony during both peacetime and crises. These more recent initiatives complement a range of existing measures to contain extremism. These include restrictions on foreign preachers entering Singapore. The government can also issue restraining orders against religious leaders if they are causing ‘feelings of enmity or hostility between different religious groups’. Religious organisations in Singapore are highly centralised and closely linked to government. For example, Friday prayer sermons for all mosques are authorised by MUIS (the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore), a statutory body whose leadership is appointed by the President. While the government’s emphasis would appear to be more on Islam, there would similarly be zero tolerance for any extremism in another religion. The government has also strongly supported the community-led Religious Rehabilitation Group (RRG). Set up in 2003 by Islamic scholars and teachers, the RRG’s primary objective was rehabilitation of detained Jemaah Islamiyah members and families through counselling. It has since broadened its scope to include misinterpretation promoted by self-radicalised individuals and those in support of ISIS. Prime Minister Abbott visited the RRG in June 2015, while Attorney-General Brandis visited in October 2016. The Australian High Commission in Singapore participates in religious festivals and related events on an ad hoc basis. These have included, for example, local Iftar dinners.

174 Singapore Government 2015 Census.

Page 85 of 143 SOUTH SUDAN Religion played a significant role in driving the internal conflict in Sudan that eventually led to the creation of South Sudan as an independent state in 2011. The separation of the predominantly Christian south from the predominantly Muslim north has effectively put an end to religion as a major societal issue. The US Government estimates that the majority of the 12 million people who live in South Sudan are Christian. There are no reliable statistics on the number of Muslims or other religious minorities. Evidence from the early 2000s estimated Muslims constituted between 18 and 35 percent of the population, but it is thought that the number of Muslims declined through migration to Sudan after South Sudanese independence.175 South Sudan’s current internal crisis traces its complex origins largely to ethnic, political and economic rivalries rather than religious tension. There are occasional reports of members of the Islamic community in South Sudan being discriminated against on a religious basis, but it does not appear to be a pervasive issue. It is common for both government and rebel groups to partner with or call on churches to work on peace agreements and participate in mediation and reconciliation initiatives. In 2015, ‘Muslims in government included at least one governor and 14 members of the 296-member National Legislative Assembly’.176 Australia routinely supports multilateral efforts to highlight ongoing human rights issues in South Sudan, including through the Human Rights Council, although freedom of religion is not presently a commonly recurring theme in these discussions.177

175 State Department Report 2015, South Sudan Chapter. 176 State Department Report 2015, South Sudan Chapter. 177 For example: A/HRC/RES/31/20: HRC31 Resolution on the Situation of human rights in South Sudan (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/31/20).

Page 86 of 143 SRI LANKA Religion plays a prominent role in daily life in Sri Lanka. According to Sri Lanka’s 2012 census, Buddhism is the dominant religion, followed by approximately 70 percent of the population. The other main religions are Hinduism (13 percent), Islam (10 percent) and Roman Catholicism (6 percent). Religion and ethnicity are closely linked. The Sinhalese are predominantly Buddhist, and Tamils are mostly Hindu. Muslims are considered both an ethnic and religious group. There are Christian minorities among both the Sinhalese and Tamil population. The Sri Lankan Constitution provides for freedom of religion and freedom of worship. While the Constitution grants Buddhism a ‘foremost place’, there is a place for all religions in public life. Sri Lanka has no laws or official policies that discriminate on the basis of religion. There are four government ministers with portfolio responsibilities for each of the four major religions. An Inter-Religious Council has been established under the President with a mandate to increase understanding of and respect for different religious systems. Sri Lanka recognises religious holidays for all four major religions. Prominent Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian leaders are invited to national functions, although at most events only Buddhist rituals are performed. School students are able to study their choice of Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian religious classes in most schools, depending on the availability of teachers. There are also Hindu and Muslim public schools. There were incidents of religiously motivated communal violence during the tenure of the former Rajapaksa Government. Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism and extremism also gained ground during this period. Groups such as Bodu Bala Sena (Buddhist Power Force) were accused of inciting religious riots and carrying out attacks on religious minorities. The most serious examples were the Aluthgama riots between Buddhists and Muslims in June 2014, and the Grandpass Mosque riots in August 2013. At the time, Australia expressed concerns to the Sri Lankan Government about rising religious tensions and emphasised the rights of all Sri Lankans to worship freely. Sri Lankan ‘unity’ Government under President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe has made a commitment to religious and ethnic reconciliation following the country’s long-running civil conflict which ended in 2009. During her 2016 visit to Sri Lanka, the UN Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues was informed that the incidence of religiously motivated violent crimes had significantly decreased since the unity Government took office. But issues remain. In her January 2017 report on Sri Lanka, the UN Special Rapporteur found that some within minority religious groups continue to face challenges, including some reported difficulties in obtaining places of worship, particularly for members of smaller Christian and Muslim denominations, and reported incidents of destruction of religious property. Since that report, there has been a spate of attacks against the Muslim community (burning of mosques and businesses and hate speech) incited by extremist Sinhala-Buddhist groups. Australia continues to closely monitor human rights in Sri Lanka. In June 2017, the High Commissioner and other diplomats visited a mosque to meet leaders of Sri Lanka’s Muslim community and to register Australia’s concerns at the recent attacks. The visit received wide media coverage. We have supported inter-faith activities in Sri Lanka through our aid program. Between 2014 and 2016, we funded international NGO Search for Common Ground’s Faith Leaders for Peace Building in Sri Lanka project. The project created space for inter-ethnic dialogue in Sri Lanka by strengthening relationships between religious leaders. In 2016-17, Australia provided assistance to the Office for National Unity and Reconciliation and Sri Lanka’s Human Rights Commission.

Page 87 of 143 SUDAN Sudan’s 2005 Interim National Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, including the right to worship or assemble in connection with religious practice or belief. It also states that legislation is based on Islamic law. This basis is strictly enforced, with Sharia principles underpinning much legislation ‘including the 1991 Criminal Code, the 1991 Personal Status Law of Muslims, and the many state-level public order laws’.178 ‘The population of the Republic of Sudan is estimated at 35.5 million, of which roughly 96 percent are Muslim. The majority adheres to Sunni Islam, but there is a significant Sufi population and also small communities of Shi’a, Salafists and Republican Brothers. Christians reside mainly in the north, and account for another 3%. Only 1% of the population follows indigenous religions. The US Department of State believes, but cannot confirm, that a very small Jewish community remains in the Khartoum area.’179 Apostasy, blasphemy and conversion to religions other than Islam are illegal. Acts that encourage apostasy, including proselytising, are criminalised, and atheism is considered a form of apostasy. The Public Order Law prohibits offences of honour, reputation and public morality in accordance with Islamic law. However, Muslim and Christian minorities, including Copts, hold seats in the National Assembly and work in government and worship freely. Australia has raised religious freedom issues with Sudan in instances involving highly publicised cases of conversion or espionage. In these cases we have encouraged the Sudanese authorities to deal with such cases in accordance with the 2005 Interim Constitution, reduce trial delays where possible, and consider the effect of such cases on Sudan’s international reputation. The Australian Embassy in Cairo has engaged with Sudan’s Islamic Leadership to encourage the continued promotion of moderate Islam, for which Sudan is well known. Australia also raised religious freedom issues during Sudan’s Universal Periodic Review in May 2016.180

178 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 54. 179 EU Intergroup Report 2015, page 54. 180 See Attachment L for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council.

Page 88 of 143 SYRIA The Syrian Constitution instructs that the state shall respect all religions and ensure freedom to perform rituals that do not prejudice public order. Syria has no official state religion; however, the Constitution states that Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major source of legislation. Membership of certain religious organisations (including those considered by the regime to be ‘Salafist’) is illegal and punishable by penalties including death. The regime does not recognise the status of Muslims who convert to other religions, but converts to Islam are officially recognised. Religious affiliation is documented on birth certificates. Before the beginning of the current conflict, 74 per cent of the Syrian population was thought to be Sunni Muslim. Minority religious groups included other Muslim sects (i.e. , Ismailis and Shi’a (around 13 per cent)), Christians (around 10 per cent), and Yazidis (around 80,000). The Syrian conflict, which began in 2011, between regime and opposition forces is considered to be politically-motivated rather than religiously-motivated (unlike the operations of ISIS and other extremist groups, such as Jabhat al-Nusra). However, civilians from every political, religious and ethnic group have been affected by the conflict. Civilians have been subjected to significant and sustained violence based on their location and their perceived political affiliation, which is often seen as being informed by religious identification (e.g. Alawites perceived to be supportive of the Alawite-dominated regime). The regime and pro-regime forces have targeted Sunnis on the basis of their perceived affiliation with ISIS. In some parts of the country, Sunni-majority populations have been killed, arrested and physically abused under the guise of countering terrorism. ISIS has targeted both Shi’a and other non-Sunni religious groups on the basis of their religious affiliation. There have been brutal attacks by ISIS against Christians, Yazidis and other minorities, as well as Sunnis who refuse to recognise ISIS’ authority. As outlined in the Iraq section of this report, Australia has consistently condemned the serious international crimes committed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Australia regularly raises the persecution of minorities by ISIS, including religious groups like the Yazidis, in the UN and other international fora.

Page 89 of 143 THAILAND Thailand’s population is approximately 67 million, with 96 per cent ethnic Thais and others, including Burmese and Malay, accounting for the remainder. Around 94 percent of the population practice Buddhism; Islam (mostly Malay) accounts for about five percent. The Thai Government officially recognises Buddhist, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and Hindu religious groups. The right to freedom of religion has been guaranteed in successive Thai constitutions, although with reservations in favour of the security of the Thai state, public order and good morals. There is no official state . There is a constitutional requirement that the monarch be Buddhist. Thailand’s most recent constitution, which was promulgated on 6 April 2017, contains a provision requiring the state to establish ‘measures and mechanisms to prevent the desecration of Buddhism in any form and encourage the participation of all Buddhists in the application of such measures and mechanisms’. When first announced, this prompted some public concern from minority religious groups. In response, on 22 August 2016, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha issued an order pledging to protect all religions that are recognised by the Thai state, announced the establishment of a panel on the protection of all religions, and sought to mobilise support amongst Thais towards this effort. Religious groups are required by the state to register, but such a requirement has not resulted in restrictions for non-recognised or non-registered religious groups to practice freely. Since 1984, the Government has not recognised any new religious groups, however it is reported that practice has not restricted the activities of new religious groups.181 The exception to this appears to be Falun Gong. Following lengthy legal proceedings, Falun Gong were allowed to register legally in Thailand as a non-profit foundation or association in 2015. However, media reports have since highlighted continued incidents of harassment of Falun Gong adherents by military officials.182 There are pockets of ethnic and religious tension in Thailand. The ethnic-nationalist conflict in the southern border provinces and the media’s focus on international ‘Islamic extremism’ has contributed to these tensions, displayed through protests against the building of mosques and halal factories in some communities. But Australia did not make any specific recommendations on freedom of religion or belief during Thailand’s recent Universal Periodic Review appearance in May 2016. Australia raises human rights concerns with Thailand where appropriate, generally at ministerial and senior official levels.

181 State Department Report 2015, Thailand Chapter. 182 State Department Report 2015, Thailand Chapter.

Page 90 of 143 TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Trinidad and Tobago enjoys a high level of religious freedom and harmony. The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and prohibits discrimination based on religion.183 The Government generally respects this right in practice and official ceremonies and cultural functions usually commence with an interfaith prayer. According to a 2011 estimate by Trinidad and Tobago’s Central Statistical Office, 21.6 percent of the population is Roman Catholic, 26.2 percent Protestant (including 5.7 percent Anglican, 12 percent Pentecostal or evangelical, 4.1 percent Seventh-day Adventist, 2.5 percent Presbyterian or Congregational, 1.2 percent Baptist, and 0.7 percent Methodist), 1.5 percent Jehovah’s Witnesses, 18.2 percent Hindu, and 5 percent Muslim. Traditional Caribbean religious groups with African roots include the Spiritual Baptists (sometimes called Shouter Baptists) representing 5.7 percent of the population and the Orisha at 0.9 percent. Other religious minority groups include Rastafarians, Buddhists, Jews and Bahai’s.184 Trinidad and Tobago law prohibits acts that would offend or insult another person or group on the basis of race, origin, or religion, or which would incite racial or religious hatred. The law also provides for prosecution for the desecration of any place of worship. Government officials routinely speak publicly against religious intolerance and do not publicly favour any religion. Judicial review is available to those who claim to be victims of religious discrimination. The Government observes the following religious holidays as national holidays: Good Friday (Christian), Easter Monday (Christian), Corpus Christi (Christian), Christmas (Christian), Diwali (Hindu), and Eid al-Fitr (Muslim). The Government subsidises both non-denominational and religiously affiliated public schools (for example, schools operated by Catholic, Hindu, and Islamic groups). There is a time allocated each week when any religious group with an adherent in the school may provide an instructor. Attendance at these classes is voluntary, and the religious groups represented are diverse. Parents may enrol their children in private schools for religious reasons. Trinidad has had cases of Islamist extremism. For example, in 1990 a radical Muslim group attempted a coup that lasted six days before it failed and, in 2012, a Trinidadian man was sentenced to life in prison for his role in a plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport. In response, the Government has introduced legislative amendments to criminalise membership in extremist organisations, including Daesh. The amendments include criminal penalties for people who travel to declared geographical areas where terrorist activities are taking place or where a listed entity is engaged in terrorist activity, without prior notice and approval from the authorities. Some Muslim groups have objected to the proposed changes. Cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and public figures represent every major religious group and denomination and the broad spectrum of religious beliefs in the country. They often participate in the ceremonies and holidays of other religions and actively advocate religious tolerance and harmony. Given the legal protections and positive community attitudes towards religious freedom, Australia has not had cause to raise religious freedoms with Trinidad and Tobago. However, we have engaged with faith communities to address other human rights issues such as gender based violence, the abolition of the death penalty and LGBTI rights.

183 State Department Report 2015, Trinidad and Tobago Chapter. 184 State Department Report 2015, Trinidad and Tobago Chapter.

Page 91 of 143 TURKEY Turkey is a secular state. Its Constitution is based on the French model which imposes a strict separation of religion and state. The population of Turkey is estimated at 79.4 million people. The Turkish government estimates that this population is 99 per cent Muslim, mainly of the Sunni tradition. (Other sources argue that the population of non-Muslim religious people is larger than 1 percent of the population.)185 Turkey is home to a number of minority religious groups, including a large population of Alevi Muslims. is a branch of Shi’a Islam that is practiced in Turkey and the Balkans among ethnic Turks and Kurds.186 Estimates of the size of the Alevi population vary from 10 to 30 percent of the Turkish population. Other minority religious groups present in Turkey include: Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christians; Roman Catholics; Russian Orthodox Christians; Baha’is; Yazidis; Jehovah’s Witnesses; Jews; Protestant denominations; Greek Orthodox Christians; Bulgarian Orthodox; Nestorian; Georgian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox; Syriac Catholic; Armenian Catholic; Anglican; Maronite Christians; and Mormons. It is reported that all religious communities, including the Sunni majority, are subject to restrictions on their capacity to own and maintain places of worship, maintain clergy and offer religious education. These restrictions are considered particularly detrimental to small religious minority groups.187 Non-Muslim minority religions in Turkey are recognised in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. The Treaty guarantees some rights (such as the right to maintain existing religious foundations, build new places of worship, and establish and run religious schools) to the major non-Muslim minorities in Turkey at that time; including the Armenian Apostolic, Greek Orthodox and Jewish communities. Other minority groups not regarded by Turkey as protected by the Treaty of Lausanne The State Religious Affairs Administration (Diyanet) pays for salaries of imams and regulates the operation of religious services. The role of Diyanet is confined to Sunni Islam only while other faiths are not represented or supported. Certain educational institutions were established originally to train and educate imams but due to their religious nature, they serve as an alternative education channel, although they follow a curriculum approved by the Education Ministry. These religious schools again provide Sunni education. Under such circumstances, minority groups do not receive the same recognition and support as Sunnis. The Turkish Government considers Alevism to be ‘a heterodox Muslim sect’. The Government provides no support for Alevi adherents and will not register their places of worship. This may discriminate against the Alevis’ right to manifest their religion or belief.188 The Turkish government expropriated properties belonging to religious minorities in the past. However, there is evidence that in recent years ‘many properties have been returned or financial compensation paid when return was not possible.’189 In 2015, in response to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, Turkey revoked a mandatory requirement to list religious affiliation on national identity cards. However, there is concern that a new model of the national identity card which contains a microchip may have some capacity to store religious affiliation data and that this may lead to discrimination against members of minority faith groups.190 The constitution imposes a requirement for compulsory religious and moral instruction in public schools. The non-Muslim parents can apply for exemptions for their children, however this process requires parents

185 State Department Report 2015, Turkey Chapter. 186 Harvard Divinity School, Religious Project, Alevism. Available at: https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/faq/alevism. 187 USCIRF 2016 Report, Turkey Chapter. 188 USCIRF 2016 Report, Turkey Chapter. State Department Report 2015, Turkey Chapter. 189 USCIRF 2016 Report, Turkey Chapter. 190 USCIRF 2016 Report, Turkey Chapter.

Page 92 of 143 to confirm their own religious affiliation, and it has been suggested that this ‘can lead to societal and teacher discrimination.’ The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that this system is not consistent with international human rights law, but USCIFR reports that the Turkish Government has not yet taken action to address this issue.191 The period September 2013 to January 2017 coincided with a general deterioration in human rights in Turkey, especially freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and freedom of the press. Australia makes representations to the Turkish Government on human rights issues. Australia also raised these issues during Turkey’s Universal Periodic Review appearance in January 2015.192

191 USCIRF 2016 Report, Turkey Chapter. 192 See Attachment M for relevant Australian Statements to processes of the Human Rights Council.

Page 93 of 143 UKRAINE The Ukrainian Constitution protects freedom of religion and belief and provides for the separation of church and state. The law on religion aims to foster the creation of a tolerant society and provide for freedom of conscience and worship. In practice, such tolerance is weakening and practice of some religions has been threatened in parts of Ukraine, particularly those parts of Ukraine occupied by Russian-backed forces.193 Of the approximately 45 million people in Ukraine (including Crimea), 74 per cent self-identify as Christian Orthodox, eight per cent as Greek Catholic, and 11 per cent as non-religious. Others groups include Roman Catholic (1–2 percent), Protestant (1–2 percent) and small communities of Anglicans, Buddhists, Calvinists, Evangelicals, Falun Gong practitioners, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Lutherans, Methodists, Mormons, Pentecostals, Presbyterians, and Seventh-day Adventists. Official census data estimates there are 104,000 Jews in Ukraine, but local Jewish leaders estimate the number of people of Jewish heritage to be as high as 370,000. Government agencies and independent think-tanks estimate the Muslim population to be 500,000, although some Islamic leaders suggest the number could be as high as two million. After enjoying a relatively prosperous religious revival since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, religious expression and assembly have come under pressure since the beginning of hostilities in 2014 between Ukrainian Government forces and Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine, and following Russia’s annexation of Crimea. The UN Monitoring Mission to Ukraine and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) have consistently reported concerns of violations of freedom of religion or belief in both Ukraine and territories controlled by separatist groups.194 Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s Orthodox population has been divided by an ethno-political schism between the Moscow Patriarchate (UCO-MP), affiliated to the Kremlin-allied Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), and the Ukrainian nationalist ambitions of the Kyiv Patriarchate (UOC-KP). The number of Ukrainians aligning with the UCO-KP has grown considerably since the outbreak of conflict in eastern Ukraine. The conflict has spurred violence between the two sets of believers. UOC-MP adherents allege that police inaction, implicit support from officials and businessmen, and support from radical groups (including the right-wing nationalist Right Sector party) have emboldened the UOC-KP to seize UOC-MP buildings and assets. Conversely, in eastern (and some parts of southern) Ukraine, UOC-KP members (as well as adherents of other faiths) claim similar discrimination at the hands of the UOC-MP and militants of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic. Reports of attacks upon and intimidation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and other ‘non-traditional’ faiths have increased in recent years. Anti-Semitic vandalism and isolated incidents of violence against Jewish communities have also been reported during the reporting period in government and separatist-controlled areas. The majority of Crimea’s 2.5 million people adhere to the UOC-MP. Human Rights Organisations report that the UOC-KP and Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church have been subject to significant harassment, intimidation, and detentions since the Russian occupation began.

Crimea’s 300,000 predominantly Sunni Muslims — mostly ethnic Crimean Tatars — constitute Ukraine’s largest Muslim population. They have been subjected to significant oppression since Russia’s occupation of

193 State Department Report 2015, Ukraine Chapter. 194 For example: 12th OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August to 15 November 2015, pages 15-16; and 16th OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August to 15 November 2016, page 42 (both available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/UAReports.aspx). 7th OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 November 2014, page 17 (available at: http://www.un.org.ua/en/information-centre/news/1870).

Page 94 of 143 Crimea in 2014. Mosques and madrasahs (Islamic educational institutions) have reportedly been raided by authorities and desecrated. Islamic figures have reported being detained and harassed, and repeatedly searched for suspected extremist literature. Russian-backed authorities in Crimea have reportedly forbidden Crimean Tatars from assembling to celebrate Eid al Fitr in recent years. In October 2016, authorities raided the houses of Crimean Tatars who had recently returned from performing Haj. Several Crimean Tatars have been arrested as alleged members of Hizb ut-Tahrir. In September 2016, Russia’s Supreme Court judged that the authorities’ ban of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (the single highest executive-representative body of Crimean Tatars) was legitimate on the basis that the Mejlis were an ‘extremist organisation’. While not a religious body, the Mejlis represent a mobilising force for a predominantly Muslim Crimean minority, thus threatening Russia’s near-complete control of Crimean politics. In April 2014, former Chairman of the Mejlis, Mustafa Dzhemilev, was banned from entering Russian territory (including Crimea) for five years; Russia issued an arrest warrant for him after he attempted to return to Crimea in May 2014.195 Australia raises human rights issues of relevance in Ukraine, where appropriate, and conducts advocacy on social inclusion and tolerance. We support efforts by our partner countries (including Canada, the UK, and the US) to promote freedom of religion or belief. We also support UN, and particularly OHCHR, processes and monitoring of the human rights situation in Ukraine.

195 For further information: 12th OHCHR Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 16 August to 15 November 2015, pages 42-43 (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/ENACARegion/Pages/UAReports.aspx).

Page 95 of 143 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a country relatively tolerant of diverse religious practices. The UAE Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise religious worship in accordance with established customs, on condition that it does not conflict with public policy or violate public morals. The Constitution declares that Islam is the state religion and defines all citizens as Muslims. The law permits Muslims to proselytise, but denies Muslims the freedom to change religion, and prohibits activities aimed at converting Muslims to other religions.196 The Constitution also stipulates all persons are equal before the law, without discrimination on grounds of religious belief. Social attitudes are tolerant towards non-Islamic religions and beliefs, though conversion from Islam is rare, and there is some evidence of low-level anti-Semitism.197 Approximately 11 percent of the resident population of the UAE are citizens, of whom more than 85 percent are Sunni Muslims, according to media reports. The large majority of the remainder of UAE citizens are Shia Muslims. Of the estimated 89 percent of residents who are non-citizens, the majority come from South and Southeast Asia, although there are substantial numbers from the Middle East, Europe, , and . No official statistics are available for the breakdown between Sunni and Shia Muslims among non-citizen residents; media estimates suggest less than 20 percent of the non-citizen Muslim population is Shia. Of the total population (both citizen and non-citizen), the 2005 census found 76 percent to be Muslim, 9 percent Christian, and 15 percent from other religious groups comprising mainly Hindus and Buddhists, but also including Parsis, Bahais, Druze, Sikhs, Ahmadi Muslims, Ismaili Muslims, Dawoodi Bohra Muslims, and Jews. These latter groups together constitute less than five percent of the total population, and are made up almost entirely of non-citizens. Non-Islamic religions are generally free to worship according to their respective creeds, with the support and cooperation of the authorities and without fear of persecution or attack. The Government closely monitors and controls most Sunni mosques, and the Friday sermon is set by the Chief Imam. The Authorities have a zero tolerance approach to Islamic extremism and have designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation. The Government has established ‘Hedayah’, an international centre for training and research to counter violent extremism, which has hosted several large gatherings of government and non-government experts. The Australian Government is a cooperation partner with Hedayah. The Government follows a policy of tolerance toward non-Muslim religious groups and in practice interferes very little in their religious activities, although there are some restrictions. The UAE promotes itself as a country tolerant of diverse religious practices. While the Government does not require formal licensing or registration for non-Muslim religious groups, it monitors their growth and development through land grants. Permission to build places of worship is granted on a case-by-case basis when congregations outgrow smaller private facilities. The Christian community in the UAE is growing. Christians are able to worship in churches; in 2005 there were 24 Christian churches in the UAE, while in 2015 there were approximately 40 according to figures from the US State Department and the UAE Government. A Hindu Temple has been available in for at least 20 years servicing the Indian community (more than 2.6 million strong), and in 2015 the Government allotted land to build the first Hindu temple in Abu Dhabi. There is no synagogue in the UAE. Given the legal protections available regarding religious freedom, Australian has not made, nor has had cause to make, any representations on religious freedoms with the Government of the UAE during the period September 2013 to January 2017. However, Australia’s Embassy in Abu Dhabi has supported a range of activities that foster inter-faith tolerance and cultural diversity.

196 State Department Report 2015, UAE Chapter. 197 State Department Report 2015, UAE Chapter.

Page 96 of 143 UNITED KINGDOM The UK is strongly committed to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) domestically, bilaterally and in multilateral fora. The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) 2015 Human Rights and Democracy Report states that societies which protect FoRB are more tolerant and ultimately more likely to be prosperous and stable.198 The population of the UK is estimated at 64.1 million people. According to the 2011, census approximately ‘59.3 percent of the population in England and Wales is Christian, comprising the Church of England (Anglican), the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches, and unaffiliated Christian groups. Of the remaining population, 4.8 percent identified themselves as Muslim; 1.5 percent as Hindu, 0.8 percent as Sikh, 0.5 percent as Jewish and 0.4 Buddhist. There are approximately 137,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the UK. Scotland’s population is estimated to comprise 54 percent Christian, 1.4 per cent Muslim and less than 1 percent other religions Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, and Buddhists. Data for Northern Ireland indicates that 41 percent of the population is Catholic, 41.5 percent Protestant, and less than 1 percent various non-Christian religious groups. A large number of people in the UK choose either not to indicate a religion, or actively indicate having no religion (England 25 percent of the population; Scotland over 36 percent; Northern Ireland 17 percent)’.199 The Church of England is legally established as the state religion of England. There are no state religions in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. However, the Church of Scotland is Scotland’s national church.200 The UK’s Sovereign must be a member of the Church of England. UK laws and policies protect religious freedom and the UK Government enforces these protections. The UK Human Rights Act (1998) provides for freedom of religion, and the Equality Acts (2006 and 2010) ban discrimination based on religion. It should be noted that in Northern Ireland discrimination on the basis of religion is only legislatively prohibited in employment, but legislation in the rest of the UK covers any religiously-based discrimination.201 While Australia has not made any representations to the UK on religious freedom between September 2013 and January 2017, we have worked closely with the UK to support its efforts to uphold this human right. For example in October 2016, the Australian High Commission in London participated in a two-day international conference organised by the FCO’s Human Rights and Democracy Department on the topic Preventing Violent Extremism by building inclusive and plural societies: How Freedom of Religion or Belief can help. The conference explored ways to build resilience against extremism, and concluded that societies which protected FoRB might be more resilient to extremist narratives, and identified opportunities for collaboration. The UK Parliament is quite active in the promotion of FoRB, and Australia is supportive of its activities. In December 2016, a UK Parliamentary event considered the question Are Human Rights and Islam Compatible? . The Australian High Commission attended this event which: highlighted the wide range of beliefs that Muslims regarded as ‘Islam’; how these beliefs were viewed by non-Muslims in the context of human rights within democratic and secular societies; and explored the benefits of religious literacy and discussed how we could work towards a more culturally cohesive society. In addition to supporting the UK’s efforts to promote and protect FoRB, Australia also works with the London based Commonwealth Secretariat on these issues.

198 Government of UK, Human Rights and Democracy Report 2015 (available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/human-rights-and-democracy-report-2015). 199 State Department Report 2015, United Kingdom Chapter. 200 State Department Report 2015, United Kingdom Chapter. 201 State Department Report 2015, United Kingdom Chapter.

Page 97 of 143 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The United States has a history of commitment to religious freedom and tolerance. The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and prevents Congress from making a law establishing a state religion. The United States was the first national government to have no official state- endorsed religion. While the share of US adults who describe themselves as Christian has been declining since the 1960s, the majority of the general population identify with a Christian faith. A 2014 study by the Pew Research Center revealed 70.6 percent of the American population identified themselves as Christian, with 46.5 percent professing attendance at a variety of churches that could be considered Protestant, and 20.8 percent professing Roman Catholic beliefs. 202 Approximately 5.9 percent of the population identified with Non- Christian faiths, other world religions, or other faiths, with Judaism and Islam representing the two largest groups. Approximately 38.6 percent identified as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”. While atheism is growing in the US and has doubled in the past ten years to three per cent, according to a 2016 study by Pew, more than half of Americans would refuse to vote for an atheist as president . There are no atheists in the US Congress and only one member, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz), describes herself as religiously unaffiliated. There is active debate at the state and federal level about the right to religious freedom and the interaction with the rights of minority groups, including the rights of the LGBTI community and women. At the Executive level, President Donald Trump indicated that he would eliminate the Johnson Amendment, a law established in the 1950s (sponsored by then-Senator Lyndon Johnson) that prevents tax-exempt organisations such as churches or educational institutions from endorsing political candidates. ‘I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution’, President Trump said on 2 February 2017 at the National Prayer Breakfast, a high-profile event that brought together faith leaders, politicians and dignitaries. President Trump signed an Executive Order ‘Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty’ on 4 May 2017. He said the Executive Order was in fulfilment of a campaign pledge to ‘take action’ on religious liberty. The accompanying Proclamation reaffirmed the right of Americans to not only ‘pray and worship according to their consciences, but to practice their faith in their homes, schools, charities, and businesses in private and in the public square free from government coercion, discrimination, or persecution’. Human rights groups have decided not to take any legal action as the Executive Order makes no discernible change to the law, however, they have expressed concern it opens the door to future policy shifts protecting religious freedoms. President Trump declared May 4 as a National Day of Prayer. The Executive Order also directs the Secretaries of the Treasury, Labor and Health Departments to consider issuing amended regulations to address conscience-based objections to the preventative-care mandate (which under the Affordable Care Act requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans). The Affordable Health Care Act already has automatic exemptions for churches, but not schools and hospitals, and has been the issue of multiple long-running lawsuits. Advocating in favour of the right to religious freedom is a key element of US foreign policy. The United States is a strong and active international advocate for Freedom of Religion or Belief, and its position on this issue is consistent with its status as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This includes the production by the US Department of State of the annual US International Religious Freedom Report, which describes the status of religious freedom in every country – a key resource on the state of FoRB globally. Australia and the US work in partnership to promote religious freedom globally. In recent years, this has included contact with State Department’s Office of Religion and Global Affairs, Office of International

202 Pew Research Center, Religious Landscape Study. Available at: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/.

Page 98 of 143 Religious Freedoms, Special Advisor for Holocaust Issues, Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, Special Representative for Muslim Communities, Ambassador for International Religious Freedoms, and Special Representative for Religion and Global Affairs, and the separate United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Page 99 of 143 VIETNAM According to official statistics, 27 per cent of the population, or approximately 24 million people, follow a particular religion or belief in Vietnam. Among these are over 12 million Buddhists, 6.7 million Catholics, 2.5 million Cao Dais, 1.5 million Protestants, 1.3 million Hoa Hao Buddhists, 80,000 Muslims, 7,000 Baha’is and 57,000 Hindus, as well as a number of adherents to other faiths. Vietnam recognises 15 religions and 40 religious organisations. Though only 27 per cent of the population officially identifies as religious, a large number adhere to some degree to a religion, particularly Buddhism, without officially declaring their faith. The religious freedom environment is gradually improving, but religion remains heavily regulated and efforts to worship outside State-sanctioned religious organisations continue to be suppressed. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the Vietnamese Constitution (2013). The Constitution also provides that no-one can ‘misuse belief and religions to contravene the law and state policies’. The Government is however highly wary about religious groups undermining state power and has responded harshly when it is perceived that religious groups are acting against Communist Party of Vietnam principles and power. This is particularly noticeable at the provincial level. A number of major religious organisations are restricted from practising in Vietnam, including the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam and the Traditional Hoa Hao Buddhist organisation. Vietnam continues to imprison people for peacefully expressing their views, forming associations, demonstrating or practising their religious beliefs outside of State-sanctioned entities and processes. Engagement by activists and religious organisations with foreigners remains sensitive and closely monitored. Those practicing officially sanctioned religions remain generally able to do so without interference. Nevertheless, in a limited number of cases individuals, especially those from minority or unrecognised religions, continue to be imprisoned or detained for reasons related to their religious activity or advocacy. Independent religious activity remains illegal. There have been reports of harassment of listed members of religious groups. In these instances, a range of human rights restrictions occur, including the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, in addition to the right to freedom of religion or belief. Over recent years, Vietnam’s record on religious freedom has generally continued to improve. The Vietnamese Government recognises 14 official religions, up from six in 2007, and relations with mainstream religious groups including Buddhists, Catholics and Protestants continue to improve. The Vietnamese Government agreed to a visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief in July 2014 who identified some positive improvements in realisation of freedom of religion and belief, but also a number of serious concerns. His visit was allegedly subject to significant interference by authorities.203 A new Law on Belief and Religion was passed in the second sitting of the 14th National Assembly (November 2016), providing modest improvements to the restrictive regulatory environment for religious practice. These include:  reducing the amount of time a religious organisation must carry out religious activities as a condition for national-level recognition (from 23 years to five years)  explicitly recognising certain rights to religious freedom for prisoners  establishing ‘non-profit entity’ legal personality for religious institutions (so the institution can open bank accounts, purchase land, and own their houses of worship)  shifting the regulation process in multiple areas (e.g. attendance at seminary, ordination, hiring of clergy) from an ‘approval system’ to a less burdensome notification system (i.e. notification to the

203 A/HRC/28/66/Add.2: Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner Bielefeldt – Addendum Mission to Viet Nam (21 to 31 July 2017) (available at: http://spinternet.ohchr.org/ Layouts/SpecialProceduresInternet/Download.aspx?SymbolNo=A%2fHRC%2f28%2f66%2fAdd.2&La ng=en).

Page 100 of 143 government by a religious entity allows it to move forward with such activities, without explicit government approval), and  shortening required deadlines for government responses to requests for approval in a number of situations. During Vietnam’s last Universal Periodic Review (2014), it accepted a number of recommendations relating to freedom of religion including to:  adjust the regulatory and legal framework to comply with international human rights standards in order to guarantee freedom of religion;  adopt further measures aimed at better guaranteeing freedom of religion, particularly by eliminating bureaucratic and administration obstacles, which hinder the activities carried out by religious communities and groups; and  reduce administrative obstacles and registration requirements applicable to peaceful religious activities by registered and non-registered religious groups in order to guarantee freedom of religion or belief.204 To date, Vietnam has taken steps to implement some, but not all, of these recommendations. Australia and Vietnam hold the annual Human Rights Dialogues. The 13th Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue was held in Hanoi on 4 August 2016. Prior to the Dialogue, DFAT held consultations with civil society organisations. NGOs and civil society expressed keen interest in Australia’s bilateral Human Rights Dialogues and the human rights situation in Vietnam, including freedom of religion or belief. The Australian public continues to raise concerns with the Foreign Minister and the Australian Government. Issues of concern are addressed through the exchange of views at the Australia-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue, and representations to Vietnamese authorities.

204 A full list of UPR recommendations received by Vietnam can be accessed online: https://www.upr-info.org/en.

Page 101 of 143 ATTACHMENT A

OTHER TREATY OBLIGATIONS Articles that directly reference religion in human rights (and related) treaties that are legally binding on Australia.

Instrument Clause Application to Australia

The Charter of the Article 1(3): The UN United Nations Charter is The Purposes of the United Nations are…to achieve (1945) binding on international co-operation in solving international problems all member of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, States. and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion

Page 102 of 143 International Article 18: Ratified by Covenant on Civil Australia - 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, and Political Rights 13 August conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to (1966) 1980 have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. 2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Article 2: 1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Article 4: 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

Article 20(2): Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 24: Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin,

Page 103 of 143 property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.

Article 27: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.

International Article 2: Ratified by Covenant on Australia - The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to Economic, Social 10 guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant and Cultural Rights December will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, (1966) 1975 colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Article 13(1): The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. Article 13(3): The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Page 104 of 143 Convention on the Article 5: Ratified by Elimination of All Australia - …States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial Forms of Racial 30 discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of Discrimination September everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or (1965) 1975 ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:…(d) Other civil rights, in particular:…(vii) The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion...

Convention on the Article 2(1): Ratified by Rights of the Child Australia - 17 States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in (1989) December 1990 the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. Article 14(1): States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 14(3): Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Article 30: In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.

Convention on the Preamble Paragraph P: Ratified by Rights of Persons Australia - 17 July Concerned about the difficult conditions faced by persons with Disabilities 2008 with disabilities who are subject to multiple or aggravated (2006) forms of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic, indigenous or social origin, property, birth, age or other status,

Page 105 of 143 Convention Relating Article 3: Ratified by to the Status of Australia - The Contracting States shall apply the provisions of this Refugees (1951) Convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. Article 4: The Contracting State shall accord to refugees within their territories treatment at least as favourable as that accorded to their nationals with respect to freedom to practise their religion and freedom as regards the religious education of their children. Article 33: No Contracting State shall expel or return (' refouler ') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

Page 106 of 143 ATTACHMENT B

DEDICATED FORB RESOLUTIONS – HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL & UNGA THIRD COMMITTEE

September 2013 – January 2017

Session Number Title Main Sponsor Additional Co-sponsors

UNGA68 A/RES/68/170 Freedom of religion or belief Lithuania Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Third Committee Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, on behalf of (October – Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech European November 2013) Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Union France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay

UNGA68 A/RES/68/169 Combating intolerance, Egypt on Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, New Zealand, Thailand, Uruguay Third Committee negative stereotyping, behalf of the (October – OIC stigmatization, discrimination, November 2013) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

Page 107 of 143 25th Session of the A/HRC/RES/25/12 Freedom of religion or belief European Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Human Rights Union and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde Canada, Chile, Costa Council (March Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, 2014) Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay

25th Session of the A/HRC/RES/25/34 Combating intolerance, Pakistan on Australia, Bolivia, Indonesia, Nicaragua, Thailand, Uruguay, Human Rights negative stereotyping, behalf of the Venezuela Council (March OIC stigmatization, discrimination, 2014) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

Page 108 of 143 UNGA69 A/RES/69/175 Freedom of religion or belief Italy on behalf Albania, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Third Committee of European Austria, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, (October – Union Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech November 2014) Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay.

UNGA69 A/RES/69/174 Combating intolerance, Egypt on Australia, Ghana, New Zealand, Rwanda, Uruguay, Venezuela Third Committee negative stereotyping, behalf of the (Bolivarian Republic of) (October – stigmatization, discrimination, OIC November 2014) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

Page 109 of 143 28th Session of the A/HRC/RES/28/18 Freedom of religion or belief European Albania, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Human Rights Union Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Council (March Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El 2015) Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay

28th Session of the A/HRC/RES/28/29 Combating intolerance, Pakistan on Angola, Australia, Bahrain, Colombia, Cabo Verde, Indonesia, Human Rights negative stereotyping, behalf of the Tajikistan, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Uruguay Council (March stigmatization, discrimination, OIC 2015) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

UNGA70 A/RES/70/158 Freedom of religion or belief Luxembourg Third Committee on behalf of (October – European November 2015) Union

UNGA70 A/RES/70/157 Combating intolerance, Egypt on Third Committee negative stereotyping, behalf of the (October – stigmatization, discrimination, OIC November 2015) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

Page 110 of 143 31st Session of the A/HRC/RES/31/16 Freedom of religion or belief European Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Human Rights Union and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cabo Verde, Canada, Chad, Council (March Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, 2016) Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Uruguay

31st Session of the A/HRC/RES/31/26 Combating intolerance, Pakistan on Australia, Argentina, Cabo Verde, Honduras, Indonesia, Sri Human Rights negative stereotyping, behalf of the Lanka, Turkey Council (March stigmatization, discrimination, OIC 2016) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

UNGA71 A/RES/71/195 Combating intolerance, Egypt on Australia, Azerbaijan, and United Republic of Tanzania Third Committee negative stereotyping, behalf of the (October – stigmatization, discrimination, OIC November 2016) incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief

Page 111 of 143 UNGA71 A/RES/71/196 Freedom of religion or belief Lithuania Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Third Committee Belgium, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, on behalf of (October – Canada, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, European November 2016) Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Union Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America

Page 112 of 143 ATTACHMENT C

REPORTS OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF, SEPTEMBER 2013 TO JANUARY 2017

Report to the UNGA68 Third Committee (October/November 2013) Report Number: A/68/290 Topic: This report discusses the intersection and compatibility between FoRB and gender equality (including sexual and reproductive rights and sexuality education). Available online: http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/68/documentslist.shtml Report to the 25th session of the Human Rights Council (March 2014) Report Number: A/HRC/25/58 Topic: This report discusses tackling manifestations of collective religious hatred. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session25/Pages/ListReports.aspx Report to the UNGA69 Third Committee (October/November 2014) Report Number: A/69/261 Topic: This report discusses eliminating religious intolerance and discrimination in the workplace. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Pages/HRreportstothe69thsessionGA.aspx Report to the 28th session of the Human Rights Council (March 2015) Report Number: A/HRC/28/66 Topic: This report discusses forms of violence carried out in the name of religion, and the importance of countering ideas of ‘religious violence’. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session28/Pages/ListReports.aspx Report to the UNGA70 Third Committee (October/November 2015) Report Number: A/70/286 Topic: This report discusses the rights of the child and of parents in relation to FoRB. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/newyork/Pages/GA70thSession.aspx Report to the 31st session of the Human Rights Council (March 2016) Report Number: A/HRC/31/18 Topic: This report discusses the intersection and compatibility between FoRB and Freedom of Expression. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session31/Pages/ListReports.aspx Report to the UNGA71 Third Committee (October/November 2016) Report Number: A/71/269 Topic: This report discusses a broad range of violations of FoRB globally, the causes and variables. Available online: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/Annual.aspx

Page 113 of 143 ATTACHMENT D

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL STATEMENTS IN DIALOGUES WITH THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

Note: In order to ensure that all Special Procedures have the opportunity to address the Council annually, a practice has emerged of pairing multiple Special Procedures into Clustered Interactive Dialogues. Each UN member state is afforded an opportunity to engage with one or all of the Special Procedures appearing in a given session. Each Country is allowed 2 minutes speaking time to address any relevant issues. These are public statements which signal a State’s view on the rights in question, and the reports and work of the Special Procedures. ------Human Rights Council – 25th Session Clustered Interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism Australian statement

12 March 2014 Australia thanks the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and the Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism for their reports.205 Australia believes that it is incumbent upon States to ensure that any measures taken or means employed to counter terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, and to ensure accountability whenever there are violations to human rights. A central principle of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is respect for the rule of law. Australia’s national security and counter-terrorism framework is sufficiently robust to adapt to events and developments as they arise. Australia has a comprehensive range of standing and ad hoc oversight, accountability and review measures for counter-terrorism laws. Such measures ensure that Australia’s counter-terrorism laws remain necessary, appropriate and proportionate to the terrorist threat. Australia thanks the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for his report. Australia is home to a diversity of faiths, united by mutual respect and a commitment to democratic traditions. We firmly believe that freedom of religion or belief is a core human right, and that this freedom must be respected in all countries in accordance with human rights law and norms. We believe that freedom of religion or belief must have a broad scope of application and should be implemented in an open and inclusive manner. The understanding of what constitutes a religion or belief can be varied, and this should be respected. Australians are free to choose their religion or belief, to change their religion, or choose to have no religion at all. We are proud of our diverse society. The rights of those belonging to religious minorities must be protected. We share the Special Rapporteur’s concern about patterns of violations against the freedom of religion or belief. We note the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations with regard to public and private media, inter-religious communications and awareness-raising. We would be interested in the Special Rapporteur’s views and

205 The relevant report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion for this statement is A/HRC/25/58 – see Attachment C.

Page 114 of 143 guidance on addressing religious and belief-related stereotypes and misperceptions perpetuated through the media. ------Human Rights Council – 28th Regular Session Australian statement on Statement on freedom of religion or belief 11 March 2015 Australia thanks the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for his report.206 Australia, agrees with the characterisation of violence committed in the name of religion as a complex phenomenon. We condemn such violence and support the recommendation that both state and non-State actors have a role to play in its elimination. Australia acknowledges the role the media can play in both fuelling and diffusing violence in the name of religion. We have witnessed with concern the growing use of social media to spread messages of hate and encourage radicalisation. However, we have also witnessed the use of these platforms to generate tolerance and share collective empathy. In the wake of the Martin Place Siege in December 2014, Community Groups reported a spike in hate messages against Australia’s Muslim community on social media. However, simultaneously a spontaneous based campaign with the hashtag ‘I’ll Ride with You’ (#i’llridewithyou), allowed ordinary Australian’s to publically pledge their support for this same community. Within hours this hashtag had been used in over 120,000 tweets. Australia believes it is vital for the Human Rights Council to maintain a focus on these issues. We ask the Special Rapporteur to comment on how States can encourage private media outlets to portray positive messages that encourage freedom of religion and belief, particularly in the face of violent acts. ------Human Rights Council – 31st Regular Session Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy Australian Statement 9 March 2016 Australia affirms the right of all individuals to freedom of religion or belief, and welcomes the insightful report of the Special Rapporteur.207 Australia is committed to ensuring all individuals are free to choose their religion, and express and practice their religious beliefs, without intimidation and without interference, consistent with other human rights obligations. This includes choosing to change religion, or choosing not to believe. Freedom of religion is a matter of individual choice and not an issue for State sanction or interference. We therefore support the recommendation that States should not require registration of religious affiliation in official documents. We agree that the freedoms of religion or belief and of opinion and expression are closely interrelated and not oppositional. Any attempt to combat discrimination and incitement to violence based on religion or belief should be consistent with both sets of obligations.

206 The relevant report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion for this statement is A/HRC/28/66 – see Attachment C. 207 The relevant report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion for this statement is A/HRC/31/18 – see Attachment C.

Page 115 of 143 Open dialogue between and within communities, both religious and secular, is crucial to fostering understanding and empathy, and to combatting violence and extremism committed in the name of religions.

We would welcome the Special Rapporteur’s reflections on what strategies States could employ to ensure that engagement with, and within, religious communities involves people from different age, gender, ethnic and indigenous groups. Australia also thanks the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy for his report, but regrets being unable to engage with it due to the lateness of publication. ------Human Rights Council – 34th Session Clustered Interactive dialogue with Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence Australian statement

6 March 2017 Australia thanks both Special Rapporteurs for their reports.208 We appreciate the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief’s conclusion that there is scope to clarify this right and address misconceptions. We applaud your commitment to work in consultation with civil society. Australia agrees that freedom of religion or belief belongs to individuals not religious traditions. That it must include the right to change one’s religion, and to choose how to manifest one’s beliefs. That protection is extended broadly to followers of major religions, those who interpret religious traditions differently, minority faith groups, and persons who do not profess any religion or belief. We share your concern about violence carried out in the name of religions, and agree that respect for multiculturalism and freedom of religion contributes to stable, cohesive societies that are more resilient to violent extremism. Promoting respect, non-discrimination and non-violence for all is mutually reinforcing of freedom of religion or belief, not inconsistent. Australia welcomes your observation that no individual has the right to marginalise or oppress others, including women and LGBTI persons, under the guise of manifesting religion. Australia agrees more literacy of freedom of religion is needed, and that National Human Rights Institutions should contribute to this. We would welcome your reflections on best practice by National Human Rights Institutions currently fostering religious tolerance in accordance with their mandates.

208 A/HRC/34/50: Report of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, 17 January 2017 (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/34/50).

Page 116 of 143 ATTACHMENT E

JOINT STATEMENTS ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Joint Statement Supporting the Human Rights of Christians and Other Communities, particularly in the Middle East

Joint Statement to the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council Presented by the Holy See, Russia, and Lebanon 13 March 2015 The Middle East is living in a situation of instability and conflict that recently have been aggravated. The consequences are disastrous for the entire population of the region. The existence of many religious communities is seriously threatened. Christians are now especially affected. These days even their survival is in question. Efforts to build a better future for all are frustrated. We witness a situation where violence, religious and ethnic hatred, fundamentalist radicalism, extremism, intolerance, exclusion, destruction of the social fabric of whole societies and communities are becoming the features of a non-viable political and social model, endangering the very existence of many communities, the Christian community in particular. Millions of people have been either displaced or forced to leave their ancestral lands. Those who stay in conflict zones or areas controlled by terrorist groups live under the permanent threat of human rights violations, repression and abuses. Both communities and individuals fall victim to barbaric acts of violence: they are deprived of homes, driven from their native lands, sold into slavery, killed, beheaded and burnt alive. Dozens of Christian churches, and ancient shrines of all religions have been destroyed. The situation of Christians in the Middle East, a land on which they are living for centuries and have the right to remain, raises deep concerns. There are more and more reasons to fear seriously for the future of the Christian communities that have more than two thousand years of existence in this region, where Christianity has its full place, and began its long history. The positive contributions of Christians in the different countries and societies of the Middle East are well known and creative. We are confident that Governments, all civic and religious leaders in the Middle East, will join us in addressing this alarming situation by building together a culture of peaceful coexistence. In our globalized world, pluralism is an enrichment. The presence and the contributions of ethnic and religious communities reflect an ancient diversity and a common heritage. A future without the different communities in the Middle East will run a high risk of new forms of violence, exclusion, and the absence of peace and development. We call upon the international community to support the deeply rooted historical presence of all ethnic and religious communities in the Middle East. Here world religions appeared, including Christianity. Now, they live a serious existential threat from the so-called "Islamic State" (Daesh) and Alqaida, and affiliated terrorist groups, which disrupts the life of all these communities, and creates the risk of complete disappearance for the Christians. This support will help the countries of the region to rebuild healthy plural societies and sound political systems, ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. Therefore we ask all States to reaffirm their commitment to respect the rights of everyone, in particular the right to freedom of religion, which is enshrined in the fundamental international human rights instruments

Page 117 of 143 Endorsed by: Russian Federation, Lebanon, Holy See, Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Congo, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark, El Salvador, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Mali, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, United Kingdom, United States of America, Venezuela, Zambia.

Concurrent Statement on Freedom of Religion or Belief

Joint Statement to the 28th Session of the Human Rights Council Presented by the US We share the well-founded concern about the situation facing Christians and members of other minority communities in the Middle East expressed in the previous statement. Cognisant that Muslims comprise the majority of victims of terrorism and persecution in the Middle East, we speak separately to underscore that our concern extends to all people facing persecution, without regard to religion or ethnicity. Endorsed by: Australia, France, United Kingdom

Page 118 of 143 ATTACHMENT F

HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DPRK - A SELECTION OF AUSTRALIAN STATEMENTS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Human Rights Council – 25th Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with Commission of Inquiry on the DPRK Australian statement 17 March 2014 Australia welcomes the report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).209 We commend the COI, particularly its Chair Justice Michael Kirby, for its hard work and dedication. The report provides a detailed legal and factual analysis of the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the DPRK. It serves as a reminder to all governments that allegations of human rights violations will be investigated and perpetrators exposed. We applaud the Commission’s approach to its investigations. It has worked impartially, transparently and with due consideration for the protection of victims and witnesses. We also applaud the Commission’s repeated attempts to engage with the DPRK Government and to obtain access to the country. We regret that the DRPK authorities did not respond to those requests. Australia is deeply concerned by the Commission’s findings, including gross violations involving arbitrary detention, torture and executions, restrictions on the freedoms of expression and residence, and discrimination based on gender and social class. Findings of widespread starvation and , appalling conditions in prison camps and abductions of foreign nationals are of particular concern to us. We urge the DPRK to implement the recommendations of the Commission, including those on denial of due process, reform of the prison system, abolition of the death penalty, repatriation of abductees and ending discrimination, and to cooperate with the United Nations and the international community in addressing the human rights situation in the DPRK. We urge other States to implement the Commission’s recommendations, particularly to respect the principle of non-refoulement and abstain from forcibly repatriating any persons from the DPRK, and to provide the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees with access to persons from the DPRK. We also believe that the report deserves the United Nations Security Council’s consideration. Despite the many challenges of engaging with the DPRK Government on these issues, Australia remains firmly committed to pursuing drastic improvements in the human rights situation in the DPRK, through the multilateral system and in our bilateral engagement with the DPRK and other States. ------

209 A/HRC/25/63: Report of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/ReportoftheCommissionofInquiryDPRK.aspx).

Page 119 of 143 Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 19th Session Universal Periodic Review of the DPRK Australian Statement 1 May 2014 Australia welcomes the DPRK’s participation in this Universal Periodic Review as a step by it towards more positive engagement on human rights. Given the DPRK’s lack of substantive cooperation with the UN system and the international community over an extended period, there is much it needs to do to convince the international community it is serious about addressing its appalling human rights record. We remain gravely troubled by reports of gross, systematic and widespread human rights violations in the DPRK, particularly reports of large numbers of persons detained in prison camps in harsh conditions, and by the prevalence in those camps of abuses, including arbitrary executions, forced labour and torture. Australia remains disappointed by the DPRK’s refusal to grant access to the Commission of Inquiry. Australia strongly supports the Commission’s call for accountability for those responsible for crimes against humanity in the DPRK. Australia recommends the DPRK implement the Commission’s recommendations, including those on denial of due process, reform of the prison system, abolition of the death penalty and return of abductees to their homelands. Australia recommends the DPRK work with the international community to align its criminal justice system with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international human rights instruments. Restrictions on freedom of thought and expression, as well as ongoing institutionalised discrimination, are of particular concern to Australia. Australia recommends the DRPK allow the establishment of independent newspapers and other media; allow its citizens to access the Internet and international media; and abolish compulsory indoctrination sessions. Australia recommends the DPRK take immediate measures to end discrimination against its citizens for the alleged sins of their grandparents under the songbun system; ensure gender equality in practice; and address violence against women and girls. Australia urges the DPRK to demonstrate a genuine willingness to improve its people’s lives by engaging more positively and openly with the international community, including by allowing the UN and other multilateral agencies full access to the country to carry out their humanitarian activities.

Page 120 of 143 ATTACHMENT G

HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN - A SELECTION OF AUSTRALIAN STATEMENTS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Human Rights Council - 28th Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Iran Australian Statement 16 March 2015 Australia welcomes the reports of the Secretary-General and the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the opportunity to participate in this dialogue with the Special Rapporteur. Australia welcomes Iran’s engagement with the universal periodic review process and encourages Iran to accept the recommendations of its second review. Australia remains deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Iran. Australia urges Iran to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, noting the continuing high rate of executions, including of minors. Australia remains concerned about the ongoing intimidation and arbitrary arrest of human rights defenders, political activists, journalists and lawyers. Australia welcomes the release of some journalists in 2014, but calls on Iran to release all prisoners of conscience. We urge Iran to respect detainees’ human rights, ensure that national laws support the independence of lawyers, and ensure all trials are conducted fairly. Australia remains concerned about the mistreatment of ethnic and religious minorities, including Ahwazi Arabs, Baha’is, Balochs, Christians and Kurds. Women remain subject to entrenched discrimination in law and practice. We urge Iran to take steps to ensure equality, and uphold the freedom of belief and religion. Australia encourages Iran to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to engage more fully with UN human rights mechanisms, including by enabling the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. Question: How does the Special Rapporteur see Iran could progress the issue of ensuring fair trials, particularly with regard to activists, lawyers, journalists, and religious and ethnic minorities who peacefully exercise internationally recognised rights? ------Human Rights Council – 31st Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Iran Australian Statement 14 March 2016 Australia welcomes the opportunity to participate in this dialogue on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Page 121 of 143 Australia welcomes Foreign Minister Zarif’s comment in London on 4 February that a national citizens’ rights agenda would be issued soon. We also welcome the peaceful and orderly conduct of Iran’s 29 February elections for the majlis and Assembly of Experts. Australia nevertheless remains deeply concerned by the human rights situation in Iran. The situation for human rights defenders is dire. The mistreatment of ethnic and religious minorities, including Ahwazi Arabs, Baha’is, Balochs, Christians and Kurds remains widespread. Women remain subject to discrimination in law and practice. Australia calls on Iran to ensure equality, and to adopt, have and manifest a belief or religion. We urge Iran to impose a moratorium on the death penalty, noting the continuing high rate of executions, including of minors. Australia encourages Iran to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and to engage more fully with UN human rights mechanisms, including by enabling the Special Rapporteur to visit the country. We welcome the views of the special rapporteur on how the international community can best encourage this engagement. ------

Page 122 of 143 ATTACHMENT H

PERSECUTION OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN IRAQ AND SYRIA – A SELECTION OF AUSTRALIAN STATEMENTS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Human Rights Council Special Session on Human Rights Violations by ISIL in Iraq Australian Statement 1 September 2014 The latest attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the (ISIL) and associated groups have further underscored the serious threat they pose, and the need for a concerted international effort to counter them and their horrific crimes. ISIL’s global aspirations represent a danger to international security beyond its brutal and ongoing attacks in Iraq and Syria. Reports of ISIL’s actions against civilians, security personnel and vital infrastructure in Iraq have shocked the world. Its systematic attacks on ethnic and religious minorities, including the murder and kidnapping of members of the Yazidi community, and the targeting and violent repression of Iraqi Christians, are deeply concerning. This persecution is unacceptable and Australia condemns these attacks in the strongest terms. Such barbaric actions require a comprehensive investigation, to be brought fully to the attention of the international community. Those responsible for serious crimes must be held to account. These imperatives would be served by granting a mandate to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to examine, and report on, the extent and character of all human rights abuses perpetrated in this conflict. We urge the Council to ensure these unconscionable crimes, and the human suffering they have produced, are documented in order that justice may be sought on behalf of all the many victims. ------

Human Rights Council - 29th Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention General Debate Australian Statement 24 June 2015 We reaffirm that States have primary responsibility to protect their populations from human rights abuse and mass atrocities. The barbaric terrorist organisation Daesh is a major and lethal threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, including through its indiscriminate targeting of civilians, mass executions and extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, the killing and maiming of children, and widespread, potentially genocidal, persecution based on ethnicity, religion or belief. The abuse of human rights and violence by Daesh are deeply concerning and Australia condemns them in the strongest terms.

Page 123 of 143 Australia remains deeply concerned at the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We reiterate our call for the DPRK to implement the recommendations from the Commission of Inquiry report and begin respecting the basic human rights of its people.210 We welcome the opening of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights field office in Seoul this week, mandated with the important task of systematically monitoring and reporting on the human rights situation in the DPRK. Australia expressed the strongest concern about the ongoing grave human rights abuses taking place in South Sudan, and we strenuously urge the African Union to publicly release the Commission of Inquiry report as soon as possible. ------

Human Rights Council - 30th Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic Australian Statement

21 September 2015 Australia thanks the Commission of Inquiry for its ongoing efforts to document the litany of atrocities and abuses taking place in Syria by the Assad regime, Daesh and other violent terrorist groups. We were sickened to see the Syrian regime recently attack civilians in a market place in Douma – killing over 100 people, including women and children. We urge the investigation of these events as a priority. We welcome this report’s focus on the impact of the Syrian conflict on various civilian groups and communities.211 We are particularly distressed to read of Daesh’s persecution of vulnerable ethnic and religious communities, in particular the Yazidis. We welcome the Security Council’s endorsement of Special Envoy de Mistura’s plan to establish four thematic working groups to work towards a political transition in Syria. The Australian Government recently announced a generous package to assist the Syrian people. Australia will resettle an additional 12,000 refugees who are fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq. Australia will also provide A$44 million in additional humanitarian assistance to deliver food, water, healthcare, and education to more than 240,000 Syrian and Iraqi people who have been displaced by the conflict. ------

210 Statement by Mr. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, 23 June 2015 (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16128&LangID=E#sthash.5orduG75.dpuf). 211 A/HRC/30/48: Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/Documentation.aspx).

Page 124 of 143 Human Rights Council – 31st Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic Australian Statement

15 March 2015 Australia thanks the Commission of Inquiry for continuing efforts to document and report on the human rights situation in Syria and the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.212 Australia welcomes the latest peace talks and implementation of a cessation of hostilities. We call on all parties to respect the cessation and seek an inclusive, negotiated political solution, which is the only answer to the Syrian conflict. Australia remains deeply concerned about human rights abuses in Syria, including those carried out by government forces and their allies, anti-government armed groups and terrorist organisations such as Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra. The targeting of civilians described in the Commission of Inquiry’s report is an affront to morality and a clear breach of international humanitarian law. We deplore targeting of vulnerable groups, including women and children, religious minorities and LGBTI persons. Unlawful attacks on hospitals, schools and marketplaces are abhorrent, as is starvation, denial of humanitarian access and other forms of deprivation as methods of warfare. The warring parties, their supporters and the international community must do all they can to foster peace in Syria. Addressing grave human rights violations, including those set out in the Commission of Inquiry’s latest report, will be central to achieving that peace. ------Human Rights Council – 32nd Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic Australian Statement 21 June 2016 Australia thanks the Commission of Inquiry for its ongoing efforts to document and report on the human rights situation in Syria and for the opportunity to participate in this dialogue.213 We are disappointed that since we last met, violence continues largely unabated and humanitarian access remains a major challenge. The ongoing siege of almost 600,000 civilians, predominantly by the Syrian government, is unacceptable. It is vital the International Syria Support Group’s calls for: a nationwide ceasefire; full, sustained, and unimpeded humanitarian access across the country; and progress towards a political solution to the conflict be implemented.

212 A/HRC/31/68: Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx). Statement by Mr. Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Chair of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, 15 March 2016 (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx). 213 A/HRC/32/CRP.2: Report “They came to destroy”: ISIS Crimes Against the Yazidis (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/IICISyria/Pages/IndependentInternationalCommission.aspx).

Page 125 of 143 Australia remains deeply concerned about human rights violations and abuses in Syria committed by government forces and their allies, terrorist organisations and other armed groups. This includes the targeting of women and children, LGBTI persons and religious minorities. In particular, we condemn the atrocities Daesh is perpetrating against Yazidis, as outlined in the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria report “They Came to Destroy”. The recent trend we have seen of increasing attacks on hospitals, including paediatric hospitals in Aleppo, is shocking. Medical facilities and personnel must be respected and protected, in accordance with international humanitarian law. The international community and the Syrian parties must focus on resolving the crisis; they must address abuses and violations of human rights and take immediate steps to alleviate human suffering. ------Human Rights Council – 32nd Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention General Debate Australian Statement

22 June 2016 At this tenth anniversary session, Australia reaffirms our commitment to the Human Rights Council’s ongoing consideration of country situations of concern, wherever they occur. The Council’s attention must be drawn to deteriorating country situations, where human rights are increasingly at risk. The Council should remain seized of situations of gross abuses, regardless of how intractable they may appear. With this in mind, we reiterate our enduring concern over the human rights situation in the DPRK, which continues to prioritise development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles over the rights and wellbeing of its people. We support the efforts of the HRC group of experts on accountability and encourage both the HRC and the Security Council to maintain pressure on the DPRK leadership for its actions. Australia condemns human rights abuses perpetrated by Daesh and other participants in the conflicts in Syria and Iraq. We are deeply concerned about indiscriminate attacks by Syrian Government forces on civilians, including strikes on medical facilities and personnel. As territory is liberated from Daesh, it is vital that the rights of civilians be protected. ------

Page 126 of 143 ATTACHMENT I

HUMAN RIGHTS IN MYANMAR - A SELECTION OF AUSTRALIAN STATEMENTS TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 23rd Session 2 – 13 November 2015 Universal Periodic Review of Myanmar Australian Statement Australia commends Myanmar on the substantial progress made in improving the human rights situation since its last review appearance. Australia welcomes Myanmar’s preparations for the 8 November elections and the decision to allow international election observers. Australia remains concerned about the situation in Rakhine State. We encourage the Myanmar Government to ensure the rights of all communities in Rakhine State. Australia recommends Myanmar address the root causes of the situation in Rakhine State, including articulating a clear pathway to citizenship for those who identify as Rohingya. We are also concerned by the passage of the ‘Protection of Race and Religion’ laws, which may curtail the human rights of women and religious minorities, and the criminalisation of homosexual acts in the 1861 Penal Code. Australia recommends Myanmar repeal or revise the ‘Protection of Race and Religion’ laws and Section 377 of the 1861 Penal Code to ensure the rights of women, religious minorities and the LGBTI community are protected. We note that Myanmar retains the death penalty, though acknowledge that no executions have been carried out since 1989. Australia recommends Myanmar establish a formal moratorium on the death penalty with a view to ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. ------

Human Rights Council – 31st Regular Session Item 4: Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Myanmar Australian Statement 14 March 2016 Australia thanks the Special Rapporteur for her report.214 Myanmar has undergone significant change since the Special Rapporteur’s mandate was established. Myanmar’s reform process and democratic transition to date has been marked. Last year’s elections marked a high point in this journey. Australia wishes to acknowledge the role of President Thein Sein’s Government in Myanmar’s reform process.

214 A/HRC/31/71: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar (available at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/Session31/Pages/ListReports.aspx).

Page 127 of 143 The incoming National League for Democracy-led Government is well placed to pursue ongoing human rights issues, and the international community, through the HRC, should support the Government in doing so. The challenges that remain are difficult ones. Australia has long urged Myanmar to address the situation in Rakhine State — this remains a priority for us. Australia also remains concerned about alleged human rights abuses in areas of ongoing conflict, and looks to the incoming government and armed groups for swift progress in the peace process. Nevertheless, Australia believes in acknowledging progress towards addressing situations of human rights concern. In light of the profound changes that have occurred in Myanmar, Australia supports a shift in the Council’s approach to Myanmar; one which emphasises the need for cooperation and capacity building. Australia also supports extending the Special Rapporteur’s mandate so she can work with Myanmar to strengthen its human rights capacity. Australia looks forward to working with Myanmar’s new government to address our remaining concerns. ------

Human Rights Council – 31st Regular Session After Action on Resolutions and Decisions Australian Statement 24 March 2016 Australia, as a main sponsor, is pleased the resolution on good governance was adopted by consensus with a high number of co-sponsors. This underlines the importance and interrelatedness of good governance in the promotion and protection of human rights. Australia is pleased to co-sponsor the resolution on the rights of persons with disabilities in situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies. In the lead up to the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul, we are pleased that this resolution emphasizes the importance of providing humanitarian assistance in a manner that is inclusive and accessible for all, including persons with a disability. Australia was also pleased to see that strong language on the particular vulnerability of women and girls with disability to sexual violence and abuse in situations of conflict and disaster recovery was included in this text. We call upon all States to ensure that humanitarian assistance is provided in a manner consistent with international humanitarian law. We acknowledge that there are ongoing human rights concerns in Myanmar, which merit the HRC’s attention. This includes the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, the situation in Rakhine State, and human rights abuses and violations associated with the ongoing civil conflict. Regarding the resolution on Myanmar and looking ahead, Australia believes that its continuing consideration under Item 4 gives insufficient recognition of the significant improvement in the human rights situation in Myanmar, including the holding of openly contested elections in 2015. The international approach to Myanmar’s remaining human rights challenges should be constructive and affirmative. While human rights concerns remain, the Council should focus on working with Myanmar to facilitate further improvements, which we consider would be most effectively achieved by shifting to a resolution under Item 10 in 2017. ------

Page 128 of 143 Human Rights Council – 32nd Regular Session Item 2: Other Country Reports and Oral Updates by the High Commissioner on Human Rights Australian Statement 29 June 2016 Australia thanks the High Commissioner for his updates on Sri Lanka and Myanmar.215 Australia welcomes the Sri Lankan Government’s commitment to implement last September’s resolution. We recognise its positive engagement with the UN, moves to establish an Office of Missing Persons and some progress on land releases. We encourage the Sri Lankan Government to maintain momentum to realise its remaining commitments, including on legislative reform to strengthen victim and witness protection. Australia recognises the important work of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka in helping to forge a peaceful and inclusive future for all Sri Lankans. Australia remains committed to providing practical assistance for reconciliation and to supporting a stable and prosperous Sri Lanka. Australia welcomes the Government of Myanmar’s commitment to engage constructively with the UN on ongoing human rights issues. We are heartened by the release of political prisoners and the repeal or revision of laws used to harass and imprison dissidents. Many challenges remain and require a sustained effort to address. Human rights will remain at risk while fighting persists in parts of the country. We welcome the government’s efforts to take forward dialogue under the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. The situation in Rakhine State remains of serious concern. Further action to promote tolerance and inclusion, and address restriction of movements, gender-based violence and displacement must be a priority. The Government of Myanmar can be assured of Australia’s ongoing support as it continues to address its human rights challenges. ------

215 A/HRC/32/18: Report Situation of human rights of Rohingya Muslims and other minorities in Myanmar (available at: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage e.aspx?si=A/HRC/32/18).

Page 129 of 143 ATTACHMENT J

AUSTRALIA’S STATEMENT DURING THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF POLAND

Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 13th Session 21 May – 4 June 2012 Universal Periodic Review of Poland Australian Statement

Australia commends Poland’s commitment to human rights and the significant progress made since 1989. We welcome steps taken to combat discrimination since the first UPR cycle, including the adoption in December 2010 of legislation governing discrimination, differential treatment and the role of the Ombudsperson. We recommend Poland ensures the Office of the Ombudsperson is sufficiently resourced to carry out anti- discrimination functions. We remain concerned by reports of continued discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, including instances of hate speech. We recommend Poland adopts regulations recognising the rights of same-sex couples and of self-defined gender of transgender persons. We are also concerned that transgender persons continue to face obstacles in accessing appropriate health care and recommend reform to ensure everyone has a right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health in Poland. We are aware of reports that some legislators are advocating a ‘conscience clause’ for Poland's pharmaceutical law to allow chemists to refuse to sell birth control pills on the basis of religious belief. We recommend Poland ensure protection of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children. ------

Page 130 of 143 ATTACHMENT K

AUSTRALIA’S STATEMENT DURING THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF RUSSIA

Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 13th Session 22 April – 3 May 2013 Universal Periodic Review of Russia Australian Statement

We remain concerned by credible allegations of severe human rights abuses—including torture and disappearances—in the North Caucasus. As the Sochi Olympics approach, international attention on the Caucasus will increase. Noting the Russian Federation’s 1998 ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights, we recommend the Russian Federation fully implement the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights, including any judgements related to officials accused of serious human rights violations in the North Caucasus. We are concerned by legislation that curbs the civil rights of Russia’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex community. We recommend the Russian Federation rescind this legislation. We further recommend the Russian Federation work on rights-related legislation with its Constitutional Court and Human Rights Commissioner to ensure legislation aligns with Russia’s international obligations. We are concerned about the civil rights restrictions of those critical of the Government, including arbitrary arrests of opposition figures, selective judicial processes and requiring NGOs to declare themselves ‘foreign agents.’ In addition to being inconsistent with Russia’s international human rights obligations, we remind that such restrictions on civil society also impact on Russia’s international reputation and undermine the otherwise inclusive Russian leadership of the C20 process within the G20. In line with its legal obligation to do so, we recommend the Russian Federation fully implement any judgement by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the ‘foreign agent’ law. We remain concerned by the Sergei Magnitsky case and the level of protections afforded to whistle- blowers in Russia. We welcome the 2nd of April signing of legislation to protect whistle-blowers. We recommend the Russian Federation implements this legislation in a transparent, consistent and unbiased manner.

Page 131 of 143 ATTACHMENT L

AUSTRALIA’S STATEMENT DURING THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF SUDAN

Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 25th Session April - May 2016 Universal Periodic Review of Sudan Australian Statement

Australia welcomes the delegation from Sudan and appreciates its UPR engagement. We commend Sudan on the establishment of its National Human Rights Commission in 2012. Australia welcomes Sudan’s commitment to a United Nations Action Plan to protect children from violations in armed conflict. However, Australia recommends Sudan raise the minimum age for marriage to comply with international child rights standards in order to prevent early, child and enforced marriages. Australia is gravely concerned by violations of human rights in conflict zones and condemns the impunity allowed to perpetrators. We strongly condemn the use of violence against women and girls, torture and killings, arbitrary imprisonment, the use of the armed forces against civilian populations, forced displacement and hindrances made to providing humanitarian relief. Australia recommends revisions to the National Security Act, which allows for civil and criminal immunity for security forces in relation to serious human rights violations and abuses committed in their official capacity, and those responsible for serious human rights violations and abuses be held to account. Australia recommends Sudan establish a formal moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australia remains concerned by restrictions on freedom of religion, including punitive legal decisions. Australia recommends Sudan revise the 1991 Penal Code and abolish the penalisation of apostasy.

Page 132 of 143 ATTACHMENT M

AUSTRALIA’S STATEMENT DURING THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF TURKEY

Universal Periodic Review Working Group – 21st Session 27 January 2015 Universal Periodic Review of Turkey Australian Statement

Australia welcomes Turkey’s progress in implementing the recommendations from its UPR in 2010, including efforts to advance the Kurdish peace process. Australia emphasises the fundamental importance of an independent judiciary and recommends Turkey address concerns about increasing interference by the executive in the judiciary. Australia notes international and civil society concerns about the Turkish authorities’ use of force in responding to political protest activity and the criminalisation of medical assistance in certain circumstances. Australia recommends Turkey reaffirm its commitment to freedom of assembly, a proportional and legitimate response to protest activity, and to a free media. Australia welcomes Turkey’s efforts to progress the concerns of religious and other minorities. Australia recommends, however, Turkey intensify its commitment to working constructively with these groups to address their grievances, including those of Alevi groups and the status of cemevis.

Page 133 of 143 APPENDIX 1

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA’S - SHORT SURVEY BLASPHEMY LAWS The following is a summary of Amnesty International Australia’s analysis, sources and case work relating to blasphemy since 2013. The table may not be exhaustive.

Country Cases Amnesty has worked on Source date Source link

Indonesia The blasphemy provisions in Articles 156 and 156(a) of the Criminal Code criminalise “any person who in public deliberately expresses his/her feelings or engages in actions that in principle is hostile and considered as abuse or defamation of a religion embraced in Indonesia”. Blasphemy cases are mostly lodged at the local level, where political actors, hard-line Islamist religious groups and security forces often collude to target minorities. An accusation or rumour is sometimes enough to land a person in court on blasphemy charges. Many individuals are harassed or attacked by hard-line groups before their arrest, and tried in court in an intimidating atmosphere. The convictions are often justified on the basis of “maintaining public order”. There have been several cases Amnesty has worked on in recent years: Ahmad Mussadeq, Mahful Muis Tumanurung, and Andri Cahya: Three members of a now disbanded religious minority group known as Gafatar who were sentenced for blasphemy by 7 March 2017 Press Release the East Jakarta District Court on Tuesday. Ahmad Mussadeq and Mahful Muis Tumanurung and were sentenced to five years, while Andry Cahya was sentenced to three years. The three individuals were arrested on 25 May 2016 and were later charged with blasphemy under Article 156a of the Criminal Code, and with “rebellion” under Articles 107 and 110 of the Code. Amnesty is calling for Indonesian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release them. Ahok: Amnesty called for Indonesian police immediately drop the criminal investigation Nov 2016 Press release into Jakarta’s governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (“Ahok”), for alleged blasphemy. Ahok

Page 134 of 142 has been named as a suspect under Article 156(a) of the Indonesia’s Criminal Code and Article 28(2) of Law No. 11/2008 on Electronic Information and Transaction. November 2014 Indonesia’s blasphemy laws Alexander An: a 30 year old civil servant from the West Sumatera province, was imprisoned for publicly declaring his atheistic beliefs, which is not allowed under the state ideology of Pancasila and the Indonesian Constitution, which obliges every citizen to believe in God, and that his beliefs “disturbed public order”. He was released in January 2014, but now has to live in a different province to avoid any harassment by religious groups for being labelled as “insulting religion”.

Bangladesh Supporters of the Islamist group Hefazat-e-Islam demanded the introduction of strigner May 2013 Press release religious laws, including the introduction of a blasphemy law due to violent clashes between protesters and the police leaving 44 people dead. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Act 2006 is a de-facto blasphemy law. Section 57 criminalises publishing anything online that hurts “religious sentiment”, which January 2017 UN Committee has often used to bring criminal charges against religious minorities or secular activists who submission have been found to publish “offensive” remarks about Islam.216 According to the Bangladeshi human rights NGO Odhikar, at least 35 people were arrested under the ICT Act in 2016.

Myanmar Article 295(a) of Myanmar’s Penal Code criminalizes “outraging religious feelings” or March 2016 Report - New “insult[ing] or attempt[ing] to insult religion or religious belief” and provides for up to two expression meets years’ imprisonment.217 old Amnesty International is aware of at least two politically-motivated prosecutions, both initiated in 2014, brought under this law against four individuals: Htin Lin Oo, charged after giving a speech critical of the use of Buddhism to promote discrimination, and three Yangon nightclub workers charged after an image of the Buddha wearing headphones was used to

216Amnesty International, “Stop them now! Enforced disappearances, torture and restrictions on freedom of expression,” 13 October 2014, p.15, available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa13/005/2014/en/ 217 Section 295 (a) of the Penal Code: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of [persons resident in the Union], by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Page 135 of 142 promote their bar online.218

Pakistan Sections 295, 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 298-A, 298-B and 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code August 2016 Submission to the 1860, commonly referred to as the blasphemy laws, violate the right to freedom of thought, UN Committee conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom of expression. In particular, section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code makes it an offence for members of the Ahmadiyya faith to preach or propagate their faith. The application of the death penalty for those convicted of blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad under Section 295C of the Penal Code violates Article 6 of the Covenant. Article 6 of the Convention places a positive obligation on Pakistan to protect against threats to life by non-state actors; this includes those who commit violence in the name of religion. Amnesty International is concerned that those accused of blasphemy are at risk of mob violence which has led to many of them being killed in the past few years.219

Iran Article 6 of the Press Code includes examples of material that “contravenes Islamic February 2016 Iran's New Code of principles and regulations” and subjects them to the punishments provided under Article 698 Criminal of Book Five of the Penal Code, namely imprisonment of two months to two years or up to Procedure 74 lashes. The examples include “publication of material which are atheistic or contrary to Islamic principles” (Article 6.1); “material harmful to the foundations of the Islamic Republic” (Article 6.1); “insulting Islam and its sanctities” (Article 6.7); “insulting individuals who are religiously respected including through photos or cartoons” (Article 6.8); and “publishing material against the provisions of the Constitution” (Article 6.12). Iranian laws that impose compulsory wearing of the hijab (veil) on women and girls over the age of nine are also in breach of international standards on freedom of belief and religion, freedom of expression and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. The Islamic Penal Code penalizes women who fail to cover their head and comply with a strict Islamic dress code in public with imprisonment or a fine.220

218 See Chapter 3, Section 3.4, p29 219 See, for example, Amnesty International press release, Pakistan: Vicious mob killing of Christian couple for 'blasphemy' condemned, 4 November 2014, https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/pakistan-vicious-mob-killing-christian-couple-blasphemy-condemned 220 1 Book Five of the Penal Code on Discretionary and Deterrent Punishments, Article 638. The Law on “Discretionary” (ta’zirat) and Deterrent Punishments, 22 May 1996, available at bit.ly/1nRuftq (accessed on 2 February 2016).

Page 136 of 142 Algeria Algeria amended its constitution in February 2016, including a new article 41 ter which February 2016 Algeria - guarantees media freedom without prior censorship and states that press offences cannot be Constitution punished by deprivation of liberty. However, Amnesty has raised concerns that this new article conditions media freedom to national legislation and the “respect of religious, moral and cultural values of the Nation”, and may still allow the Algerian authorities to resort to defamation, public insult and similar repressive laws to quell dissent.221 Amnesty International calls on the Algerian authorities to revise Article 41 ter so that it conforms to Algeria’s obligations under Articles 19 of the ICCPR. Press release Slimane Bouhafs: a Christian convert, had been detained in Bel Air prison for three years on September 2016 August 1, 2015 for Facebook posts “insulting Islam.” He has been charged him under article 144 bis of the penal code. The judgment states that the court convicted Bouhafs, who said he converted to Christianity in 1999, on the basis of Facebook posts he published between May and June 2016. These included “a caricature representing the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist” and other posts “slandering Islam as a religion of intolerance and hatred.”

Kuwait Article 111 of the Penal Code criminalises blasphemy and spreading secularism. December 2015 Criminalisation in Kuwait Abdulaziz Mohammad: Police arrested Abdulaziz Mohammad al-Baz for making comments about religion and secularism on his blog. The Criminal Court convicted him in February 2013 of blasphemy and spreading secularism, under Article 111 of the Penal Code, and sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment before being deported to Egypt.222 He told Amnesty International that “[the police] forced me to go with them. They did not allow me to call anyone or any lawyer. They forced me to admit [to the accusations]”.223

Libya Article 291 of the Penal Code criminalizes blasphemy and prescribes a two year prison term February 2014 Press release - for insults to Islam, “the Divine being”, the Prophet and other prophets. Libya In 2013, two politicians had been charged over a blasphemous cartoon deemed offensive to Islam. Amnesty International called for the charges against them to be dropped. On March 2, Update 2014, the Libyan Criminal Court acquitted Fathi Sager and Ali Tekbali.

221 Amnesty International, “Algeria: end relentless targeting of government critics”, December 2015, (Index: MDE 28/2951/2015). 222 Email exchange with Amnesty International, 29 July 2014 223 BBC News: Kuwaiti jailed for 10 years for Twitter ‘blasphemy’, 4 June 2014, accessed at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18322418

Page 137 of 142 Russia Russia introduced a law on blasphemy, which comes under article 148 of Criminal Code, July 2013 Russia Press which discriminates against non-believers and aims to punish criticism of religious leaders Release or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith in a way that is clearly inconsistent with the freedom of expression. Amnesty International has argued the law criminalising blasphemy is an affront to freedom of expression. Atheist faces jail In March 2016, there had been claims that a Russian atheist who denied the existence of God in online comments could face a year in jail. He has been accused him of “offending the sentiments of orthodox believers”. Press release - October 2013 The blasphemy law was introduced after the ‘Pussy Riot’ punk group staged a brief political Russia performance in the Orthodox Church in Moscow in 2011. Two of the performers served a two-year prison sentence after a politically motivated trial.

Egypt Articles 98 (f), 160 and 161 of the Egyptian Penal Code criminalise blasphemy. May 2013 Press release - Egypt Amnesty International received numerous reports of individuals accused and convicted of blasphemy in Egypt. In some instances, accusations are levelled against bloggers or media professionals whose ideas are “deemed offensive”. A Cairo court sentenced Coptic Christian, Alber Saber Ayad, to three years’ imprisonment on January 25, 2013. He has been charged with “defamation of Islam and Christianity”, “insulting the divine” and “satirizing religious rituals and sanctities and prophets” under articles 98 (f), 160 and 161 of the Egyptian Penal Code. On numerous occasions, Amnesty International has called on the Egyptian authorities not to prosecute individuals based on blasphemy laws which criminalize criticism of or insult to religious beliefs. On 25 January 2013, a Cairo court upheld a lower court’s verdict against another Coptic Christian, Alber Saber Ayad, sentencing him to three years’ imprisonment for “defamation of religion”, in relation to videos and other material he posted online which the court deemed “offensive”. In other cases, in particular in Upper Egypt, blasphemy accusations have been levelled against Coptic Christians, including several other teachers. On 11 May, another Coptic Christian is due to appear in court in the Governorate of Assiut on charges of “defamation of religion”, allegedly based on a conversation he had with a group of Muslims, who later accused him of insulting Islam. On numerous occasions, Amnesty International has called on the Egyptian authorities not to prosecute individuals based on blasphemy laws which criminalize criticism of or insult to religious beliefs.

Page 138 of 142 Greece An Athens court found a 29 year-old blogger had been charged under the 1951 anti- January 2014 Public Statement - blasphemy law for “malicious blasphemy” and “insulting religion”. He had been handed a Greece 10-month prison sentence suspended on appeal. Filipos Loizos had set up a Facebook page with the name “Elder Pastitsios” where he satirized the late Greek Orthodox monk, Elder Paisios.

Saudi Arabia Raif Badawi had been arrested in 2012 for violating Article 1 of Saudi Arabia’s IT law and June 2015 Raif Badawi - “insulting” religious authorities through his online writings. Mr Badawi had been sentenced Press release to seven years in prison and 600 public lashes, a punishment that has now increased in 2014 to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes. More than a million messages have been sent in support of jailed Saudi blogger Raif Badawi since Amnesty International’s Write for Rights campaign raised his case in 2014. Saudi Arabia’s government has systematically wiped out all human rights activism in the country in the past three years, some of it under the rubric of “counter-terrorism” legislation in force since February 2014. The authorities continue to use the law as a pretext to clamp down on human rights activism and freedom of expression.

Malaysia The Sedition Act is used to prosecute those who criticise the government or the judiciary, or October 2015 Sedition Act - is disrespectful of religion. In November 2014, Najib reneged on his promise to repeal the Malaysia Sedition Act and announced that the law would instead "be strengthened and made more effective," with "a special clause to protect the sanctity of Islam, while other religions also cannot be insulted." In April 2015, the government pushed through amendments providing for harsher penalties and further restrictions on speech, particularly on social media.

Yemen Yemen’s penal code includes provisions that impose criminal penalties for renouncing Islam August 2016 Yemen - press as well as attempting to convert Muslims to other faiths. release Yemeni authorities have detained 27 members of the Baha'i community in a blatant case of persecution of a minority faith. The charges violate the ICCPR, which Yemen ratified in 1987, under Article 18 which guarantees the right of everyone to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice and to practise their religion “individually or … with others and in public or private”.

Sudan In May 2014, Sudanese woman, Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, had been found guilty of the crime May 2014 Sudan - Press of apostasy under Sudan’s Sharia law in its Criminal Code. She had been sentenced to death Release for refusing to renounce her Christian faith and was also due to be flogged for being married

Page 139 of 142 to a Christian man. On 23 June 2014, Meriam’s lawyer confirmed that a court of appeal found Meriam innocent of all charges against her.

Jordan Journalist, Nahed Hattar, had been in court to face charges of “offending religion” and September 2016 Jordan - Press “inflaming religious feelings” under the country’s strict blasphemy laws, after he shared a release satirical cartoon deemed to be offensive to Islam. He was then shot to death outside the court in . Jordan’s government routinely restricts the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly under laws that criminalize peaceful expression. Since 2015, dozens of journalists and activists have been arrested and detained under Penal Code provisions which criminalize defamation of religion, the monarchy and other institutions.

Mauritania Authorities had arrested Mohamed Cheikh Ould Mkhaitir on January 2nd, 2014, and January 2017 Mauritania - HRW charged him with apostasy on the basis of an article he published on a news website. The press release court sentenced him to death on the basis that he had “spoken lightly” of the prophet, Muhammad. Article 306 of Mauritania’s penal code provides for the death penalty for apostasy, but states that if the defendant repents before a court ruling, the Supreme Court has the authority to assess the validity of the defendant’s repentance and cancel the death sentence or reduce the consequences to a prison term and fine. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which Mauritania has ratified, states that countries that have not abolished the death penalty should reserve it “only for the most serious crimes.”

Other sources See Pew Research Center 2014 report available from: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/06/23/trends-in-global-restrictions-on-religion/ It finds that, as of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies, and that more than one- in-ten (13%) nations had laws or policies penalizing apostasy. It was based on 17 widely cited, publicly available sources from groups such as the U.S. State Department, the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group. Other countries that apparently have blasphemy laws that Amnesty hasn’t worked in last 4 years on: ● Afghanistan ● Australia ● Brazil ● Canada

Page 140 of 142 ● China ● Denmark - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/world/europe/denmark-quran-burning.html ● Finland ● Germany - http://www.dw.com/en/scrap-german-blasphemy-law-to-promote-tolerance-legal-expert-demands/a-18213179 ● Iceland (repealed blasphemy law in 2015) - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/iceland-repeals-blasphemy-law-pirate-party- campaign ● India - http://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/TFCMsqPVQ8rK6dJj2E2kSN/Blasphemy-law-and-the-Constitution.html ● Ireland - http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/europe/ireland/ http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/blasphemy-law-needs-to-be-repealed- 1.2068942 ● Israel ● Italy ● Malta ● Netherlands ● New Zealand ● Nigeria ● Norway - https://www.rt.com/news/257245-norway-blasphemy-law-scrapped/ ● Philippines ● Poland ● Qatar ● Romania ● South Africa ● Spain ● Turkey - https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2015-02-15/turkeys-blasphemy-barometer ● United Arab Emirates ● United Kingdom

Page 141 of 142 Submission by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 142