Macron gets a request from NGOs around the world to have his anti-separatism bill reviewed by Venice Commission
Macron gets a request from NGOs around the world to have his anti-separatism bill reviewed by Venice Commission

On October 28, a letter has been sent to Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic, asking for review of the future French “law on separatism” by the Venice Commission and the Office for Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the OSCE.

The letter was signed by several NGOs and individuals from all over the world, including the well-known Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, after it had been circulated by the Freedom of Religion or Belief Roundtable Brussels-EU, an informal group of individuals and organizations from civil society who gather regularly to discuss FoRB (Freedom of Religion or Belief ) issues. Writers raise several concerns about the law after the announcements made by Macron and members of his government.

See full letter here:

To:Mr Emmanuel Macron

President of the French Republic

Brussels, the 28th October 2020

Copies to:

  • Kishan Manocha, Head, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Department, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
  • Ahmed Shaheed, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief
  • Mr Gianni Buquicchio, President of the Venice Commission
  • Mr Eric Dupont-Moretti, French Minister of Justice

Re: The announcements on the “Law on separatism”

Dear Mr President,

We write as an informal group of organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious leaders and human rights advocates. We are from many faiths or acting in a secular capacity, representing a high degree of diversity. While there is very little we agree on theologically, or politically, we all agree on the importance of religious freedom for all faiths and none.

We write to you following the announcements that you and members of your government have made regarding the bill on “separatism” that you plan to approve in the Council of Ministers meeting on December 9. While no draft of the bill has yet been circulated, to our knowledge, we have some concerns which have been highlighted by the announcements that have been made.

We acknowledge the cautious approach that you have taken during your official speech. We have noted your insistence on the fact that you are targeting radical Islam, and not Muslims, as well as the fact that you intend to respect freedom of religion or belief. We agree that terrorism is a real issue that needs to be tackled and that a strong response needs to be taken with regards to the dangers that are posed to the French Republic, and we deeply share the traumatisms that result from the recent tragic terrorist events which hit France.

Nevertheless, we are concerned that some of the proposals may lead to the opposite of what you intend. Furthermore, taking into account the statements made by members of your government after your speech, those statements reinforce the conviction that the measures being proposed will violate France’s international commitments towards freedom of religion or belief.

For example, you announced that you plan to ban home-schooling in order to protect children from illegal schools “often administered by religious extremists”. While we understand that these schools pose a threat, a global ban on home-schooling will affect the majority of parents that for many different reasons are using this freedom with satisfying results, regardless of their faith, or none. There is certainly sufficient provision in French law to organize controls and make sure that the children are effectively educated according to established educational programmes.

The “general concept” of the law was unveiled by your Minister of Interior, Gérald Darmanin, on Twitter. It explained that places of worship will be placed under increasing surveillance and “preserved […] from the diffusion of ideas and statements hostile to the laws of the Republic.” However, how will that apply to a priest or pastor criticizing abortion or same-sex marriage, which are part of the laws of the French Republic. What action will be taken against others who may speak out against certain “laws of the Republic” that penalize the poor and the immigrants? Or even if they criticize a law against blasphemy, as it existed still recently for Alsace-Moselle in France? Is anyone now criticising the law an enemy of the state?

Another announced provision that poses a problem is your statement and that of the Minister of Interior, where it is said that the law will allow religious and other associations to be dissolved directly by the Council of Ministers in the case of  an “affront on personal dignity” and “use of psychological or physical pressures.” These concepts are vague enough to allow the arbitrary targeting of groups that are acting quite legally and without any violent intent but are in ‘disfavour’ by the administrating body. Furthermore there is no guarantee of judicial process or oversight. 

The Minister of Citizenship, Marlène Schiappa, also stated in an interview that, “We will use the same measures against the cults and against radical Islam.” This shows that there is already a clear intent to deviate from the fight against terrorism and enter the realm of prohibiting religious associations on the basis that they do not please someone, simply because they are categorised as “cults” (sectes, in French). 

Legislation aimed at terrorism is not surprising. It is a challenge that many countries face. However, States that have chosen to draft laws with such vague concepts as those cited above are States that have totalitarian tendencies (or are in fact totalitarian). Russia, for example, has passed an anti-extremism law that is now used to prosecute and jail political dissidents as well as members of peaceful religious movements such as the Jehovah Witnesses or followers of Said Nursi on the basis of their definition of “extremism”. 

When the Venice Commission gave its opinion on law of the Russian Federation on Combatting Extremist Activity, adopted at its 91st Plenary Session, it stated: 

7.  The broad interpretation of the notion of ‘extremism’ by the enforcement authorities, the increasing application of the Law in recent years and the pressure it exerts on various circles within civil society, as well as alleged human rights violations reported in this connection have raised concerns and drawn criticism both in Russia and on the international level

(…)

28.  The only definition of ‘extremism’ contained in an international treaty binding on the Russian Federation is to be found in the Shanghai Convention [on Combating Terrorism, Separatism and Extremism of 15 June 2001, ratified by Russia on 10 January 2003]. In Article 1.1.1.3) of the Extremism Law, ‘extremism’ is defined as ‘an act aimed at seizing or keeping power through the use of violence or changing violently the constitutional regime of a State, as well as a violent encroachment upon public security, including organization, for the above purposes, of illegal armed formations and participation in them, criminally prosecuted in conformity with the national laws of the Parties’. The latter clause allows signatory states to prosecute such ‘extremist’ actions according to their national laws.

It made clear that the only definitions of ‘terrorism’ and ‘separatism’ that could be used to take action against individuals or organizations require that violence is an essential element (incitement to, or encouragement of, violence or actual violence). 

The European Court of Human Rights has already applied this approach to Russia, regarding a case that involved the prosecution of followers of Said Nursi accused of extremist activities, in IBRAGIM IBRAGIMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, which became a final judgment on April 2, 2019.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion of Belief, in the unedited version of his last report on the Elimination of all Forms of Religious Intolerance (October 12, 2020), stated: 

17.    A concerning number of mandate communications highlight the use of inchoate terrorist offenses that are disproportionately applied to religious or belief minorities. Harassment measures broadly linked to countering terrorism and protecting national security illustrate that in almost every region of the world religious minorities appear to be at particular risk of being designated “terrorist groups” and of having members arrested under “extremism” or “illegal activity” charges. A number of communications addressed the use of national security imperatives as the stated objective by some governments in criminalizing membership in and/or activities of certain religious or belief groups.  Such an approach amounts to targeting, and ultimately criminalizing, the peaceful expression of a person’s identity. 

19.    Numerous State authorities have arrested, detained (sometimes incommunicado) and sentenced members of religious and belief minorities for undefined charges such as intent to ‘disturb political, economic or social structures’ , to ‘disrupt state sovereignty’   or to  ‘overthrow the Government’.  Such vague provisions fail to fulfil the principle of legality as enshrined in article 15 of ICCPR and give worrying leeway to States to arbitrarily limit the exercise of freedom of religion or belief of certain groups.

The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) recently released a new document called “Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: Policy Guidance”. It states in its introduction: 

While OSCE participating States have adopted different strategies to ensure that their own security measures are fully compliant with their international obligations and commitments pertaining to freedom of religion or belief, certain laws, security policies and practices have placed freedom of religion or belief and other universal human rights under significant pressure. Such measures, especially those that are very broad or applied arbitrarily, are often enacted in the name of “national”, “state” or “public” security, or in the interests of preserving or maintaining “peaceful coexistence”, “social stability” or “social harmony”. Experience shows that such limitations can worsen rather than improve security.

There are many more international human rights documents that deal with this delicate issue, but for reasons of brevity we are unable to carry out a full review in this letter.

We are at your disposal to meet and discuss this issue further. In any case, we respectfully but strongly recommend that you submit to both the Venice Commission and ODIHR the draft of the law when it is ready, in order to get considered international legal expertise as to how the law meets established human rights principles. 

We feel that there is a real risk that contrary to your intention, the proposed measures that have been announced will lead to the targeting of Muslims in general as well as other minority faiths, and that it may well lead to a series of human rights violations.

Respectfully yours,

Organizations

Advocates International, Advocates France, All Faiths Network, CAP Freedom of Conscience, CESNUR – Center for Studies on New Religions, EIFRF – European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom, FOREF – Forum for Religious Freedom Europe, HRWF – Human Rights Without Frontiers, International Christian Concern, Law and Liberty International, LDH – Ligue des Droits de l’Homme, LIREC – Center for Studies on Freedom of Religion, Belief and Conscience, ORLIR – International Observatory of Religious Liberty of Refugees, United Sikhs, UPF The Netherlands

Individuals

  • Régis Dericquebourg, Président, Observatoire Européen des Religions et de la Laïcité
  • Michael P. Donnelly, J.D., LL.M., Senior Counsel, Global Outreach
  • The Most Reverend Joseph K. Grieboski, Senior Fellow, The Dietrich Bonhoeffer Institute
  • Rimon Kasher, Prof. Emeritus of Biblical Studies, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
  • Nancy Lefèvre, Chairwoman, Advocates France
  • Brent McBurney, President & CEO, Advocate International
  • Kareem P.A. McDonald, Program Associate, Religious Freedom Institute
  • Greg Mitchell, Chair, International Religious Freedom Roundtable 
  • Scott Morgan, President, Red Eagle Enterprise
  • Matias Perttula, Director of Advocacy, International Christian Concern
  • Malik Salemkour, President, Ligue des droits de l’Homme (LDH)
  • Frans de Wolff, Secretary, Dutch Network for Interfaith Dialogue

[you can read more about the initiative at https://www.forbroundtable.org/post/letter-in-support-of-having-the-french-anti-separatism-bill-reviewed-by-the-venice-commission]

Discrimination of Serb minority in Croatia: A case raised at the U.N. in Geneva
Discrimination of Serb minority in Croatia: A case raised at the U.N. in Geneva

At the 45th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, a case of discrimination based on ethnicity in Croatia was submitted to their delegation.

25 years after the end of Croatia’s war for independence from Serbia, many Serbs living in Croatia report ongoing discriminatory treatment in court by the judiciary.

One such example is the case of Mr. Dalibor Močević, a Croatian citizen of Serbian descent, who has been fighting for decades in Croatian courts regarding property rights issues and, recently, a child custody case.

Mr. Močević was married to Ms. Ž. Šimunović from Našice from 1 January 2003 to 26 August 2006. One of the reasons for their divorce was that his ex-wife struggled with alcoholism and mental health issues. They have a son, I.M., who was born in February 2007.

On 17 June 2008, the Municipal Court in Našice ruled that I.M. was to be entrusted to the care of his mother. Mr. Močević was unable to get shared custody or even visiting rights from the court. He strongly believes that this decision was motivated by prejudices related to his Serb background.

In January 2010, the Našice Municipal Court granted custody of I.M. to his maternal grandparents, who lived at the same address. This was upon the request of the Center for Social Welfare of Našice due to concerns about his mother’s struggles with alcoholism and psychiatric issues. Mr. Močević was not informed that such legal proceedings were taking place despite his address being known by the court. Again, he asserts that the court’s negligence to notify him is because of his Serb origin. He has experienced this prejudice before during a case in property rights after the independence of Croatia from Serbia in 1991.

In January 2011, the Municipal Court of Našice restored the custody of I.M. to his mother and allowed his father visitation once a month for 10-12 hours a time in Našice. Mr. Močević appealed the decision, referring to his broader rights as a father under the national Family Law.

On 10 March 2011, the Osijek County Court overturned the first instance ruling and remanded the case for retrial. The County Court ruled that the disputed decision was taken in violation of the right to a fair trial because the child’s father was not allowed to participate. Mr. Dalibor Močević requested that his ex-wife undergo a psychiatric examination because he claimed that their son was experiencing chronic stress with her. Instead, the court ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr. Močević, who had no history of mental illness or any dependencies. Mr. Močević attributes this to anti-Serb sentiments.

In 2017, Mr. Močević’s ex-wife abandoned their son and left Croatia for an unknown destination. A year later she was extradited from Austria where she had been homeless, mentally unstable and alcoholic. In early 2019, the Municipal court in Đakovo initiated new proceedings concerning the custody rights of I.M. Although his mother had abandoned him, the family court judge Ankica Wolf denied Mr. Močević’s request for custody.

All challenges Mr. Močević brought to the Supreme Court of Croatia for his exclusion from these proceedings by both the judge and the president of the court in Đakovo, as well as the transfer of their case to another court were either rejected or left undecided.

Their child has been living for over 10 years now in a state of mental anguish. Mr. Močević is convinced that judges are refusing to grant him custody of his son because he is of Serb descent.

In 2018, the European Commission on Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) of the Council of Europe (CoE), expressed alarm over the rise of right-wing extremism and anti-Serb hostility in its fifth report about Croatia, the first of the seven Western Balkans countries to join the EU.

In line with the ECRI’s findings, Mr. Močević insists that he has been repeatedly denied justice because of his Serb origin. His lawyer has shared that this is not unique to Mr. Močević’s case, as other Serbs in Croatia have been discriminated against due to various personal or institutional collusions between a handful of judges, political figures, and extreme nationalists.

OSCE helps Albania’s anti-trafficking officials develop first simulation training
OSCE helps Albania’s anti-trafficking officials develop first simulation training

by OSCE

Preparations for the first ever Albanian anti-trafficking simulation-based training started at an online meeting on 29 May 2020. The OSCE Presence in Albania and the Office of the OSCE Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking presented Albania’s group of experts that will design the specific training for Albania with the methodology of this flagship OSCE approach to capacity-building in this field.

The training will consist of realistic, practical and cross-dimensional simulation exercises that will enhance anti-trafficking officials’ ability to identify victims, investigate suspected trafficking cases and prosecute exploiters and perpetrators.

“Albania continues to confront numerous challenges in addressing human trafficking, in particular in regard to victims’ identification, the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators. Through this training, Albania is the first country in the region that will be able to undertake a pioneering and groundbreaking approach towards capacity-building in tackling trafficking in human beings,” said Bernd Borchardt, Head of the OSCE Presence in Albania.

Rovena Voda, Albania’s Deputy Minister of Interior and National Anti-Trafficking Co-ordinator, said that during the 2020 OSCE Chairmanship, Albania has committed that it will strengthen the fight against trafficking in human beings, a challenge felt throughout the OSCE are. “Building upon existing instruments, such as this simulation training developed by the OSCE Office of the Special Anti-Trafficking Coordinator’s Office, the Albanian Chairmanship will support the development practices to prevent and combat human trafficking,” said Voda.

The group of experts,  comprising a wide range of professionals, from law enforcement agencies, the State Labour Inspectorate, the State Agency for Child Protection, Tirana University and civil society organizations, will work together over the next months to develop a training in which Albania’s anti-trafficking practitioners will work in teams to investigate simulated cases of labour and sexual exploitation among migrants, including child victims of trafficking.

“Simulation-based trainings provide a unique opportunity to participants to practice and master their skills in a safe learning environment and to receive immediate feedback from other professionals,” said Val Richey, OSCE Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. Over the course of eight simulation-based courses held since 2016, his Office has trained 529 practitioners from over 54 participating States, seven Partners for Co-operation and six countries from Central and Western Africa.

The training is part of the OSCE Presence’s project ‘Action against Human Trafficking in Albania’, which is funded by UNICEF with the support of the United Kingdom.