Search
Displaying results 1 - 10 of 81
October 28, 2015
USCIRF Chairman Robert P. George testified on October 27, 2015 before Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee at a hearing titled "The Global Crisis of Religious Freedom,"Read Testimony before the Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations Subcommittee Of the House Foreign Affairs Committee On The Global Crisis of Religious Freedom & Its Challenge to U.S. Foreign Policy
Subcommittee Hearing: The Global Crisis of Religious Freedom (EventID=104112)
July 09, 2019
On June 27, 2019, Vice Chair Nadine Maenza testified at a Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on violations of the right to freedom of religion of Christian communities around the world.Written Testimony
Hearing Webpage
April 04, 2014
USCIRF Vice Chair Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett testified on Friday, April 4 before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission during a hearing entitled, "The Plight of Religious Minorities in India."
Click here to view the full written testimony.
March 26, 2014
USCIRF Commissioner Eric P. Schwartz testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission at a hearing entitled "The Persecution of Religious and Indigenous Communities in Vietnam."
Click here to view the full written testimony.
October 27, 2017
Oral StatementAS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
Commissioner Thomas Reese, S.J.
U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom
Vietnam Caucus/Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission Briefing on Religious Freedom in Vietnam
October 24, 2017
AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY
Good afternoon. I want to thank the Vietnam Caucus and the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission for organizing this briefing. My special thanks to Representatives Lowenthal, Correa, Lofgren and Royce and other members of the Caucus and Commission for their leadership in support of human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam.
I am Father Thomas Reese, a Commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Commissioner Jackie Wolcott, who had planned to be with us today, has taken sick. She asked me to convey to you her deepest regrets.
I join Commissioner Wolcott in applauding the Caucus and Commission members for their unflagging efforts on behalf of prisoners of conscience. One of these prisoners, now a former prisoner I am so pleased to say, is here with us today – and in freedom, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh. I also want to welcome his brave wife Tran Thi Hong, who along with the Pastor and their five children, now are living in California.
Pastor and Mrs. Hong, I honor you for your resiliency under the cruel conditions under which you lived and being forced to leave your country. You inspire all of us to advocate for those who are imprisoned for their religious beliefs, activities, and advocacy. On a personal note, I am deeply relieved by your release and honored to be here with you and your wife. I thank everyone who helped make today possible—and every day that you are in freedom hereafter.
Both Representative Lowenthal and Commissioner Wolcott worked on your behalf: the Representative as part of the Tom Lantos Commission’s Defending Freedoms Project, and Commissioner Wolcott, as part of USCIRF’s Religious Prisoners of Conscience Project. The goal of both efforts is to advocate to free prisoners of conscience and hold culpable governments accountable. USCIRF also long has expressed concerns about the status of religious freedom in Vietnam. I was part of a USCIRF delegation who went to Vietnam in August 2015 to see firsthand the conditions there for religious freedom.
Others share USCIRF’s concerns and have worked tirelessly in support of human rights and religious freedom in Vietnam. Along with the Vietnam Caucus and the Lantos Commission, I want to highlight the work of members of brave local organizations in Vietnam who worked on behalf of Pastor Chinh and Mrs. Hong. These include the Vietnam Coalition Against Torture, the Association for Support of Victims of Torture, and a multi-faith roundtable. I also must mention the tireless work of international organizations like Boat People SOS and others.
Pastor Chinh was a prisoner in Vietnam, but he committed no crime and should never have been imprisoned. What he did was minister to his Christian community and peacefully criticize the Vietnam government’s restrictions on preaching and religious expression. For that, he suffered in prison, in ill health, while the Vietnamese authorities harassed his family. Government officials subjected Mrs. Hong to frequent government surveillance and beatings, and violently, and ultimately unsuccessfully, tried to prevent her from meeting with then-U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom David Saperstein, even abducting and again beating her in their failed attempt.
Sadly, the Vietnamese government’s treatment of Pastor Chinh and Mrs. Hong is symptomatic of the grave status of the freedom of religion or belief in Vietnam.
Nearly 11 years ago, the State Department wrongly removed Vietnam from its list of CPCs – Countries of Particular Concern. CPC designated countries are among the worst violators of religious freedom in the world. USCIRF disagreed then with the State Department and we disagree now.
The State Department is mandated to again issue its annual CPC designations by November 13, and we urge both the designation of Vietnam as a CPC, and actions be taken commensurate with this designation. We also urge you to join us in this effort.
USCIRF believes that Vietnam deserves to be a CPC unless and until the government improves religious freedom conditions and respects international human rights standards. To that end, we will watch how the government, among other actions, implements the new Law on Belief and Religion.
This law isn’t perfect, and it is a far cry from international standards. It started out as very bad, in my opinion, but what’s key is that the Vietnamese government engaged with the U.S., took input from religious organizations and guidance from international experts, and seemed willing to address the country’s religious freedom challenges.
However, our optimism has been tempered by reports that deeply concern us about how the government intends to implement the law and penalize individuals and organizations it deems to be in violation.
Also deeply concerning are the countless prisoners of conscience who remain in Vietnamese jails, many of whom are tortured, and the countless other religious believers and human rights advocates, and their family members, whom the government harasses and seeks to intimidate. And then there are the local authorities and thugs who carry out with impunity brutal human rights abuses against vulnerable religious groups including: Khmer Krom Buddhists, independent Hoa Hao Buddhists and Cao Dai followers, Montagnard Christians, and others.
What can the U.S. government do? In addition to re-designating Vietnam as a CPC, and raising concerns about the implementation of the Law on Belief and Religion, I urge that U.S. officials consistently raise prisoner of conscience cases and request to meet with these prisoners and their family members when they are on CODELS to Vietnam.
I also urge the U.S. government to employ tools available under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, the Frank R. Wolf Religious Freedom Act, and the International Religious Freedom Act. These Acts and other existing tools will help hold accountable Vietnamese officials and government agencies who have participated in, are responsible for, or have tolerated human rights abuses, including severe violations of freedom of religion or belief.
The U.S. government also must continue to regularly visit remote, rural areas where violations of freedom of religion or belief are likely to occur.
The U.S. can and should engage Vietnam on religious freedom issues and other human rights, and urge our international partners to do the same. With the example of Pastor Chinh and Tran Thi Hong before us, we must continue our efforts until there is freedom in Vietnam.
Thank you.
February 26, 2020
Click here to view the February 2020 Factsheet on The Citizenship (Amendment) Act in IndiaIn December 2019, the Indian Parliament passed into law the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). This law provides a fast track to Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Quickly after the CAA’s passage, large scale protests broke out across India with the government instituting a violent crackdown against the protestors. In conjunction with a proposed nation-wide National Register of Citizens, there are fears that this law is part of an effort to create a religious test for Indian citizenship and could lead to the widespread disenfranchisement of Indian Muslims. This factsheet provides an overview of the CAA and explains why it represents a significant downward turn in religious freedom in India.
December 04, 2018
*** Notice of Event Postponement ***
USCIRF Hearing on Freedom of Religion or Belief in India Rescheduled Following USCIRF’s Annual Report Release in May 2019
Washington, DC - Due to an overwhelming response in interest on the topic of religious freedom in India by a wide variety of religious and civic organizations, USCIRF has announced the postponement of this Wednesday’s scheduled hearing in order to accommodate more participants and attendees.
Media inquiries may be addressed to kboyle@uscirf.gov.
Hearing:
Freedom of Religion or Belief in India: Rising Challenges & New Opportunities for U.S. Policy
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 10:00 AM
Location: Dirksen Senate Office Building – Room 562
Video will be live streamed here: https://youtu.be/L7NoHva8qxI
___________
Please join the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) for a hearing that will explore the rising challenges to freedom of religion or belief in India and opportunities for U.S. policy to address these challenges.
India, a pluralistic, secular democracy with a long history of inclusivity through law, governance, and society, was among the original countries to adopt the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1979, expressing a commitment to protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the “freedom [of the individual] to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Despite this, USCIRF has found that conditions for religious freedom have consistently deteriorated over the last decade—in recent years in 10 specific states, placing India on its Tier 2 (formerly Watch List) annually since 2009. In 2017, USCIRF found that public and private actors affiliated with Hindu nationalist groups regularly engaged in incidents of violence, intimidation, and harassment largely against Hindu Dalits, Muslims, Christians, and Sikhs. Anti-conversion and anti-cow slaughter laws were routinely used to discriminate against religious minorities or as a pretext for extrajudicial violence, and forced conversions of non-Hindus to Hinduism were reported. In addition, rules on the registration of foreign-funded nongovernmental organizations were used discriminatorily against religious minority groups. Based on current observation, these issues have continued in 2018.
India’s religious freedom challenges are being influenced by a rise in violent Hindu extremism. One key consequence has been the proliferation of hate speech and hate crimes, which in India primarily include incidents against religious and ethnic communities; in fact, India’s National Crime Record Bureau has publicly reported this uptick in hate crimes. This hearing will examine these issues while exploring new opportunities for U.S. policymakers to effectively encourage the protection of freedom of religion or belief in India.
The hearing will be open to members of Congress, congressional staff, the interested public and the media. For any questions, please call 202-523-3240. Please RSVP to Henry Young at hyoung@uscirf.gov.
Witnesses will be announced at a later date.
Hosted by:
Tenzin Dorjee Kristina Arriaga
Chair, USCIRF Vice Chair, USCIRF
Gayle Manchin Gary L. Bauer
Vice Chair, USCIRF Commissioner, USCIRF
Andy Khawaja Nadine Maenza
Commissioner, USCIRF Commissioner, USCIRF
Johnnie Moore Tony Perkins
Commissioner, USCIRF Commissioner, USCIRF
November 21, 2019
September 21, 2017
The report documents ASEAN’s and the Member States’ approaches to the freedom of religion or belief, underscores the religious freedom-related challenges in the region that transcend country borders, and emphasizes the strategic importance of robust U.S. engagement on these issues with ASEAN as a collective and the 10 individual Member States.
The full report may be found here.
The ASEAN Report chapter translations may be found here.
Executive Summary
Overview
The countries of Southeast Asia—bound together in the regional bloc known as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)—are vastly diverse in their geographic size, governing systems, economies, and cultural and societal heterogeneity. Also, each country is different in its degree of adherence to international human rights standards and its protection (or denial) of the freedoms therein, including the universal freedom of religion or belief. In ASEAN’s 50th year, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) presents A Right for All: Freedom of Religion or Belief in ASEAN. The report documents ASEAN’s and the Member States’ approaches to this fundamental right, underscores the religious freedom-related challenges in the region that transcend country borders, and emphasizes the strategic importance of robust U.S. engagement on these issues with ASEAN as a collective and the 10 individual Member States: Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
ASEAN’s approach to human rights often has been diminished by two competing interests: the Member States’ desire to integrate as a bloc and their deeply embedded reliance on independence and non-interference in one another’s affairs. In an increasingly interdependent, interconnected community such as ASEAN, it is vital that governments and societies recognize—both within and across their borders—when the right to freedom of religion or belief is being abused and take steps to protect individuals and groups whose rights are violated.
The United States—now in its 40th year engaging with ASEAN—wields significant weight and influence in the region and with individual Member States. The United States must encourage ASEAN Member States to achieve prosperity for their own people and live up to the core principles all countries agree to when joining the United Nations and upon becoming party to international human rights instruments.
ASEAN, Human Rights, and Freedom of Religion or Belief
ASEAN and the individual Member States have an inconsistent record protecting and promoting human rights, and even more so with respect to freedom of religion or belief. Often, ASEAN countries have lacked cohesion and a strong will to act in response to serious violations within their own borders and among the other members of the bloc. In 2009, ASEAN established the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), and in 2012 it adopted the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). Critics have challenged the efficacy of the AICHR as a human rights body and the AHRD as a human rights instrument. The international community should call upon Member States to uphold the higher standards embodied in international human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Key findings about freedom of religion or belief in the 10 Member States include:
Brunei: The identification of the state and the public sphere with Islam in the person of the sultan sometimes challenges the religious freedom of non-Muslims or heterodox Muslim residents, whose communities may be banned or ruled by Shari’ah despite their affiliation.
Burma: While the year 2016 marked a historic and peaceful transition of government in Burma, outright impunity for abuses committed by the military and some non-state actors and the depth of the humanitarian crisis for displaced persons continue to drive the ill treatment of religious and ethnic groups.
Cambodia: Cambodia has few internal challenges with freedom of religion or belief, but could do more to uphold its human rights commitments, particularly under the Refugee Convention.
Indonesia: The Indonesian government often intervenes when religious freedom abuses arise, particularly if they involve violence. Non-Muslims and non-Sunni Muslims, however, endure ongoing difficulties obtaining official permission to build houses of worship, experience vandalism at houses of worship, and are subject to discrimination as well as sometimes violent protests that interfere with their ability to practice their faith.
Laos: In some areas of Laos, local authorities harass and discriminate against religious and ethnic minorities, and pervasive government control and onerous regulations impede freedom of religion or belief.
Malaysia: Malaysia’s entrenched system of government advantages the ruling party and the Sunni Muslim Malay majority at the expense of religious and ethnic minorities, often through government-directed crackdowns on religious activity, expression, or dissent.
Philippines: With the strong influence of the Catholic Church, as well as the needs of other religious groups, the Philippines grapples with the separation of church and state, and also with the violence that continues to dominate relations with Muslims on the island of Mindanao.
Singapore: Singapore’s history of intercommunal violence informs its current policies, which prioritize harmony between the country’s major religions, sometimes at a cost to freedom of expression and the rights of smaller religious communities.
Thailand: The primacy of Buddhism is most problematic to freedom of religion or belief in the largely Malay Muslim southern provinces, where ongoing Buddhist-Muslim tensions contribute to a growing sense of nationwide religious-based nationalism.
Vietnam: Vietnam has made progress to improve religious freedom conditions, but severe violations continue, especially against ethnic minority communities in rural areas of some provinces.
Challenges
The 10 Member States experience a number of common and crosscutting challenges that underscore how violations of freedom of religion or belief occur across borders and within the context of broader and related regional trends. ASEAN should acknowledge and work to address the following problems: protection gaps for refugees, asylum seekers, trafficked persons, and those internally displaced; the use of anti-extremism and antiterrorism laws as a means to limit religious communities’ legitimate activities, stifle peaceful dissent, and imprison people; the use of nationalistic sentiment by individuals and groups who manipulate religion to the detriment of other religious and ethnic groups; arrests, detentions, and imprisonments based on religious belief, practice, or activities; and the existence and implementation of blasphemy laws that are used to incite or inspire violence, generally by members of a majority religious group against those from a religious minority community.
ASEAN’s Principle of Non-Interference
ASEAN Member States regularly invoke the principle of non-interference (the enshrined tenet of national sovereignty, integrity, and independence), but on occasion have set it aside when it was to their advantage. While the ASEAN countries understandably first and foremost protect their own interests, each has a broader responsibility to act in harmony with the community of nations, particularly when human rights issues, including freedom of religion or belief, transcend country borders.
U.S.-ASEAN Relations
During ASEAN’s 50th year and after 40 years of U.S.-ASEAN engagement, the United States should leverage its interest and influence in the region to press Member States to uphold international human rights standards. Although some of the ASEAN Member States are more open to U.S. engagement about human rights issues, strong and consistent prodding from the United States—including positive reinforcement when warranted—would send a clear signal about U.S. priorities in the region.
Conclusion
ASEAN and the individual Member States must understand that the global community of nations is grounded in the premise that everyone observe a rules-based international order, which includes the responsibility to uphold freedom of religion or belief and related human rights. This means ASEAN and the Member States should take steps to:
adhere to international human rights instruments; welcome visits by international human rights monitors; ensure unfettered access by aid workers, independent media, and other international stakeholders to vulnerable populations and conflict areas; repeal blasphemy and related laws; release prisoners of conscience; and strengthen interfaith relationships.
ASEAN Report Executive Summary and Chapter Translations
Brunei (Malay)
Burma (Burmese)
Cambodia (Khmer)
Indonesia (Indonesian)
Laos (Lao)
Malaysia (Malay)
Philippines (Tagalog)
Singapore (Malay)
Singapore (Chinese)
Thailand (Thai)
Vietnam (Vietnamese)
