Search
Displaying results 1 - 10 of 74
July 14, 2016
USCIRF Chair Thomas J. Reese, S.J. testified on July 15, 2016 before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission at a hearing titled "Blasphemy Laws and Censorship by States and Non-State Actors: Examining Global Threats to Freedom of Expression."
From the testimony:
“Blasphemy laws lie at the intersection of two crucially important freedoms – the freedoms of religion and expression, both of which are being challenged today. In addition, blasphemy laws often lead to instability and violence in countries around the world, with negative consequences for individuals, communities, and nations.”
Click here to read Chair Reese's full testimony.
Click here to watch the hearing.
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
January 23, 2020
The full report may be found here. Saudi Arabia has taken some limited steps toward greater religious freedom in 2019 while continuing to restrict it in other ways. On a positive note, Saudi Arabia eased religious restrictions on women’s mobility in 2019 and allowed Saudi women for the first time to report births, marriages, and divorces. It also began issuing tourist visas and relaxed religious restrictions on dress for women visitors to the Kingdom. Yet at the same time, the government has conducted mass executions of Shi’a Muslims. It continued to detain several religious prisoners of conscience and severely mistreat activists who peacefully protested religious guardianship laws, and in official communications it described feminism as a form of radical extremism.
November 26, 2018
The full report may be found here.
Summary of Findings
This follow-on contracted study reviews 22 middle and high school textbooks published by the Saudi government for the 2017-2018 academic year, including the 12 high school books previously reviewed by USCIRF in its May 2018 Special Report. The books number more than 3,000 pages and primarily focus on religious subjects. For comparison, the study also includes two middle school texts on social and national studies.
Intolerant content is scattered throughout many of the books. This intolerance is reflected in the commentary and interpretations offered by the textbooks. Whereas the middle school curriculum and books generally dwell on developing “right” belief, the high school books focus on inculcating appropriate responses by society and the individual to those with “wrong” beliefs. They teach that those who worship differently from the Saudi state-sanctioned interpretation of Islam are polytheists who will go to hell regardless of their good deeds. Shi’a and Sufi veneration of the gravesites of prophets is dismissed as “heresy” while criticism of Islam is deemed “apostasy,” for which the textbook endorses the death penalty. The textbooks caution students to avoid friendship with members of other religions. They also encourage both violent and non-violent jihad against non-believers. Finally, the passages espouse the death penalty for women who have an affair, and for gay men. The textbooks examined in this study are more intolerant than the six religious books from 2012–2014 reviewed in a previous internal analysis by USCIRF. They are even more intolerant than the 2011–2012 textbooks studied by the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), which identified many troubling passages. The 2017–2018 books are more akin to Saudi textbooks from the early years of the previous decade before the Saudi government promised to reform its curricula.
May 17, 2018
Click here to view the report Study Revealed Numerous Passages in Saudi Textbooks Advocating Intolerance and Violence.Summary
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) had an independent contractor review 12 Saudi high school textbooks for the current 2017-2018 academic school year. The books, numbering more than 2,000 pages and focusing only on religious subjects, are much more intolerant than the six religious books from 2012-2014 that were reviewed by USCIRF. Based on the books reviewed, it appears that they are even more intolerant than the 2011-2012 textbooks studied by the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), which identified many intolerant passages. The 2017-2018 books are more akin to Saudi textbooks from the early years of the previous decade before the Saudi government promised to reform its curricula. The issues found in the books implicated religious freedom and other human rights.
May 06, 2020
Read the full report here.This report provides a country update on religious freedom conditions in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic. In 2016, the Lao government updated its regulation of religious freedom with the Decree on Management and Protection of Religious Activities, known as Decree 315. Despite the clarifications this decree provided, as well as efforts by the central authorities, religious freedom conditions in Laos remain of concern. All official faith communities must keep active communication with local and central religious authorities to function and operate, including in appointing leaders and in organizing faith-based activities. Unofficial faith communities struggle to obtain government recognition, and therefore legally cannot operate. This report examines the ongoing issues and barriers Laos faces to realize its international commitments to freedom of religious and belief.
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)
January 14, 2015
Many countries around the world have laws that punish expression deemed blasphemous, defamatory of religion, or contemptuous or insulting to religion or religious symbols, figures, or feelings. The application of these laws has resulted in individuals being jailed for merely expressing a different religious belief or being falsely accused.In January 2015, USCIRF issued a press release, USCIRF Statement on flogging of Saudi blogger, Raif Badawi. From the press release:
“Raif Badawi was the victim of a cruel and barbaric act carried out by the Saudi justice system – unfortunately, business as usual in the Kingdom. And for nothing more than creating an online forum for diverse views to be expressed freely.”
In July 2013, Mr. Badawi had been sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes and his website was shut down. In May 2014, a Saudi appeals court overturned that verdict and the retrial resulted in a harsher sentence: Mr. Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison, 1,000 lashes, and fined 1 million SR ($266,000 USD) for, among other charges, insulting Islam and religious authorities. The current sentence calls for Mr. Badawi to be lashed 50 times a week for 20 consecutive weeks. The first lashing took place on January 9. Last year Mr. Badawi's lawyer, Waleed Abu al-Khair, was sentenced by the newly created anti-terror court to 15 years in jail after being found guilty on trumped-up charges related to his work as a human rights defender.
In June 2014, USCIRF released an op-ed entitled Pakistan’s war on conscience. From the op-ed:
“In 2014, Pakistani courts already have sentenced four people to death for violating Pakistan's blasphemy law, and another has received a life sentence. They join at least 13 others on death row and 19 serving life sentences. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) […] has found that Pakistan has jailed more people for this "crime" than any other country.”
In March 2014, USCIRF released a Policy Brief entitled Prisoners of Belief: Individuals Jailed under Blasphemy Laws, which highlights the increasing use and application of blasphemy laws and individuals jailed for this “crime.” From the policy brief:
“Blasphemy laws inappropriately position governments as arbiters of truth or religious rightness, as they empower officials to enforce particular religious views against individuals, minorities, and dissenters. In practice, they have proven to be ripe for abuse and easily manipulated with false accusations.”
November 07, 2019
Host: Gayle Manchin, Vice ChairSubject Experts: Zack Udin and Kirsten Lavery
For more information, please contact Henry Young at hyoung@uscirf.gov.
July 31, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 31, 2000
Contact:
Lawrence J. Goodrich, Communications Director, (202) 523-3240 (202) 523-3240 (202) 523-3240
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom wrote Friday, July 28 to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, recommending that Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan be listed as "countries of particular concern" under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. The Commission further concluded that Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan should be kept on the list, which the State Department will release in September. The Commission also recommended that the Department closely monitor religious freedom in India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. It also noted deep concerns about religious violence in Indonesia and Nigeria. The text of the letter follows below:
Dear Madam Secretary:
In its first year of operations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom has investigated violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by governments of a number of countries, using information from victims, religious groups and other private organizations, the United States government, and others. Although it continues to be denied access to embassy cable traffic, the Commission has carefully reviewed the Department's Annual Report on International Religious Freedom -- 1999 and its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices -- 1999.
Based on this information, the Commission concludes that the governments of Laos, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Turkmenistan have engaged in particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and therefore recommends that the President designate these four countries as "countries of particular concern" ("CPCs"), for purposes of Section 402(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 ("IRFA") [22 U.S.C. § 6442(b)]. (See footnote.)
In Laos, during the last 12 months, increasing numbers of Protestants, Baha'is and Catholics have been subjected to detention, arrest and harassment, and over 50 persons have been reportedly imprisoned for the peaceful practice of their faith.
In North Korea, notwithstanding the difficulty of obtaining reliable information on conditions in the country, it is apparent that religious freedom is non-existent. The government has imprisoned religious believers and suppresses all organized religious activity except that which serves the interests of the state. Not to identify this repressive government as a CPC would effectively reward it for suffocating free speech, press and travel so thoroughly that information on religious persecution is limited.
In Saudi Arabia, the government brazenly denies religious freedom and vigorously enforces its prohibition against all forms of public religious expression other than that of Wahabi Muslims. Numerous Christians and Shi'a Muslims continue to be detained, imprisoned and deported. As the Department's 1999 Annual Report bluntly summarized: "Freedom of religion does not exist."
In Turkmenistan, where the ruling regime is reminiscent of Stalin's, only the official Soviet-era Sunni Muslim Board and the Russian Orthodox Church are recognized by the state as legal religious communities. Members of unregistered communities -- including Baha'is, Christians, Hare Krishnas, and Muslims operating independently of the Sunni Muslim Board -- have been reportedly detained, imprisoned, deported, harassed, fined, and have had their services disrupted, congregations dispersed, religious literature confiscated, and places of worship destroyed.
The Commission further concludes that all of the seven governments or entities named by the President last October as CPCs -- Burma, China, Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Sudan, and the Taliban in Afghanistan -- continue to engage in particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and therefore should continue to be designated as CPCs.
The Commission also notes grave violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by the governments of India, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. The actions of the governments of these countries may not meet the statutory threshold necessary for designation as CPCs. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that under IRFA, the President must take action (or issue a waiver of the requirement to take such action) with regard to all countries the government of which engages in or tolerates violations of religious freedom (and not only CPCs) [Sec. 401(b)(1), 22 U.S.C. 6441(b)(1)]. Because of the seriousness of the violations in these four countries, the Commission urges the Department to closely monitor religious freedom in these countries during the upcoming year, and to respond vigorously to further violations there (including CPC designation later in the year, if appropriate).
In India, the central government appears unable (and possibly unwilling) to control growing violence by self-proclaimed Hindu nationalists targeting religious minorities, particularly Muslims and Christians. Priests and missionaries have been murdered, nuns assaulted, churches bombed, and converts intimidated in scores of violent incidents over the past year.
In Pakistan, large numbers of Sunni Muslims, Ahmadis and Christians have been harassed, detained, and imprisoned on account of their religion under laws that prohibit blasphemy and essentially criminalize adherence to the Ahmadi faith. In April of this year, the military government abandoned its expressed intent to soften the blasphemy laws.
In Uzbekistan, scores of Muslims worshipping independently of the state-controlled Muslim organization have been detained on account of their religious piety. Several religious leaders -- including Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses and Evangelical Christians -- have apparently disappeared under mysterious circumstances, died from mistreatment in custody, or have received long prison terms.
In Vietnam, the law provides for the extensive regulation of religious organizations by the state, and leaders and members of the banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, the Hoa Hao sect of Buddhism, the Cao Dai religion, as well as Protestants and Catholics have been detained without charge, imprisoned, heavily fined, harassed, or subject to government surveillance.
The Commission is also deeply concerned about the violence between members of different religious communities in Indonesia and Nigeria.
In Indonesia, current communal violence in the Malukus region has reportedly claimed the lives of 4,000 Christians and Muslims since January 1999, and there is evidence that the Indonesian government is not controlling its armed forces, resulting in murder, forced mass resettlement, and torture.
In Nigeria, disputes surrounding the actual and proposed enactment of elements of Islamic law into the criminal codes of many states in the northern part of the country have sparked a cycle of violence between Muslims and Christians in many parts of the country.
The Commission recommends that the United States urge the Indonesian and Nigerian governments to do all they can to prevent further violence and bring the perpetrators of such violence to justice.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, for considering the Commission's recommendations.
Respectfully yours,
Elliott Abrams
Chairman
Footnote: Commissioner John Bolton voted "no" on the vote to include Saudi Arabia, and Commissioner Laila Al-Marayati abstained.
Commissioner Michael Young, joined by Commissioner Nina Shea, states: "Because I am convinced that the government of India tolerates particularly severe violations of religious freedom, I dissent from the Commission majority's decision not to recommend that the President designate India a ‘country of particular concern' under section 402 of the International Religious Freedom Act (22 U.S.C. 6442(b)).
"Reliable reports from the media as well as religious and secular human rights groups in India portray a marked and lethal increase in violence against religious minorities in the past year. Christian converts, missionaries and clerics have suffered over forty violent assaults in the past year, including murder, rape, and church bombings. Officials are slow to investigate and even slower to prosecute when the alleged perpetrators are Hindu and the victim is not. This violence is fomented, if not commissioned, by strident Hindu nationalist organizations from which the Vajpayee Government refuses to distance itself; indeed, its complacence has implicitly sent a message that federal authorities will do little to stop attacks on non-Hindus or interfere with state laws that intimidate Christian evangelism (e.g., among Dalits).
"IRFA dictates that the President ‘shall designate each country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated [severe violations] as a country of particular concern for religious freedom.' Unfortunately, this certainly describes India during the past year, and thus it should be so designated. Accordingly, I dissent from the Commission."
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom was created by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 to monitor the status of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief abroad, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related international instruments, and to give independent policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State and the Congress." src="https://www.uscirf.org/images/layout/subbottomtext1.gif" />
Hon. Elliott Abrams,Chair
- Dr. Firuz Kazemzadeh,Vice ChairRabbi David SapersteinLaila Al-Marayati, M.D.Hon. John R. BoltonDean Michael K. YoungArchbishop Theodore E. McCarrickNina SheaJustice Charles Z. SmithAmbassador Robert Seiple,Ex-OfficioSteven T. McFarland,Executive Director