DOCSLIB.ORG

Enforcing the World's Blasphemy Laws

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VIOLATING RIGHTS ENFORCING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM USCIRF’S MISSION To advance international freedom of religion or belief, by independently assessing and unflinchingly confronting threats to this fundamental right. CHAIR Gayle Manchin VICE CHAIR Tony Perkins VICE CHAIR Anurima Bhargava COMMISSIONERS Gary Bauer James W. Carr Frederick A. Davie Nadine Maenza Johnnie Moore Nury Turkel EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Erin D. Singshinsuk UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CONTENTS 3 About The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 3 Who We Are 3 What Religious Freedom Is 5 Overview 7 Summary of Findings 7 General 8 Human Rights Due Process Violations 7 Blasphemy Laws 9 Mob Violence or Threats of Mob Violence 8 Criminal Blasphemy Law 9 Social Media State Enforcement 8 State-Sponsored Violence 11 Introduction 11 Definition of State Enforcement 13 Study Design & Methodology 13 Study Design 17 Findings 17 Blasphemy Crimes Enforcement: 25 Extrajudicial State Violence Global Trends against Accused Blasphemers 19 Countries with the Highest Reported 30 Official State Religions and Criminal Criminal Blasphemy Enforcement Blasphemy Enforcement 21 Other Laws Employed to 31 Blasphemy and Social Media Enforce Blasphemy Crimes 23 Accused Persons 39 Limitations 39 Study and Research Challenges 41 Country-Specific Challenges Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 1 43 Conclusion 45 About the Authors 47 About The Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic 49 Acknowledgments 51 Annex 1: Changes in Blasphemy Laws Since 2014 55 Annex 2: Criminal Blasphemy Laws as of 2020 93 Annex 3: Research Questions 2 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws ABOUT THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WHO WE ARE WHAT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IS The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Inherent in religious freedom is the right to believe or not (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal believe as one’s conscience leads, and to live out one’s beliefs government commission created by the 1998 International openly, peacefully, and without fear. Freedom of religion Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). USCIRF uses international or belief is an expansive right that includes the freedoms of standards to monitor violations of religious freedom or belief thought, conscience, expression, association, and assembly. abroad and makes policy recommendations to the President, While religious freedom is America’s first freedom, it also is a the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners core human right that international law and treaty recognize; are appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of a necessary component of U.S. foreign policy and America’s both political parties. The Commission’s work is supported commitment to defending democracy and freedom globally; by a professional, nonpartisan staff of regional subject matter and a vital element of national security, critical to ensuring a experts. USCIRF is separate from the State Department, more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world. although the Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a non-voting, ex officio Commissioner. Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 3 This page intentionally left blank. 4 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws OVERVIEW In this report, the authors examine and compare state implementation and enforcement of criminal laws prohibiting blasphemy (“blasphemy laws”) worldwide over the five-year period between January 2014 and December 2018. The criminal cases this study analyzes represent states’ enforcement of laws that sanction the expression of opinions or actions deemed “blasphemous,” or counter to majority views or religious belief systems. Many such laws impose serious penalties, including prison, forced labor, or death, upon those convicted. Countries throughout the world have and continue to Part II describes the study’s methodology, including the enforce criminal blasphemy laws, often justifying them as systematic collection of cases. It also explains the creation necessary to promote intergroup religious harmony.1 In some of indicators and questions to measure blasphemy law states, however, civilians enforce blasphemy prohibitions enforcement, the coding and decision-making process, and extrajudicially, committing acts of violence in the name the data analysis. of protecting God, religion, and “the sacred.”2 Analyzing Part III examines the study results and highlights select the ways in which states and private, non-state actors findings within the political, cultural, and legal contexts that enforce these laws may assist the public policy community shape how criminal blasphemy laws are implemented and in developing clear, tailored recommendations for areas enforced globally. of criminal legal reform, especially in states with vague laws, harsh penalties, and high levels of enforcement. An Part IV concludes the study, noting some of the study’s analysis of criminal blasphemy cases reported in the news limitations, while also providing a template for future studies and adjudicated in courts identifies the contexts in which of blasphemy laws and enforcement. blasphemy laws may increase the risk of human rights abuses, The report also includes three annexes. Annex 1 reviews through state acts or omissions, indicating the places and recent legislative changes to criminal blasphemy provisions, ways in which targeted law reform could lower that risk. including reforms and repeals in countries globally since Part I is an introduction, defining blasphemy and criminal 2014. Annex 2 compiles the blasphemy laws with criminal blasphemy law enforcement for the purposes of this sanctions in force as of 2020. Finally, Annex 3 includes the study. It also explores the risks of potential abuse in the study tool with the questions/indicators developed to measure implementation and enforcement of these laws. enforcement across country contexts. 1 Joelle Fiss & Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Respecting Rights? Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws 2 (2017). 2 For example, in Pakistan individuals often take justice into their own hands and murder alleged blasphemers. See Helen Haft & Joelle Fiss, How Pakistan’s Blasphemy Laws Trigger Violence, Free Speech Debate (Dec. 10, 2019), https://freespeechdebate.com/2019/12/how-pakistans-blasphemy-laws-trigger-violence/ (last visited Sept. 21, 2020). Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws 5 This page intentionally left blank. 6 Violating Rights: Enforcing the World’s Blasphemy Laws SUMMARY OF FINDINGS GENERAL BLASPHEMY LAWS • Criminal blasphemy cases often occur in the context of • New or amended blasphemy laws have entered into broader religious freedom violations, such as bombings force in Kazakhstan (2014), Nepal (2017), Oman (2018), and assaults on places of worship,1 desecration of religious Mauritania (2018), Morocco (2018), and Brunei (2019).5 In sites or symbols,2 hate crimes against individuals of a addition, Germany’s blasphemy provision was referenced in minority belief group,3 and other types of physical assaults, a new German technology law (2018). verbal attacks, or harassment.4 • A series of repeals have occurred in Iceland (2015),6 • States also criminalize blasphemous acts through the Norway (2015),7 a province of France (Alsace-Moselle) enforcement of other criminal laws, such as apostasy (2016),8 Malta (2016),9 Denmark (2017),10 Ireland (2018),11 laws, anti-conversion laws, incitement to religious hatred Canada (2018),12 New Zealand (2019),13 Greece (2019),14 and laws (also often referred to as “hate speech” laws), anti- Scotland (2020).15 extremism laws, and even anti-witchcraft laws. • Despite numerous blasphemy law repeals since 2017, • Mob activity, threats, and/or violence around blasphemy researchers identified 13 additional criminal blasphemy law allegations occur both at times when the state enforces the law provisions that had not been included in Respecting Rights? as well as when the state does not act. In some cases, mobs are Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws. Not counting stirred by non-state actor groups or individuals. In other cases, repealed laws, researchers identified 84 countries across public officials tolerate civil unrest. In both cases, mobs can the globe with criminal blasphemy laws on the books as of provoke violence, property destruction, injuries and death, 2020.16 (See the following map and Annex 2.) either through intentional targeting or against bystanders. 84 Countries with Criminal Blasphemy Laws on the Books QUEEN ELISABETH ISLANDS GREENLAND USA ICELAND FINLAND NORWAY RUSSIA SWEDEN SCOTLAND ESTONIA CANADA LATVIA NORTHERN IRELAND DENMARK LITHUANIA UNITED IRELAND BELARUS ALEUTIAN ISLANDS KINGDOM GERMANY POLAND NETH. BELGIUM CZECH REP. UKRAINE SLOVAKIA KAZAKHSTAN AUSTRIA MOLDOVA FRANCE SWITZ HUNGARY LIECHTENSTEIN MONGOLIA CROATIA ROMANIA ITALY SAN MARINO SERBIA MONTENEGRO BULGARIA ANDORRA GEORGIA UZBEKISTAN KYRGYZSTAN MACEDONIA NORTH ALBANIA AZERBAIJAN PORTUGAL SARDINIA KOREA ARMENIA TURKMENISTAN USA SPAIN TURKEY TAJIKISTAN SICILY SOUTH SYRIA KOREA JAPAN GREECE LEBANON AFGHANISTAN TUNISIA CHINA MALTA CYPRUS IRAQ IRAN ISRAEL MOROCCO JORDAN KUWAIT PAKISTAN BHUTAN ALGERIA LIBYA BAHRAIN NEPAL WESTER MEXICO SAHARA UNITED ARAB SAUDI QATAR EMIRATES CUBA EGYPT BANGLADESH ARABIA OMAN INDIA DOMINICAN
Recommended publications
  • Bill Digest: Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution

    Bill Digest: Thirty-Seventh Amendment of the Constitution

    Bill Digest | Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution-Blasphemy Bill 2018 1 Bill Digest Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 Bill No. 87 of 2018 Roni Buckley, Parliamentary Researcher (Law) Monday, 23 July 2018 Abstract The Thirty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution (Repeal of the offence of publication or utterance of blasphemous matter) Bill 2018 proposes the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution by way of referendum. Under the current framework the Constitution provides that the offence of blasphemy is punishable according to law. The Defamation Act 2009 defines the offence and provides that a person shall be liable upon conviction on indictment for a maximum fine of €25,000. This Digest sets out recent events and controversies relating to blasphemy; assesses its historical and legislative development as well as relevant case-law. Finally, the Digest provides a comparative analysis with European and international countries. Oireachtas Library & Research Service | Bill Digest 2 Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Proposed Amendment ................................................................................................................. 4 Definition of Blasphemy ............................................................................................................... 4 Reviews of the offence
  • January TK, 2016

    January TK, 2016

    January 15, 2016 Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani Office of the Head of the Judiciary Via the Interests Section of the Islamic Republic of Iran ([email protected]) Dear Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani, Iran has an ancient, globally recognised culture and has over centuries produced excellent artists of world standard. Artists are carriers of tradition, but often break new ground essential to the development of a society. We are writing to express our concern about the imprisonment in 2013 and sentencing in 2015 of musicians Mehdi Rajabian and Yousef Emadi and filmmaker Hossein Rajabian who were jointly sentenced to six years in prison and fined 200 million tomans each for “insulting the sacred” and “propaganda against the state”. Mehdi Rajabian, a musician and founder of BargMusic, an alternative music distributor in Iran, along with his filmmaker brother Hossein Rajabian and musician Emadi, appeared at Branch 54 of the Tehran Province Appeals Court on 22 December 2015. A decision on the appeal is expected in the coming days. During the appeal hearing, the judge admonished the artists for ignoring repeated warnings that they were operating illegally and had ties with Iranian singers abroad opposed to the Islamic Republic. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, Iranian musicians have needed government authorization in order to hold concerts and produce music albums and videos. Government scrutiny is stringent and only certain genres of music receive licenses. Even when musicians are issued concert licenses there is no guarantee they can safely hold their scheduled appearances. It is within this context that the BargMusic website, established by Mehdi Rajabian in 2009, became a portal for distributing Iranian alternative music.
  • Freedom Or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis

    Freedom Or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis

    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 4 Spring 2005 Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Recommended Citation Hannibal Travis, Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq, 3 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 1 (2005). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol3/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2005 Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3 (Spring 2005) Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights FREEDOM OR THEOCRACY?: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ By Hannibal Travis* “Afghans are victims of the games superpowers once played: their war was once our war, and collectively we bear responsibility.”1 “In the approved version of the [Afghan] constitution, Article 3 was amended to read, ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ … This very significant clause basically gives the official and nonofficial religious leaders in Afghanistan sway over every action that they might deem contrary to their beliefs, which by extension and within the Afghan cultural context, could be regarded as
  • 2016 Case List

    2016 Case List

    FRONT COVER 1 3 PEN INTERNATIONAL CHARTER The PEN Charter is based on resolutions passed at its International Congresses and may be summarised as follows: PEN affirms that: 1. Literature knows no frontiers and must remain common currency among people in spite of political or international upheavals. 2. In all circumstances, and particularly in time of war, works of art, the patrimony of humanity at large, should be left untouched by national or political passion. 3. Members of PEN should at all times use what influence they have in favour of good understanding and mutual respect between nations; they pledge themselves to do their utmost to dispel race, class and national hatreds, and to champion the ideal of one humanity living in peace in one world. 4. PEN stands for the principle of unhampered transmission of thought within each nation and between all nations, and members pledge themselves to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in the country and community to which they belong, as well as throughout the world wherever this is possible. PEN declares for a free press and opposes arbitrary censorship in time of peace. It believes that the necessary advance of the world towards a more highly organised political and economic order renders a free criticism of governments, administrations and institutions imperative. And since freedom implies voluntary restraint, members pledge themselves to oppose such evils of a free press as mendacious publication, deliberate falsehood and distortion of facts for political and personal ends. Membership of PEN is open to all qualified writers, editors and translators who subscribe to these aims, without regard to nationality, ethnic origin, language, colour or religion.
  • Global Handbook on Hate Speech Laws Get

    Global Handbook on Hate Speech Laws Get

    REBUILDING THE BULWARK OF LIBERTY Tool GLOBAL HANDBOOK ON HATE SPEECH LAWS By Natalie Alkiviadou, Jacob Mchangama and Raghav Mendiratta GLOBAL HANDBOOK ON HATE SPEECH LAWS © Justitia and the authors, 2020 WHO WE ARE Founded in August 2014, Justitia is Denmark’s first judicial think tank. Justitia aims to promote the rule of law and fundamental human rights and freedom rights, both within Denmark and abroad, by educating and influencing policy experts, decision-makers, and the public. In so doing, Justitia offers legal insight and analysis on a range of contemporary issues. The Future of Free Speech is a collaboration between Copenhagen based judicial think tank Justitia, Columbia University’s Global Freedom of Expression and Aarhus University’s Department of Political Science. Free speech is the bulwark of liberty; without it, no free and democratic society has ever been established or thrived. Free expression has been the basis of unprecedented scientific, social and political progress that has benefitted individuals, communities, nations and humanity itself. Millions of people derive protection, knowledge and essential meaning from the right to challenge power, question orthodoxy, expose corruption and address oppression, bigotry and hatred. At the Future of Free Speech, we believe that a robust and resilient culture of free speech must be the foundation for the future of any free, democratic society. We believe that, even as rapid technological change brings new challenges and threats, free speech must continue to serve as an essential ideal and a fundamental right for all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, gender or social standing.
  • Women Oppressed in the Name of Culture and Religion Saudi Arabia and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

    Women Oppressed in the Name of Culture and Religion Saudi Arabia and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

    MALMÖ UNIVERSITY HR 61‐90 GLOBAL AND POLITICAL STUDIES AUTUMN 2010 HUMAN RIGHTS SUPERVISOR: ANNA BRUCE Women oppressed in the name of culture and religion Saudi Arabia and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Elin Andersson & Linn Togelius Abstract In Saudi Arabia women are legal minors who need permission from a male guardian in, among others, matters concerning education, employment and health care. Despite the obvious subordination of women in the country, Saudi Arabia has ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, with a reservation saying that in cases of contradiction between the Convention and Islamic law they do not obligate themselves to follow the rules of the Convention. Respecting the culture, tradition and religion of non-western societies is important in the work with implementing international human rights. However, in the case of Saudi Arabia, it seems like the cultural and religious claims merely function as justification of an institutional oppression of women. This institutional practice of oppression is unique and taken to the extreme, but oppression of women in itself is a global phenomenon, which is not connected to a specific culture. Key words: Saudi Arabia, CEDAW, women’s rights, Feminism, Cultural Relativism, Islamic law 1 Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Aim and research questions .............................................................................................
  • UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED ARAB EMIRATES RELIGIONS 1.1% 1.9% Agnostics Buddhists 1.3% Other 11.0% Christians 6.2% Hindus

    UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED ARAB EMIRATES RELIGIONS 1.1% 1.9% Agnostics Buddhists 1.3% Other 11.0% Christians 6.2% Hindus

    Religious Freedom in the World Report 2021 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES UNITED ARAB EMIRATES RELIGIONS 1.1% 1.9% Agnostics Buddhists 1.3% Other 11.0% Christians 6.2% Hindus Population Area 9,813,170 83,600 Km2 78.5% GDP per capita GINI INDEX* Muslims 67,293 US$ 32.5 *Economic Inequality tion of committing adultery.”2 Article 1 of the penal code LEGAL FRAMEWORK ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION provides that Islamic law applies in hudud cases, including AND ACTUAL APPLICATION the payment of blood money in cases of murder. Article 66 states that the “original punishments” under the law apply to hudud crimes, including the death penalty. No one, The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven however, has been prosecuted or punished by a court for emirates situated in the Persian Gulf. Dubai is politically such an offence. and economically the most important of them. The law criminalises blasphemy and imposes fines and According to the constitution of 1971,1 Islam is the official imprisonment in these cases. Insulting other religions is religion of the federation. Article 7 reads: “Islam is the of- also banned. Non-citizens face deportation in case of ficial religion of the UAE. Islamic Shari‘a is a main source blasphemy. of legislation in the UAE.” Article 25 excludes discrimina- tion based on religion. It states: “All persons are equal in While Muslims may proselytise, penalties are in place for law. There shall be no distinction among the citizens of the non-Muslims doing the same among Muslims. If caught, UAE on the basis of race, nationality, faith or social status.” non-citizens may have their residency revoked and face Article 32 states: “Freedom to exercise religious worship deportation.
  • BLASPHEMY LAWS in the 21ST CENTURY: a VIOLATION of HUMAN RIGHTS in PAKISTAN Fanny Mazna Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Fanny.Mazna@Siu.Edu

    BLASPHEMY LAWS in the 21ST CENTURY: a VIOLATION of HUMAN RIGHTS in PAKISTAN Fanny Mazna Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected]

    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Research Papers Graduate School 2017 BLASPHEMY LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN Fanny Mazna Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/gs_rp Recommended Citation Mazna, Fanny. "BLASPHEMY LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN." (Jan 2017). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Papers by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BLASPHEMY LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN by Fanny Mazna B.A., Kinnaird College for Women, 2014 A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science Department of Mass Communication and Media Arts in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale May 2017 RESEARCH PAPER APPROVAL BLASPHEMY LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN By Fanny Mazna A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Mass Communication and Media Arts Approved by: William Babcock, Co-Chair William Freivogel, Co-Chair Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale April, 6th 2017 AN ABSTRACT OF THE RESEARCH PAPER OF FANNY MAZNA, for the Master of Science degree in MASS COMMUNICATION AND MEDIA ARTS presented on APRIL, 6th 2017, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE: BLASPHEMY LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY- A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN PAKISTAN MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr.
  • The State of Artistic Freedom 2021

    The State of Artistic Freedom 2021

    THE STATE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM 2021 THE STATE OF ARTISTIC FREEDOM 2021 1 Freemuse (freemuse.org) is an independent international non-governmental organisation advocating for freedom of artistic expression and cultural diversity. Freemuse has United Nations Special Consultative Status to the Economic and Social Council (UN-ECOSOC) and Consultative Status with UNESCO. Freemuse operates within an international human rights and legal framework which upholds the principles of accountability, participation, equality, non-discrimination and cultural diversity. We document violations of artistic freedom and leverage evidence-based advocacy at international, regional and national levels for better protection of all people, including those at risk. We promote safe and enabling environments for artistic creativity and recognise the value that art and culture bring to society. Working with artists, art and cultural organisations, activists and partners in the global south and north, we campaign for and support individual artists with a focus on artists targeted for their gender, race or sexual orientation. We initiate, grow and support locally owned networks of artists and cultural workers so their voices can be heard and their capacity to monitor and defend artistic freedom is strengthened. ©2021 Freemuse. All rights reserved. Design and illustration: KOPA Graphic Design Studio Author: Freemuse Freemuse thanks those who spoke to us for this report, especially the artists who took risks to take part in this research. We also thank everyone who stands up for the human right to artistic freedom. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of February 2021.
  • Pakistan: Christians and Christian Converts

    Pakistan: Christians and Christian Converts

    Country Policy and Information Note Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts Version 4.0 February 2021 Preface Purpose This note provides country of origin information (COI) and analysis of COI for use by Home Office decision makers handling particular types of protection and human rights claims (as set out in the Introduction section). It is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of a particular subject or theme. It is split into two main sections: (1) analysis and assessment of COI and other evidence; and (2) COI. These are explained in more detail below. Assessment This section analyses the evidence relevant to this note – i.e. the COI section; refugee/human rights laws and policies; and applicable caselaw – by describing this and its inter-relationships, and provides an assessment of, in general, whether one or more of the following applies: • A person is reasonably likely to face a real risk of persecution or serious harm • The general humanitarian situation is so severe as to breach Article 15(b) of European Council Directive 2004/83/EC (the Qualification Directive) / Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights as transposed in paragraph 339C and 339CA(iii) of the Immigration Rules • The security situation presents a real risk to a civilian’s life or person such that it would breach Article 15(c) of the Qualification Directive as transposed in paragraph 339C and 339CA(iv) of the Immigration Rules • A person is able to obtain protection from the state (or quasi state bodies) • A person is reasonably able to relocate within a country or territory • A claim is likely to justify granting asylum, humanitarian protection or other form of leave, and • If a claim is refused, it is likely or unlikely to be certifiable as ‘clearly unfounded’ under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
  • Statement by Dr. Richard Benkin

    Statement by Dr. Richard Benkin

    Dr. Richard L. Benkin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Email: [email protected] http://www.InterfaithStrength.com Also Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn Bangladesh: “A rose by any other name is still blasphemy.” Written statement to US Commission on Religious Freedom Virtual Hearing on Blasphemy Laws and the Violation of International Religious Freedom Wednesday, December 9, 2020 Dr. Richard L. Benkin Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” While few people champion an unrestricted right to free of expression, fewer still stand behind the use of state power to protect a citizen’s right from being offended by another’s words. In the United States, for instance, a country regarded by many correctly or not as a “Christian” nation, people freely produce products insulting to many Christians, all protected, not criminalized by the government. A notorious example was a painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung in a 1999 Brooklyn Museum exhibit. Attempts to ban it or sanction the museum failed, and a man who later defaced the work to redress what he considered an anti-Christian slur was convicted of criminal mischief for it. Laws that criminalize free expression as blasphemy are incompatible with free societies, and nations that only pose as such often continue persecution for blasphemy in disguise. In Bangladesh, the government hides behind high sounding words in a toothless constitution while sanctioning blasphemy in other guises.
  • The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates

    The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates

    Expanding or diluting Human Rights? The proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures mandates Article Published Version Freedman, R. and Mchangama, J. (2016) Expanding or diluting Human Rights? The proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures mandates. Human Rights Quarterly, 38 (1). pp. 164-193. ISSN 1085-794X doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2016.0012 Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/66578/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: http://muse.jhu.edu/article/609306 To link to this article DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2016.0012 Publisher: The John Hopkins University Press All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online ([SDQGLQJRU'LOXWLQJ+XPDQ5LJKWV"7KH3UROLIHUDWLRQRI8QLWHG1DWLRQV 6SHFLDO3URFHGXUHV0DQGDWHV 5RVD)UHHGPDQ-DFRE0FKDQJDPD +XPDQ5LJKWV4XDUWHUO\9ROXPH1XPEHU)HEUXDU\SS $UWLFOH 3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV '2,KUT )RUDGGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKLVDUWLFOH KWWSVPXVHMKXHGXDUWLFOH Access provided by University of Reading (11 Oct 2016 10:18 GMT) HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Expanding or Diluting Human Rights?: The Proliferation of United Nations Special Procedures Mandates Rosa Freedman* & Jacob Mchangama** ABSTRACT The United Nations Special Procedures system was described by former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as “the crown jewel” of the UN Human Rights Machinery. Yet, in recent years, the system has expanded rapidly, driven by states creating new mandates frequently on topics not traditionally viewed as human rights.