...that Turkmenistan is the most closed of the post-Soviet countries?

Since 2007, Turkmenistan has been led by President Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov.  The country’s first president who died in 2006, Saparmurat Niyazov, oversaw one of the world’s most repressive and isolated states.  Virtually no independent public activity was allowed, and a 2003 religion law banned most religious activity.  The 2003 religion law, which violates international standards on freedom of region or belief, continues to be enforced. It sets intrusive registration criteria; bans any activity by unregistered religious organizations; requires that the government be informed of all foreign financial support; forbids worship in private homes; and places severe and discriminatory restrictions on religious education.  

Berdimuhamedov continues to maintain a state structure of control and repression. For instance, a system of categorical denials of international travel for many citizens remains in place; the internet is blocked and a dissident website based in Vienna was hacked; and as of 2013, the Turkmen government no longer recognizes dual citizenship.  In addition, according to the International Crisis Group, Turkmenistan has one of the world’s highest prisoner-to-population ratios, and a 2011 report on Turkmenistan by the UN Committee against Torture (CAT) concludes that torture is widespread and occurs with impunity. 

USCIRF Commissioners and staff met with President Berdimuhamedov in 2007 and raised concerns about the poor religious freedom climate.  While President Berdimuhamedov ordered a few limited reforms and released the former chief mufti from prison in connection to USCIRF’s visit, his government has not adopted systemic legal reforms on freedom of religion or belief and other human rights.

For more information about Turkmenistan, please go here.

 … that since 2009, Switzerland has banned the construction of minarets?

In November 2009, Swiss voters and cantons approved a popular initiative to amend the Swiss federal constitution to ban the future construction of minarets.  The amendment added a new sub-article (3) to Article 72 (Church and State) stating that “The building of minarets is prohibited.”  The four minarets that existed in the country at the time of the ban were not affected.  The ban does not affect the future building of mosques, though they still are subject to existing local zoning requirements.   

In Switzerland’s system of direct democracy, citizens have the power to propose and require a popular vote on initiatives to amend the Swiss federal constitution by collecting the signatures of 100,000 voters supporting a particular initiative within a period of 18 months.  The minaret ban was proposed in 2007 by two far-right political parties that argued it was needed to stop the alleged “Islamization” of the country.  They had collected the requisite number of signatures by July 2008. 

The Swiss government opposed the ban as irreconcilable with human rights guarantees included in the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as provisions of the Swiss constitution, and recommended that it should be rejected.  Despite this opposition, the minaret initiative was adopted by 57.5% of voters and 22 of the 26 cantons on November 29, 2009.  The results surprised many observers, as pre-election polling had indicated that support for the initiative was only about 35%.  No other European country has a constitutional provision or national law banning minarets.

Cases concerning the Swiss minaret ban have been filed at the European Court of Human Rights; one was found inadmissible in 2011 and others remain pending.

To read USCIRF’s press release after the minaret ban was adopted, click here.

...that Turkey’s strict adherence to secularism has lead to religious freedom violations for Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

Turkey imported and enshrined the French concept of secularism, or laïcité, into its constitution on February 5, 1937.  Often described as freedom from religion, Turkey’s application of laïcité requires that religion be absent from all governmental affairs, while at the same time giving the government strict control over the practice of religion. 

After the establishment of the Turkish Republic following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, solidifying secularism became a driving principal of the Republic.  This principle led the government to seek to control or limit all religions in the public sphere, including in government offices, schools, and houses of worship.  Eighty plus years later, Turkey’s longstanding application of laïcité has detrimentally impacted all religious communities, including the Sunni majority, the Alevi community, and smaller minority communities such as the Greek Orthodox, Syriac, Armenian, Roman Catholics and Jewish communities. 

Because of this approach to secularism, no religious community has full legal status, which hinders their right to train clergy, offer religious education, or own and maintain places of worship.  The Turkish government created the Directorate for Religious Affairs (Diyanet) to regulate Muslim communities and the Directorate for Foundations (Vakiflar) to regulate all non-Muslim communities. The Vakiflar requires all property be registered to a “community foundation” or “community association” rather than the religious community directly.  In addition, the government nationalized all schools of higher education, including the Greek Orthodox Theological School of Halki.  Muslim women also have been prohibited from wearing headscarves in government offices or schools.

The application of laïcité and Turkey’s strict control of religion has impacted negatively the ability of all religious communities to practice their faith and worship, and has hindered the communities’ ability to promulgate their religion and pass on their religious properties to future generations. However, after nearly 80 years of comprehensive state control of religious communities, Turkey has begun to reverse many of the longstanding impediments to full freedom of religion and belief.  The country has instituted new policies that allow religious communities to gain control over their properties, lifted the headscarf ban in universities and in courts of law, and currently is drafting a new constitution that may allow for greater human rights and respect for religious freedom. 

… that since the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, two years ago, nearly 100 Coptic Orthodox Christians have been killed in Egypt due to sectarian violence, surpassing the death toll of the previous 10 years combined?

The situation for Copts in Egypt remains precarious, as extremist elements continue to randomly target Coptic Christians.  A climate of impunity continues to exist as most of the alleged perpetrators of violent incidents over the last two years have not been brought to justice, despite the fact that the number of incidents of sectarian violence decreased in 2012, along with a significant decrease in the number of injuries and deaths.  Notably, there still have been no convictions for the October 2011 Maspero violence in which 26 people, mostly Copts, were killed, and hundreds injured during protests.

In addition, since the January 25, 2011 revolution, there has been an increase in the number of blasphemy and defamation of religion cases that disproportionately have impacted Copts.

Furthermore, Egypt’s new constitution includes a number of problematic provisions limiting freedom of religion or belief for all Egyptians (See Initial Analysis of Problematic Provisions Related to Freedom of Religion or Belief and Associated Rights in Egyptian Draft Constitution).

In 2012, USCIRF recommended that the U.S. government designate Egypt a “country of particular concern” (CPC) because of the particularly severe violations of religious freedom perpetrated or tolerated by the government, such as discrimination, intolerance and violence committed against religious minorities and disfavored Muslims.

...that the Eritrean government, one of the most repressive governments in the world where a recent coup attempt just failed, has placed Eritrean Orthodox Church Patriarch Abune Antonios under house arrest since January 2006?

Eritrea has been called the North Korea of Africa for, among other reasons, torturing and imprisoning thousands and committing systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom On January 13, 2006, the Eritrea government placed Patriarch Antonios under house arrest,and on January 20, 2006, stripped him of his executive authority over the Eritrean Orthodox Church.  Although Patriarch Antonios was permitted to officiate church services, the government removed his administrative role over church affairs.  One year later, on May 27, 2007, the Eritrean government appointed a new Patriarch and forcibly moved Patriarch Antonios to an undisclosed house where he continues to be detained.  Patriarch Antonios, who suffers from severe diabetes has been denied medical assistance, is reported to be in deteriorating health.

Prior to his arrest, Patriarch Antonios strongly criticized  the Eritrean government’s interference in the Church’s internal affairs, secret arrest of three Orthodox priests, and detention of political prisoners.  He also refused to implement a government order to excommunicate 3,000 parishioners who opposed the government of President Isaias Afweki. 

Since 2004, USCIRF has recommended – and the State Department has designated – Eritrea as a “country of particular concern” (CPC), for its “systematic, ongoing and egregious” religious freedom abuses.  An estimated 2,000-3,000 people have been imprisoned for the peaceful practice of their religious beliefs over the past decade.  Individuals imprisoned for religious reasons often are beaten, tortured, and pressed to renounce their faith. Those who were released reported having been confined in 20-foot metal shipping containers in the desert or in underground barracks, and have suffered the medical consequences of extreme temperature fluctuations.

The Ethiopian government recognizes only four religious communities – the (Coptic) Orthodox Church of Eritrea; Sunni Islam; the Roman Catholic Church; and the Evangelical Church of Eritrea, a Lutheran-affiliated denomination. The government has refused to recognize other religious communities, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians, and deems “illegal” their basic activities.  The government has closed  their places of worship, raided their worship services, and banned their activities.  Mass detentions of people engaging in such activities now routinely occur.  The government also routinely interferes in the internal affairs of registered religious groups, and imprisons Muslims and Orthodox Christians for protesting government interference in their internal affairs. 

...that France’s military intervention follows almost a year in which three religious extremist groups controlled northern Mali.

A March 2012 coup d’état in Mali’s capital Bamako left northern Mali vulnerable to militias already rebelling against the central government and religious extremist groups operating in the region.  After taking over the north, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Ansar al-Din, and the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA) forcibly imposed their strict interpretation of Islamic law and have committed numerous religious freedom violations, including applying hudood punishments, and enforcing what they deem appropriate dress and behavior.  In late 2012, the UN Security Council passed resolution 2085 on December 20 authorizing an African Union peacekeeping mission and political negotiations between the Malian central government and rebel groups. As the international community trained the peacekeeping force, the religious extremist groups increased their military action and expanded territory under their control leading France to military intervene in the country on January 10, 2013.   

Ansar al-Din and AQIM also desecrated almost a dozen Sufi shrines in Timbuktu in 2012.  In the 15th and 16th centuries, Timbuktu was known as the “City of 333 Saints” and served as the intellectual and spiritual capital of the region and a center for the propagation of Islam throughout Africa.  Today, the city is home to Islamic manuscripts dating back hundreds of years.  Using bulldozers, pick-axes, hoes and guns, Ansar al-Din and AQIM fighters desecrated or destroyed such historic sites as the entrance to a 15th-century mosque, as well as the mausoleums of Sidi Mahmoud, Sidi Mokhtar, Alpha Moya, and the Al Hassan and Al Houseyni twins.  Contrary to local Sufi traditions, Ansar al-Din and AQIM consider the veneration of shrines to be idolatrous.

The international community, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, condemned the attacks and the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor called the destructions of the shrines a war crime. UNESCO, which has designated Timbuktu as a World Heritage site, created a special fund to help restore the shrines. 

For more information, see the September 2012 USCIRF Factsheet: Religious Freedom Violations by Violent Religious Extremist Groups in Northern Mali. 

... that in 2012 Vladimir Putin signed into force five new Russian laws that restrict the civil and political rights of Russian civil society, including those of religious communities?

Protests erupted across the Russian Federation, but particularly in Moscow, after Vladimir Putin returned to the Russian presidency in March 2012 in an election widely viewed as rigged.  In response to these major demonstrations, Putin signed a raft of new legislation into force that created harsh new penalties for independent political activity, which also impacts religious freedom.  USCIRF Chair Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett and USCIRF Senior Policy Analyst Catherine Cosman visited Moscow in September 2012. The policy brief, “Russia: Unruly State of Law,” details findings from this trip. 

In June, Putin signed the first bill into law that imposes new administrative fines, which could amount to more than the average annual salary, on individuals taking part in unauthorized public gatherings that violate “public order.”  By September 2012, Forum 18 reported that the law had already been used against several religious communities.  A Pentecostal pastor was fined for holding a religious service.  In addition, in the north Caucasus republic of Adygea, the FSB security service ordered the closure of a Muslim prayer room and Muslims in two other locations were warned that their Eid-ul-Fitr ceremonies in rented premises must conform to the new law.

Following in July, a second law signed by Putin required foreign-funded non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in political activity to register as “foreign agents.”  The law requires that the phrase “foreign agents” -- with its negative Soviet-era connotations -- be included in all materials produced by such NGOs.  Failure to comply is punishable by heavy fines or even a two-year prison sentence.  Most Russian human rights NGOs, including Memorial, have indicated that they will not register as “foreign agents.” On November 21 -- the day the new NGO law came into force -- some human rights groups found the phrase “foreign agent” spray-painted across their office buildings.  While Russian human rights groups that publicize religious freedom violations are not exempt from the new law, religious groups are, according to the SOVA Center.  The new NGO law also penalizes groups alleged to have harmed public health – a charge sometimes brought against Protestant-run health charities.  Russian human rights activists informed USCIRF that an NGO coalition will challenge the new law in the ECtHR.

The third new law, also signed in July, increases government control of the internet.  The law creates a federal website blacklist, and requires site owners and internet operators to shut down any listed site.  RFE/RL reported that 181 internet sites had been closed by November.  Even before the new law, access to certain websites had been restricted.  For example, the independent Moscow-based Portal-credo.ru website, which discusses religious freedom, has been blocked for years.  In addition, internet providers in Russian regions such as Chechnya, Volgograd and Omsk have had their access blocked to the YouTube site hosting the controversial “Innocence of Muslims” video.  According to the SOVA Center, internet advocacy of the superiority of non-violent religious views accounted for half of the convictions for alleged extremism in 2012.

July also saw the passage of the fourth new law that criminalizes certain types of libel, particularly against officials such as the police. Unlike the criminal libel law overturned by then-President Medvedev, the new law introduces harsh administrative fines. Media libel is now subject to a fine of up to 2 million rubles (USD 61,000), while a person who is convicted of libel by false accusations of a major crime will be fined up to 5 million rubles (USD 153,000).  One likely goal of the new law is to limit the opportunities for criticism of public officials, including those who may have acted in an arbitrary way towards religious communities.

Finally, and most disturbingly, on November 13, Putin signed into law amendments to the treason bill -- the same day that he told the new Presidential Human Rights Council that he might not sign it in its current form.  The new law amends the Criminal Code with a new article prosecuting illegal access to information considered state secrets, amends three current articles, on state treason, espionage, and disclosure of state secrets, and amends the Code of Criminal Procedure, so that all cases brought under the new criminal code now come under Federal Security Service jurisdiction, according to the Law Library of Congress.  Problematically, the law also expands the legal definition of high treason from acts that endanger state security to include those that undermine Russia’s “constitutional order, sovereignty, and territorial and state integrity.”  Moreover, Russian citizens who furnish financial, material, technical, consultative or other help to a foreign state or an international or foreign organization now face possible 20-year prison terms.  Also under the new law, Russian citizens who participate in international human rights conferences or supply information on religious rights violations to international organizations potentially are liable for criminal prosecution as traitors.

…that in South Korea, around 800 Jehovah’s Witness men are currently imprisoned for refusing compulsory military service and an estimated 500 new conscientious objectors are jailed each year. 

Since 1960, more than 12,000 Jehovah’s Witness members and other conscientious objectors have served eighteen month sentences for violating South Korea’s Military Service Act (MSA), which requires all 19 to 35 year old Korean men to serve a two year military commitment.  Because of their criminal record, conscientious objectors are not allowed to enter a government office and apply for any type of national certification exam.  South Korea's Supreme Court, Constitutional Court and the National Human Rights Committee have recommended an alternative service system.  However, given rising military tensions with its neighbor North Korea, the Administration of current President Lee Myung-bak has not provided MSA exemptions for either clergy or conscientious objectors.  

The UN Human Rights Council, and its predecessor the UN Human Rights Commission, repeatedly have recognized “the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, as laid down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”   As recently as July 2012, the UN Human Rights Council called on all states to review their laws, policies and practices relating to conscientious objection to military service.  The European Court of Human Rights also has found that the failure to recognize conscientious objection violates the European Convention’s guarantee of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses and other individuals who object, based on conscience or religion, to compulsory military service are also imprisoned in Eritrea, Turkmenistan, Belarus, Singapore, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.

…that Boko Haram attacked Nigerian churches over the past two consecutive Christmas holidays?

Boko Haram, a violent religious extremist group, has been responsible for a series of deadly attacks around the 2010 and 2011 Christmas holidays.  On Christmas day 2011, bombings occurred in or around churches in Jos, Kano, Madalla, Gadaka, and Damaturu; 40 died in Madalla alone. On Christmas Eve 2010, a policeman was killed while guarding a church and a number of churches were attacked in Maiduguri, killing six and injuring 25.

Boko Haram is an Islamic sect from northern Nigeria that views as morally corrupt the federal and northern state governments, as well as political and religious leaders. The group rejects the west and the secular state and seeks the universal implementation of “pure” sharia law to resolve the ills facing northern Nigerian Muslims.  Boko Haram targets anyone or any institution opposing its world view, including Muslim clerics, politicians, police stations, government buildings, churches, newspapers, banks, and schools.  Its tactics include drive-by shootings on motorcycles and the use of improvised explosive devices, and starting in 2011, suicide bombings.

Boko Haram attacks have not been limited to Christmas.  Throughout 2012, Boko Haram, or people thought to be affiliated with or sympathetic to the group, attacked at least 30 churches, killing and injuring hundreds.  In an effort to further destabilize Nigeria, these church attacks are predominantly occurring in northern cities that have a history of sectarian violence, including Bauchi, Jos, and Kaduna.  Boko Haram leaders have justified these attacks on churches and Christians by singling out Nigeria’s history of sectarian violence and impunity, stating that the violence is in retaliation for the killing of Muslims by Christians in Kaduna and Plateau states. 

Sectarian violence in Nigeria dates back to 1999 – long before the Boko Haram phenomenon – with more than 14,000 Nigerians having been killed in religiously-related violence between Muslims and Christians.  Because the government of Nigeria continues to fail to prevent and contain acts of religiously-related violence, prevent reprisal attacks, or bring to justice those responsible for such violence, USCIRF has recommended that Nigeria be designated a “country of particular concern” for tolerating systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom.  Other religious freedom concerns in Nigeria include the application of a strict interpretation of shariah in the criminal codes of several northern Nigerian states and discrimination against minority communities of Christians and Muslims.   For more information, see USCIRF’s July 2012 Factsheet: Religious Freedom Violations and Religious Violence in Nigeria.

…that in the case of imprisoned Indonesian atheist Alexander Aan, the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief also protects the right not to believe? 

Both the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 18) support the freedom of an individual or community to publically manifest a religion or belief, to change religions or not to follow any religion. As atheism is a form of belief, atheists enjoy protection under international law. Indonesia ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 2006, though the world’s most populous Islamic country officially recognizes only six religions (Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Catholicism, and Protestantism) and has a 1965 law that outlaws blasphemy and the dissemination of atheism.  

In recent years, Indonesian human organizations have criticized the government for supporting restrictions and condoning intolerance against non-Islamic groups, such as the Ahmadiyah.  USCIRF’s 2012 Annual Report documents severe religious freedom problems in Indonesia and details troubling cases of violence and government approved restrictions on religious minorities.  The Indonesia chapter of the Annual Report can be found at http://www.uscirf.gov/reports-and-briefs/individual-country-chapters/3371.html.    

The case of Alexander Aan, a 31-year-old civil servant from Padang, West Sumatra, again raises Indonesia’s growing restrictions on the freedom of religion and belief.  Aan was arrested for creating a Facebook group called Ateis Minang (Minang Atheists) and posting questions about the existence of god and cartoons depicting and insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Angered by the content of this Facebook page, a mob brutally beat Aan, who was turned over to police and initially charged with blasphemy, though those charges later were dropped.  

In June 2012, Aan was sentenced to prison for two and half years for violating Article 28 of Indonesia’s Information and Electronic Transaction Law (2008) for “disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility.” Aan reportedly is no longer an atheist and has stated publicly that he has “returned” to Islam during his incarceration.         

Aan’s lawyers have appealed his sentence to the Indonesian Supreme Court.  

The holding of atheistic beliefs or their propagation should not be considered a criminal act.  Atheism should be viewed as an expression of conscience by individuals who do not embrace theistic beliefs and should be protected by governments under the rights to the freedom of religion and expression.  International human rights covenants, to which Indonesia is a party, protect the right to the freedom of religion and expression in any form, including electronic and internet-based modes of expression.  

...that five states in India have adopted anti-conversion laws?

India’s anti-conversion laws have created a climate of intimidation against minority faiths, are difficult to enforce, and run afoul of international human rights standards and protections.  They also contradict Article 25 of the Indian constitution which grants to Indian citizens the right to profess, practice and propagate their faith in a way that neither disrupts public order nor adversely affects public health and morality.

Five states in India (Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat , Chhatitsgarh, and Himachal Pradesh)  each have adopted a “Freedom of Religion Act ” (FORA), commonly referred to as anti-conversion laws.  According to India’s 2011 provisional census, these states have a combined population of 207,325,256.  Two other states have adopted FORAs, but they are considered unenforceable; Arunanchal Pradesh’s FORA has not been fully promulgated, and Rajasthan’s state assembly passed a bill, but the state’s Chief Minister has yet to sign it into law.  Jharkhand, Karnataka and Manipur states also have considered similar legislation.  While the fully adopted FORAs in the five states are not identical, they share the same two principles:  (1) the FORA prohibits the “forcible conversion” of someone from one religion to another; and (2) the FORA creates a requirement that the local government be given notice of all religious conversions.

In theory, the FORAs protect individuals from forced or coercive conversion.  However, in practice the ill-defined terminology, particularly the interpretation of what is considered inducement or coercive acts, has led to societal and police harassment.  Additionally, the requirement to register a conversion places government officials in the awkward and inappropriate position of assessing the genuineness and therefore the legality of conversions.  This requirement gives a religiously-biased governmental official the power to determine that an individual’s change of faith was illegal, despite the individual citing no harm to themselves.

In August 2012, Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down parts of its FORA for violating the state constitution.  The two offending provisions were: Rule 4 (obligation to notify the authorities within 30 days of one's intention to convert to a religion other than Hinduism), and Rules 3 and 5 (requiring the state to investigate conversions).

Human rights organizations and religious community leaders all have praised the High Court’s decision and called on the Indian and state governments to review all FORAs that have been adopted.