USCIRF Report: US Better at Condemning Violations of Religious Freedom Than at Promoting Change

Last week (Sept. 6), the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a 28-page report (full text) titled Revisiting the CPC Designation. The report evaluates the effectiveness of the provisions of the International Religious Freedom Act that call for designating as Countries of Particular Concern those nations where the government has engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. The Report says in part:

Key informant interviews and independent discourse analysis reveal that the CPC designation mechanism is far more effective at condemning religious freedom violations than promoting changes to policy..... 

In its 25-year history, IRFA has played a significant role in elevating international religious freedom as a U.S. foreign policy priority and galvanizing a global effort to advance this fundamental human right. The CPC designation mandate, including its requirement for subsequent actions, represents a core component of that policy effort. When appropriately utilized, it has energized action across the IRF ecosystem. Maintaining this energy has been critical in cases of success; this is true both within the U.S. foreign policy sphere and with violator states. When the United States is able to make a sustained, coherent, and adaptive case for religious freedom, U.S. interlocutors take note. The CPC designation tool is the enforcement mechanism that undergirds these efforts. 

However, its use can be improved through more consistent application, integration into U.S. bilateral relationships, and documentation of changes to freedom of religion or belief. Too often, the application of IRFA has failed to produce genuine change to advance religious freedom. The repeated use of sanctions waivers backed by vague justifications and the repurposed application of preexisting sanctions dilute the effectiveness of the CPC designation. The indefinite suspension of sanctions or other punitive measures for religious freedom violators, whether due to inertia or competing policy priorities, impedes accountability for religious freedom violators. When waivers must be issued, as the act permits, the State Department should provide clear justifications and timelines.

Baptist Press reports on USCIRF's findings.

USCIRF Issues Annual Report on Countries Violating Religious Freedom

On Tuesday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 96-page 2024 Annual Report (full text). It detail developments in 28 countries and makes additional policy recommendations as well. As summarized by the agency's press release announcing the Report:

In its 2024 Annual Report, USCIRF recommends 17 countries to the U.S. Department of State for designation as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) based on their governments engaging in or tolerating particularly severe violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief. These include 12 that the State Department designated as CPCs in December 2023: Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—as well as five additional recommendations: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam.

The 2024 Annual Report also recommends 11 countries for placement on the State Department’s Special Watch List (SWL) based on their governments’ perpetration or toleration of severe violations of religious freedom. These include one that the State Department placed on that list in December 2023: Algeria—as well as 10 additional recommendations: Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. While the State Department included Vietnam on its SWL in December 2023, USCIRF believes the government of Vietnam’s violations rise to the level of CPC status. Additionally, USCIRF recommends the State Department add Kyrgyzstan to the SWL for the first time due to the Kyrgyz government’s heightened religious repression in 2023.

USCIRF further recommends to the State Department seven non-state actors for redesignation as Entities of Particular Concern (EPCs) for particularly severe religious freedom violations. The State Department designated all seven of these groups as EPCs in December 2023: al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the Houthis, Islamic State Sahel Province (IS Sahel), Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) (also referred to as ISIS-West Africa), and Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM).

USCIRF Ends Saudi Visit After Its Jewish Chairman Was Told to Remove His Kippah in Public Places

In a press release issued Monday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom said that last week it ended an official visit to Saudi Arabia early after the delegation was told to leave the Diriyah UNESCO World Heritage Site in Riyadh because USCIRF Chairman Rabbi Abraham Cooper would not remove his kippah (head covering). The press release says in part:

The Saudi government had invited the delegation, led by Chair Cooper and Vice Chair Reverend Frederick A. Davie, to tour the site on March 5, as part of their official visit to the country that had started on March 3. After several delays to the tour, officials requested that Cooper, an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, remove his kippah while at the site and anytime he was to be in public, even though the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs had approved the site visit. U.S. Embassy staff accompanying the USCIRF delegation supported and conveyed to Saudi officials Chair Cooper’s polite but resolute refusal to remove the kippah. Despite their efforts, site officials escorted the delegation off the premises after Chair Cooper indicated he sought no confrontation or provocation but as an observant Jew could not comply with a request to remove his kippah.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C. issued a statement (full text) saying in part:

This unfortunate incident was the result of a misunderstanding of internal protocols.... We look forward to welcoming him back to the Kingdom.

UN Says Belarus Legislation on Religion and Belief Violates International Human Rights Law

In a Feb.20 press release (full text), the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights said that its experts believe recent legislation on freedom of conscience and activities of religious organizations adopted by Belarus violates international human rights law.  The press release, in part quoting the experts' report, says in part:

“The provisions on compulsory registration unduly restrict the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief,”...

“The law establishes broad yet imprecise legal grounds for the State to suspend and dissolve religious organisations, such as conducting an activity directed against the main direction of domestic and foreign policy of the Republic of Belarus, discrediting the Republic of Belarus, humiliating the national honour, engaging in political activities or other undefined extremist activities,” ...

The experts warned that the law imposes extensive State control over religious education and literature, stipulating that religious education, religious literature or any other material with religious content must not contradict “the generally recognised traditional values of the Belarusian people and the ideology of the Belarusian State”....

The law stipulates that religious organisations can only be led by Belarusian citizens with permanent residence in the country, which appears to discriminate against certain religions....

“The law appears to be aimed at further strengthening the overarching control of the State over all aspects of the existence of religious communities....

European Court Says Ban on Halal and Kosher Slaughter Does Not Violate Human Rights Convention

 In Affaire Executife van de Moslims van Belgie et Autres c. Belgique, (ECHR, Feb. 13, 2024) [full opinion available only in French], the European Court of Human Rights, in a Chamber Judgment, held that Belgium had not violated Article 9 (freedom of religion) or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights when two regions in the country eliminated the exemption permitting ritual slaughter of animals without stunning. The decrees had the effect of prohibiting Halal and kosher slaughter of animals in the two regions. An English language press release from the Court describes the Court's opinion, in part, as follows:

The Court found that there had been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of religion and that this was prescribed by legislation, namely the Flemish and Walloon decrees. 

As to whether the interference pursued a legitimate aim, the Court observed that this was the first time that it had had to rule on the question whether the protection of animal welfare could be linked to one of the aims referred to in Article 9 of the Convention.

Article 9 of the Convention did not contain an explicit reference to the protection of animal welfare in the exhaustive list of legitimate aims that might justify an interference with the freedom to manifest one’s religion.

However, the Court considered that the protection of public morals, to which Article 9 of the Convention referred, could not be understood as being intended solely to protect human dignity in the sphere of inter-personal relations. The Convention was not indifferent to the living environment of individuals covered by its protection and in particular to animals, whose protection had already been considered by the Court. Accordingly, the Convention could not be interpreted as promoting the absolute upholding of the rights and freedoms it enshrined without regard to animal suffering. 

Emphasising that the concept of “morals” was inherently evolutive, the Court did not see any reason to contradict the CJEU and the Constitutional Court, which had both found that the protection of animal welfare was an ethical value to which contemporary democratic societies attached growing importance....

The Court noted that both decrees were based on a scientific consensus that prior stunning was the optimum means of reducing the animal’s suffering at the time of slaughter. It saw no serious reason to call this finding into question.

The Court further observed that the Flemish and Walloon legislatures had sought a proportionate alternative to the obligation of prior stunning, as the decrees provided that, if the animals were slaughtered according to special methods required by religious rites, the stunning process used would be reversible, without causing the animal’s death....

International Religious Freedom Summit Being Held In D.C.

This year's International Religious Freedom Summit is being held today and tomorrow at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C.  Co-chaired by Sam Brownback, former Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom and Katrina Lantos Swett, President of the Lanto Foundation for Human Rights, and featuring several members of Congress as Honorary Co-Chairs, the event brings together dozens of non-profits and NGO's to discuss current issues impacting religious liberty around the world. Here is the full program for the event.

State Department Names Recipients of International Religious Freedom Awards

Last Thursday, the State Department announced that Secretary Blinken has awarded the Department's International Religious Freedom Awards to individuals in New Zealand, Nigeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Nicaragua, South Africa, and People's Republic of China-Tibet, as well as to a group of nine Orthodox clergy in Lithuania. Detailed information about the award recipients is available on the website of the State Department's Office of International Religious Freedom.

State Department Issues Updated List of Religious Freedom Violators; USCIRF Reacts

On January 4, the State Department, pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act, released its annual list of countries and entities that have engaged in or tolerated serious violations of religious freedom.  Secretary of State Blinken's announcement (full text) said in part:

I have designated Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, the DPRK, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  In addition, I have designated Algeria, Azerbaijan, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam as Special Watch List countries for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I have designated al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Sahel, ISIS-West Africa, al-Qa’ida affiliate Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal-Muslimin, and the Taliban as Entities of Particular Concern.

Reacting to the State Department's designations, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release stating in part:

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) calls for a congressional hearing after reiterating its extreme disappointment that the U.S. Department of State yet again failed to designate Nigeria and India as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC), despite both countries repeatedly meeting the legal standard. Despite this disappointment, USCIRF welcomed the State Department’s decision to include Azerbaijan on its Special Watch List (SWL) for committing or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom pursuant to the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).

European Court Advisory Opinion: Security Clearance May Be Withdrawn for Supporter of Religion That Is Threat to the State

In a Grand Chamber advisory opinion, the European Court of Human Rights has concluded that Belgium many deny a person the right to work as a security guard because he belongs to a religious movement that poses a threat to the state.  In Requested by the Conseil d’État of Belgium, (ECHR, Dec. 14, 2023), the Belgian Ministry of Interior had withdrawn the identification card of a security guard who was a supporter of the scientific branch of Salafism. The Ministry gave the following justifications:

... [S]cientific Salafism represents a threat to our model of society and to our country. Any security guard or officer must display conduct that is respectful of the fundamental rights of his or her fellow citizens and must respect democratic values....

Even though you have stated that you reject any violence in the name of Islam, the State Security Service has nevertheless indicated that you are a supporter of an ideology which, in particular, questions the legitimacy of Belgian law, advocates community sectarianism, fosters a backward view of the role of women and takes positions which threaten the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens by a reactionary vision seeking to rid Islam of all its non-Islamic evolutions and influences.

The Court in its Advisory Opinion concluded:

The established fact that an individual belongs to a religious movement that, in view of its characteristics, is considered by the competent administrative authority to represent a threat to the State may justify a refusal to authorise that individual to work as a security guard or officer, provided that the measure in question: (1) has an accessible and foreseeable legal basis; (2) is adopted in the light of the conduct or acts of the individual concerned; (3) is taken, having regard to the individual’s occupational activity, for the purpose of averting a real and serious risk for democratic society, and pursues one or more of the legitimate aims under Article 9 § 2 of the Convention; (4) is proportionate to the risk that it seeks to avert and to the legitimate aim or aims that it pursues; and (5) may be referred to a judicial authority for a review that is independent, effective and surrounded by appropriate procedural safeguards, such as to ensure compliance with the requirements listed above.

President's Statement on 25th Anniversary of International Religious Freedom Act

On Friday, President Biden issued a Statement (full text) the 25th Anniversary of the International Religious Freedom Act. He said in part:

Here at home, we are facing a rising tide of antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination that are fueling violence and hate across our country. And, around the world, billions of people live in countries where they are either persecuted or prevented from freely choosing, practicing, teaching, or leaving their faith. That’s especially true for members of religious minority communities too often endure intimidation, violence, and unequal protection under the law, while also facing restrictions on their movement, constraints on their access to education and healthcare, and the fear that their children will be taken and their faith erased. We have seen attacks on Christians in some countries. And we also continue to see repressive governments and violent extremists reach across borders and to target groups for their beliefs—an abhorrent abuse of the human rights and dignity entitled to all people.

 The United States will continue to defend religious freedom, today and always.

[Corrected]. 

Canadian Court Says Oath to Monarchy Does Not Infringe Sikh Lawyer's Rights

In Wirring v. Law Society of Alberta, (AB KB, Oct. 16, 2023), the Court of King's Bench of the Canadian province of Alberta (sitting as a trial court) rejected a challenge to the oath of allegiance to the British monarch that law school graduates are required to take in order to be admitted to the Law Society and practice law in Alberta. According to the court:

Mr. Wirring is an amritdhari Sikh. He has pledged an absolute oath of allegiance to Akal Purakh, the divine being in the Sikh tradition. Mr. Wirring asserts that the oath of allegiance to the Queen is incompatible with the oath he has sworn to Akal Purakh.

The court held, however, that the oath requirement did not infringe plaintiff's freedom of religion, or his equality rights, that are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court said in part:

[117]  ... [T]he Oath of Allegiance ... should be interpreted ... not as an oath to the Queen as a person, but as a symbolic oath to our constitutional democracy by those seeking to be barristers and solicitors....

[165]      I ... accept Mr. Wirring’s own words that he can only see the Oath of Allegiance as an oath to the Queen. However, and importantly, I do not find that portion of his evidence to be part of his sincerely held religious belief. The conclusion that the Oath of Allegiance is an oath to the Queen is Mr. Wirring’s own legal interpretation....

[166]      ... [T]he interpretation of the Oath of Allegiance is an objective exercise performed by the Court....

[172]      Because I have found the Oath of Allegiance to be symbolic, Mr. Wirring is not required under the LPA to pledge allegiance to a spiritual or secular entity other than Akal Purakh. Therefore, there is no objective interference with Mr. Wirring’s freedom of religion by the state.

[173]      ... [I]t is Mr. Wirring’s misunderstanding of the Oath of Allegiance’s meaning, and not the requirement to take the Oath of Allegiance, which is preventing him from admission to the legal profession in Alberta.

YesPunjab reports on the decision.

Biden, Modi Respond To Questions About Religious Freedom In India

Yesterday, President Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is making a state visit to the United States held a joint Press Conference (full transcript) at the White House. Reporters raised questions regarding India's treatment of religious minorities. Here is the relevant portion of the questions and answers:

Q    So, as you raise these broader issues of human rights and democracy, what is your message to those — including some members of your own party — who believe that your administration is overlooking the targeting of religious minorities and a crackdown on dissent in India?

PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Well, look, the Prime Minister and I had a good discussion about democratic values.  And ... that’s the nature of our relationship: We’re straightforward with each other, and — and we respect each other.

One of the fundamental reasons that I believe the U.S.-China relationship is not in the space it is with the U.S.- Indian relationship is that there’s an overwhelming respect for each other because we’re both democracies.  And it’s a common democratic ... character of both our countries that — and our people — our diversity; our culture; our open, tolerant, robust debate. 

And I believe that we believe in the dignity of every citizen.  And it is in America’s DNA and, I believe, in India’s DNA that the whole world — the whole world has a stake in our success, both of us, in maintaining our democracies.  It makes us appealing partners and enables us to expand democratic institutions across — around the world.  And I believe this, and I still believe this.

Q    Mr. Prime Minister, India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics.  As you stand here in the East Room of the White House, where so many world leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy, what steps are you and your government willing to take to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in your country and to uphold free speech?

PRIME MINISTER MODI:  (As interpreted.)  I’m actually really surprised that people say so.  And so, people don’t say it.  Indeed, India is a democracy. 

And as President Biden also mentioned, India and America — both countries, democracy is in our DNA.  Democracy is our spirit.  Democracy runs in our veins.  We live democracy.  And our ancestors have actually put words to this concept, and that is in the form of our constitution.

Our government has taken the basic principles of democracy.  And on that basis, our constitution is made and the entire country runs on that — our constitution and government.  We have always proved that democracy can deliver.  And when I say deliver, this is regardless of caste, creed, religion, gender.  There’s absolutely no space for discrimination. 

And when you talk of democracy, if there are no human values and there is no humanity, there are no human rights, then it’s not a democracy.

And that is why, when you say “democracy” and you accept democracy and when we live democracy, then there is absolutely no space for discrimination.  And that is why India believes in moving ahead with everybody with trust and with everybody’s efforts.

These are our foundation principles, which are the basis of how we operate, how we live our lives.  In India, the benefits that are provided by the government is accessible to all.  Whoever deserves those benefits is available to everybody.  And that is why, in India’s democratic values, there’s absolutely no discrimination neither on basis of caste, creed, or age, or any kind of geographic location.

State Department Releases 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom

Yesterday the U.S. State Department released its 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom (full text). The Report describes the status of religious freedom in 196 countries. The Report is submitted annually to Congress in compliance with the International Religious Freedom Act. Secretary of State Blinken, announcing release of the report, said in part:

Over the past year we’ve seen real progress in some parts of the world on expanding religious freedom as people demanded their rights.  Civil society groups pushed for change and governments listened.

Unfortunately, the report also documents the continuation and, in some instances, the rise of very troubling trends.  Governments in many parts of the world continue to target religious minorities using a host of methods, including torture, beatings, unlawful surveillance, and so-called re-education camps.  They also continued to engage in other forms of discrimination on the basis of faith or lack of faith, like excluding religious minorities from certain professions or forcing them to work during times of religious observance.

Governments use anti-conversion, blasphemy, apostasy laws, which ban the act of leaving a faith, to justify harassment against those who don’t follow their particular interpretation of a theology, often weaponizing those laws against humanists, atheists, and LGBTQI+ individuals....

In a press release, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reacted to the State Department's Report.

USCIRF Releases 2023 Annual Report

 On May 1, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom released its 2023 Annual Report (full text). A press release from the Commission summarizes the 98-page Report. It says in part:

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) today released its 2023 Annual Report documenting developments during 2022, including significant regression in countries such as Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Iran, Nicaragua, and Russia....

USCIRF recommends 17 countries to the State Department for designation as Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) because their governments engage in or tolerate “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations” of the right to freedom of religion or belief. These include 12 that the State Department designated as CPCs in November 2022: Burma, China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan—as well as five additional recommendations: Afghanistan, India, Nigeria, Syria, and Vietnam....

The 2023 Annual Report also recommends 11 countries for placement on the State Department’s SWL [Special Watch List] based on their governments’ perpetration or toleration of severe religious freedom violations. These include two that the State Department placed on that list in November 2022: Algeria and Central African Republic (CAR)—as well as nine additional recommendations: Azerbaijan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and Uzbekistan....

USCIRF further recommends to the State Department seven non-state actors for redesignation as “entities of particular concern” (EPCs) for systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations. The State Department designated all seven of these groups as EPCs in November 2022: al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, the Houthis, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS), Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP or ISIS-West Africa), and Jamaat Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM)....

In addition to chapters with key findings and U.S. policy recommendations for these 28 countries, the 2023 Annual Report describes and assesses U.S. international religious freedom policy overall. The report also highlights important global developments and trends.... 

USCIRF Holds Hearing on Russian Violation of Religious Freedom Through Its Invasion of Ukraine

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom held a virtual hearing on Russia's Invasion of Ukraine: Implications for Religious Freedom. (Video of full Hearing and transcripts of written presentations.) USCIRF described the hearings:

Since Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the full-scale military invasion of Ukraine a year ago, Russian forces have committed numerous religious freedom and other related human rights violations in Ukraine, including the killing and torture of religious leaders and the destruction of countless houses of worship. Russian officials have repeatedly turned to antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust distortion in an effort to justify the country’s groundless invasion. In the areas of Ukraine that Russia has occupied since 2014, its de facto authorities and proxies have imposed draconian laws to suppress religious communities such as the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, predominantly Muslim Crimean Tatars and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Meanwhile, in Russia, the state has continued to prosecute an ever-growing list of religious groups as so-called “extremists” for their peaceful religious activities and launched a ruthless campaign to silence civil society and independent media.

At Religious Freedom Summit, Ambassador Calls for Crimes Against Humanity Statute

The International Religious Freedom Summit was held on Tuesday and Wednesday in Washington, D.C. Among the numerous speakers and panelists was Beth Van Schaack, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice. In her remarks (full text), she said in part:

Today, several million Muslims are the victims of two contemporary genocides. One such genocide is being committed by authorities of the People’s Republic of China against predominantly Muslim Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, ethnic Kyrgyz, and members of other ethnic and religious minority groups in Xinjiang. The other is being committed by members of the Burmese military against predominantly Muslim Rohingya. The Secretary of State has made a public genocide determination in both cases....

Although victim and survivor groups tend to gravitate toward the genocide label, ... [w]e do a great disservice to victims when crimes against humanity are omitted from our condemnation....

Crimes against humanity encompass a range of acts made criminal under international law when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.  Prohibited acts include murder, torture, sexual violence, and persecution....

This is a crime that can be prosecuted before many national and international tribunals, including the International Criminal Court. The international community is in the process of drafting a crimes against humanity statute—an effort in which my office is actively involved. Unfortunately, however, the United States does not have a crimes against humanity statute, so this is not a crime that we can prosecute domestically. Senator Durbin has worked for years on getting such a statute enacted and we are hopeful that he can build the congressional consensus he needs around this effort this congressional term.

European Court: Bulgaria Violated Rights of Evangelical Churches by Warnings Circulated to Schools

In Tonchev v. Bulgaria, (ECHR, Dec. 13, 2022) (full text of decision in French), the European Court of Human Rights in a Chamber Judgment held that municipal officials in Bulgaria violated Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights when they circulated materials to schools containing hostile information about Christian evangelical churches.  According to the English language press release from the Court on the case:

The Court pointed out that Article 9 of the Convention did not prohibit the public authorities from making critical statements about representatives or members of religious communities. However, in order to be compatible with the Convention, such statements had to be supported by evidence of specific acts liable to pose a threat to public order or to the interests of others. They also had to avoid casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs in question and must remain proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, it did not appear from the circular letter and the information notice distributed to schools that the authors had been mindful of the authorities’ duty of neutrality and impartiality. On the contrary, these documents contained unqualified negative judgments, in particular those portraying the Evangelical Churches as “dangerous sects” which “contravene[d] Bulgarian legislation, citizens’ rights and public order” and “create[d] divisions and opposition within the Bulgarian nation on religious grounds”. They also made unfounded references to certain proven cases of improper proselytising as reflecting the usual practice of those Churches. Lastly, they drew comparisons with the dominant Orthodox religion and made remarks linking, in particular, the lack of veneration of “national saints” with the division of the Bulgarian nation. Those remarks could be interpreted as casting doubt on the legitimacy of the beliefs and practices of the Churches concerned.

While the Court regarded as justifiable the intention to warn pupils against possible abusive practices by certain religious groups by informing them about such practices, it was not persuaded that the use of language such as that referred to in the preceding paragraph was necessary for that purpose.

European Commission Appoints Special Envoy for Promoting Religious Freedom

The European Commission announced this week that it has appointed Belgian diplomat Frans van Daele as Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief Outside the EU. (EC News Release [scroll down to "Appointments"]). The announcement describes the Special Envoy's duties:

The Special Envoy will establish a dialogue with national authorities and other stakeholders in countries suffering from discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. He will support for intercultural and interreligious dialogue processes, including encouraging dialogue between representatives of different faiths and the setting up of joint initiatives. He will put in place measures to target de-radicalisation and prevention of extremism on grounds of religion or belief in third countries. In cooperation with authorities from third countries, he will promote religious diversity and tolerance within educational programmes and curricula. The Special Envoy will coordinate his activities closely with the EU Special Representative on Human Rights.

Among his prior diplomatic position, van Daele served as Belgian Ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006. ADF International issued a press release commenting on the appointment.

State Department Updates List of Countries Violating Religious Freedom; USCIRF Reacts

Last week (Dec. 2) the U.S. State Department, as required by the International Religious Freedom Act, announced its annual list of countries and entities that violate or tolerate severe violations of religious freedom.  In a press statement, Secretary Blinken said in part:

Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom.  I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.  Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.

Responding to the State Department's action, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a press release stating in part:

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) finds it inexplicable that the U.S. Department of State did not include Nigeria or India in its latest designations of “Countries of Particular Concern”....

Religion News Service has posted an opinion piece on the State Department's actions by a former State Department adviser.

USCIRF Issues Report on State-Favored Religions and Religious Freedom

Yesterday the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom issued a report (full text) titled Implications of Laws Promoting State-Favored Religions. The report identified 78 countries with official or favored religions, 57 of which maintain laws or policies that lead to religious discrimination or repression, or that have the potential to do so.  The Report says in part:

[C]ontrary to popular misconception, there is no inevitable contradiction between freedom of religion or belief and a country’s adoption of an official or favored religion. As such, there are examples of countries that maintain an official or favored religion and protect FoRB as an essential human right.... 

Conversely, the absence of an official or favored religion is no guarantee of a country’s protection or promotion of FoRB. USCIRF has recommended CPC or SWL designation for a range of avowedly secular countries where the government consistently perpetrates or tolerates severe or particularly severe religious freedom violations as defined in IRFA....