HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL STARTS REVIEW OF MANDATES OF WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION, EXPERT ON FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The Human Rights Council this afternoon started the process of review, rationalisation and improvement of the mandates of the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. It also concluded its interactive debate on the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance on defamation of religions.

Leila Zerrougui, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, said the Working Group had developed transparency and impartiality in its methods. It had also developed criteria making it possible to make an objective pronouncement on arbitrary detention and quasi-jurisdictional procedures for examination of cases. It was therefore possible to analyse the practice of arbitrary detention and investigate causes that perpetuated or aggravated the practice. Over 600 cases had been looked into, and best-practice examples had been identified. The Working Group also carried out country missions and was one of the few international groups able to visit countries and look at the legality of the detention and the legal status of the detainee. Today the Group had visited 22 countries and had a good grasp of conditions and facilities found.

Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said that the effectiveness and impact of the mandate could not only be judged by statistics. The mandate had refined concepts of human rights, and had endeavoured to seek answers to complex questions. The mandate was an important mechanism for all faith-based non-governmental organizations and had made an important contribution to the protection of religious and belief communities. Since the inception of the mandate, 1,095 allegation letters and urgent appeals had been sent to a total number of 130 States. In the reports of the mandate, it had been repeatedly lamented that freedom of religion or belief was not a reality for many individuals throughout the world; and the post 9/11 context had brought new challenges in this area and responsibility on the mandate. Religious intolerance had increased, and the actors for peace and tolerance had been marginalized.

Portugal on behalf of the European Union, Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Canada, the Netherlands, the Russian Federation and Switzerland spoke about the review of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

At the start of the meeting, the Council heard a statement by Feodor Starcevic, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, representing the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The Council also concluded the interactive debate with Doudou Diène, the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance which started in the morning meeting with the presentation of his report on the defamation of religions.

In concluding remarks, Mr. Diéne said the issue of defamation of religions was as old as the world, and it was also historical and cultural. Religious and racial intolerance ran deep in cultures and consciences. It was important that the Council further the implementation of the international instruments that addressed those problems, and that it protect the freedom of religion, as well as rights. Interfaith dialogue was important, and the Council should call on stakeholders to go further than the law, and root out the root causes of defamation of religion.

In the course of the interactive debate, delegations raised a number of issues, including that the recent smear campaigns against certain religions and ethnic and social groups had led to polarization and sometimes violence. Some expressed serious concerns at the intellectual legitimisation of Islamophobia and stated that the fact that the media in certain countries had played a part in reinforcing prejudice and stereotype was a worrying trend. Speakers noted that the Universal Declaration of Human Right showed that religious freedom could serve as an element of synthesis, among the diverse categories of human rights.

Speaking in the context of the interactive debate were the representatives of the Russian Federation, India, Armenia, South Africa, Djibouti, France, Norway, Tunisia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Republic of Korea, Belgium, Algeria, Syria, Philippines, Sudan, African Union, Lesotho, Indonesia, Netherlands, Morocco, Malaysia, Thailand, Iraq, Spain, Poland, Iran, Holy See, Senegal and Canada.

Also speaking were the representatives of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts, Indian Council of South America and Association of World Citizens.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Monday 17 March when it will elect the President of the Working Group on the right to development and resume the discussion on the review, rationalization and improvement of the mandates of the Working Group on arbitrary detention and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

Review, Rationalization and Improvement of Mandates

Statement by Chairperson of Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

LEILA ZERROUGUI, Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, described the background of the creation of the Working Group’s mandate. It included deprivation of freedom of immigrants and asylum-seekers. It was specifically legal in nature, concerned with legality of detention and procedural guarantees. The Group was made up of five members from five regions, representing a range of legal systems. There were safeguards to prevent members of the Working Group being involved in situations where there might be a conflict of interest. It had developed transparency and impartiality in its methods. The Working Group had developed criteria making it possible to make objective pronouncements on arbitrary detention and quasi-jurisdictional procedures for examination of cases.

It was therefore possible to analyse the practice of arbitrary detention and investigate causes that perpetuated or aggravated the practice, Ms. Zerrougui continued. Over 600 cases had been looked into, and best-practice examples had been identified. The Working Group carried out country missions and was one of the few international groups able to visit countries and look at the legality of the detention and the legal status of the detainee. Those visits allowed dialogue with criminal justice and administrative authorities, and permitted abuses and inconsistencies to be pointed out. Today, the Group had visited 22 countries and had a good grasp of conditions and facilities found.

Statement by the Special Rapporteur Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

ASMA JAHANGIR, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, said the mandate had been created by the Commission on Human Rights in 1986. Following an earlier mandate assessment, the Commission and the Economic and Social Council in 2000 had decided to change the mandate title, acknowledging that the mandate was not confined to combating religious intolerance, but that it also involved the promotion of the freedom of religion or belief as well as prevention activities. The mandate was vital for the holistic vision of human rights and the whole system of Special Procedures. Violations of the freedom of religion or belief were often coupled with other human rights violations, including civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights.

The effectiveness and impact of the mandate could not only be judged by statistics, Ms. Jahangir said. It had refined concepts of human rights, and had endeavoured to seek answers to complex questions. The mandate was an important mechanism for all faith-based non-governmental organizations and had made an important contribution to the protection of religious and belief communities. Since the inception of the mandate, 1,095 allegation letters and urgent appeals had been sent to a total of 130 States. In the reports of the mandate, it had been repeatedly lamented that freedom of religion or belief was not a reality for many individuals throughout the world; and the post 11 September context had brought new challenges in this area and responsibility on the mandate. Religious intolerance had increased, and the actors for peace and tolerance had been marginalized.

The role of Special Rapporteurs had often been described as the eyes and ears of the Commission; however, the mandates were not only passive receivers of information where alleged human rights violations had already taken place: they could, and should, take a proactive approach in the prevention of conflicts. Ms. Jahangir concluded by saying that she trusted that the review of mandates would preserve the strength of the whole system of Special Procedures, leading to an increased level of human rights protection and promotion, taking into account the inter-relatedness of all human rights. It was crucial to maintain the independence of mandate holders as an essential feature of the system of Special Procedures.

Statements on the Review of the Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief

FRANCISCO XAVIER ESTEVES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the particularly sensitive nature of the issues relating to freedom of religion or belief was a challenge that made the Special Rapporteur‘s mandate particularly difficult. Significant further efforts needed to be made at international and national levels to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion and belief. Those efforts should include ways and means to prevent violations of freedom of religion or belief.

MARGHOOB SALEEM BUTT (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached importance to the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The host of issues raised showed there was a greater need to address the matter. The Organization of the Islamic Conference was ready for constructive engagement in the discussions that would enable a resolution on this mandate. All resolutions and mandates should have a clear reference to mandate functions in accordance with the agreed Code of Conduct.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said that the respect of religious diversity was a fundamental principle on which Canada was basing its efforts. Of deep concern were the ongoing discriminatory practices which targeted religious minorities, as well as incitements to violence in the name of religion. Many further efforts needed to be made at the international and national level in order to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. States had the primary responsibility to see that rights to freedom of religion or belief were promoted and respected.

MARION KAPPEYNE VAN DE COPPELLO (Netherlands) thanked the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for her excellent report and the important work she had done over recent years. In this world, religions played an important role in the lives of people. For a long time, the Netherlands had been a strong promoter of the right to freedom of religion or belief. It was of great importance to remember what that right actually contained: the right to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief in total liberty; the freedom from coercion to recant or convert; and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.

The Netherlands believed that the way in which this freedom was upheld by a Government was one of the elements which reflected the general human rights situation in that particular country. There was particular concern for the treatment of religious minorities in several countries, in regions across the globe. The freedom of religion or belief in the world was under pressure. The Special Rapporteur played a crucial role in strengthening protection for this precious freedom. The mandate should be renewed for a further period of three years.

MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said the Russian Federation had supported the initiative to create a Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and advocated an extension of the mandate in line with the approach announced by the delegation of Pakistan. The problem lay in the interpretation of the mandate by the mandate-holder. The Code of Conduct was intended to help resolve those problems.

NATHALIE KOHLI (Switzerland) supported the extension of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for another three years, stressing the importance of promoting the freedom of religion or belief. Switzerland believed that the dialogue with national authorities was especially important for the mandate, and called all countries to offer invitations to the Special Rapporteur to visit.

General Statement

FEODOR STARCEVIC, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs of Serbia, representing the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in a statement delivered under item three of the agenda, said the 2005 Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe strongly reaffirmed that the central mission of the 47-Member Organization was to protect and promote human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Human rights were a key activity of the Council of Europe. It was therefore not surprising that it took a close interest in the many activities of the United Nations in this field, not least those of the Council. Cooperation between the two organizations in the area of human rights was rightly receiving increased attention in Strasbourg. It was absolutely essential to share respective experience and expertise in order to promote further and strengthen human rights protection based on universal values, at the regional level in Europe but also world-wide.

The Committee of Ministers had adopted in March 2007 a series of decisions seeking to achieve greater synergy between the human rights activities of the two organizations, taking into account the fresh opportunities for cooperation created by the establishment of the Human Rights Council. The momentum for close cooperation increased further in April 2007, when the Committee received the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Strasbourg. For European countries, membership of the Council of Europe meant being part of a collective system of continuous engagement with independent human rights monitoring mechanisms. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism should use and build upon the relevant conclusions of these mechanisms.

Interactive Dialogue on Report of Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial Discrimination

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation), responding to the presentation of the report by Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in the morning meeting, said the report touched on significant issues. Attacks on religion and religious intolerance around the world were a cause for concern. Political factors in many countries opened the way for xenophobia. There had been smear campaigns against certain religions and ethnic and social groups. This led to polarization and sometimes violence. The Russian delegation felt that this merited serious consideration under the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that the report of the Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance demonstrated the limitations inherent in analysing the complex issue of defamation or negative stereotyping of religions from the limited perspective of treating it as a manifestation of racism. This issue fell under the rubric of either religious intolerance or abuse of the freedom of expression to offend public sentiments of religious groups. Denial of freedom of religion or belief was the worst form of defamation of religion. The report failed to take into account the broader picture while analysing this issue in respect of individual religions. The recommendation against establishment of any hierarchy of forms of discrimination was welcomed. The reference in the report to the Caste system was not seen as a relevant issue of racism or that of the defamation of religion.

HASMIK SIMONYAN (Armenia) said Governments should express firm political commitment to the elimination of the practice of Islamophobia and Christianophobia, as these, along with anti-Semitism and other forms of religion-based discrimination, were a source of racist practices. A broader approach and consideration of the problem from different angles would raise the effectiveness of means of addressing the issue. The Human Rights Council could perhaps give consideration to possibly adopting complementary standards on the inter-relationship between the freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and non-discrimination.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa), said the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action remained the basis for the effective elimination of racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. South Africa encouraged complementary standards on the inter-related issue of freedom of religion and contemporary forms of racism. South Africa had serious concerns about the intellectual legitimization of Islamophobia, negative stereotyping in the media, and attempts to defend defamation of religions using freedom of expression as a justification, the latter being quite contrary to articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. South Africa called on States to establish legal and constitutional guarantees aimed at protecting against acts of hatred, discrimination or coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and to intensify dialogue with the aim of promoting understanding and tolerance.

AHMED MOHAMED ABRO (Djibouti) shared the concerns expressed in the report of Mr. Doudou Diéne over rising trends towards discrimination and intolerance, particularly Islamophobia. Djibouti welcomed the attempt to deconstruct the logic behind the legitimization, banalisation and institutionalisation of discriminatory practices. Freedom of expression was a pillar of democracy even though it was true that “all justice begins with the word and not all words are just”. Djibouti shared the concerns over the effective application of international human rights instruments and urged the Council to give attention to questions that had for a long time been without response.

JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France) said that France had very recently established a Ministry for Immigration, Integration and National Identity. This name should go down in extenso. The report could lead some to believe that the creation of this ministry had been a sort of Islamophobia. This would be an erroneous interpretation. The Ministry rather had the task of handling the various aspects to stimulate integration as long as these persons respected the rights and values of the Republic. France was a secular country ant this implied neutrality. Freedom of belief was enshrined in the founding texts.

VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said all manifestations of discrimination, racism and xenophobia, including on the grounds of religion or belief, were of equal serious concern. In the report, the Special Rapporteur referred to the concept of the clash between civilisations and religions, and Norway agreed with him that this was not a misconception, as it was not civilisations and religions that met, but people, and it was their human rights that were violated. Some of the main problems in this respect were intolerance, exclusion of others, discrimination, prejudice and xenophobia. These problems were not new, and they occurred not only between religions, but also within religions.

The respect for human rights, including the eradication of the roots of the culture of racism, xenophobia and intolerance, constituted the strongest pillar for national security and democracy, and should not be dependent on any ideological and political convenience. Promoting dialogue was a key tool to manage differences and to promote tolerance. In the fight against racial and religious hatred, the international community needed to promote a more profound reflection on the inter-relation and complementarity of the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression, as there could be no real freedom of religion without the freedom of expression; they were interdependent, and it was therefore wrong at the outset to present them as conflicting rights.

SAMIR LABIDI (Tunisia) said religious discrimination often manifested itself as violence, ideological or physical. It spared no faith and undermined the basis of collective existence. There was no question of creating a hierarchy of discrimination by singling out Islamophobia, a form of discrimination that was of special relevance today. Generalised suspicion directed towards Muslims, giving rise to anti-immigration sentiments in numerous regions of the world, created a rejection towards Islam and Muslims. All discrimination was rooted in ignorance and refusal to accept difference. Tolerance and dialogue were essential, and Tunisia committed itself to supporting these.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that as a multi-ethnical and multi-cultural society, Brazil’s history had revealed a harmonious coexistence among different religions that lived together peacefully. The present adverse international environment of religious defamation deserved reflection. One should avoid a hierarchy in the discrimination against different religions. The need to create conditions to facilitate dialogue was highlighted. Political will was an essential requirement to have social harmony between religions.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the report was testimony of the mandate’s professionalism and resolute determination to present a picture of racism in society. Religious intolerance could not be divided from racism and other forms of intolerance, and that the Special Rapporteur did not seek to do so was praise-worthy. A systematic campaign of religious hatred had been waged from certain quarters, and this scourge should be fought from the legal and political fronts. Even the countries with excellent legal frameworks were not immune from this phenomenon, and there was a need to strengthen efforts on the political front, as well as other fronts, including in the media and education.

The establishment of a hierarchy of human rights could not be acceptable, and this view was reflected in the report. Freedom could not be absolute or infinite, it should be exercised with respect and responsibility. Gaps in the international legal framework should be filled in order to be able to respond to issues of racism and racial discrimination.

MAMMAD TALIBOV (Azerbaijan) said the report on defamation of religions highlighted dangerous trends, notably Islamophobia. Azerbaijan was concerned about the political use of discrimination and xenophobia. Only through mutual respect and recognition of each other’s cultural differences could these evil trends be overcome. Azerbaijan called on delegations to renew efforts towards the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

JAE-BOK CHANG (Republic of Korea) welcomed and supported the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations. Escalation of conflicts or clashes between religions could either increase public indifference to religion in general or encourage an anti-religious culture. The role of religious leaders in combating defamation of religions was emphasized.

JOCHEM DE VYLDER (Belgium) said that in the report, the Special Rapporteur noted, among other things, that in the context of the freedom of religion in certain regions, in particular in Europe, Muslims had more and more difficulties in finding places of worship and following their religious observances. The Special Rapporteur should explain: what were the objective facts available giving an overview of the situation on the global level, and whether there was sufficient information to evaluate the situation in other regions of the world with regards to all religions; and whether the Special Rapporteur had had any contact with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief as his report touched largely on this issue.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) said recent waves of incitement to racial and religious hatred in Europe, inspired in the name of free expression, were reminiscent of the anti-Semitism of the 1930s inter-war period. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action asked all States to speedily formulate and apply national, regional and international action plans and policies to tackle racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. They should strive to quell the rising tide of Islamophobia. All UN human rights mechanisms should play a front-line role in ensuring effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. It was important that all five experts charged with following the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and with inter-related anti-discrimination issues give greater thought to closing legal gaps in protection against racial discrimination, especially since September 11 2001.

ABDULMONEM ANNAN (Syria) said that it was important to implement the Durban Declaration as urged in the report by the Special Rapporteur on racism and racial discrimination. There was also a need to show political will to combat racism and the hatred against religions. Analysis showed the creation of a false linkage between Islamophobia and terrorism. Freedom of opinion had been utilized to humiliate Islam and to cause hatred and instigate violence.

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines) said the legitimisation of racism and religious intolerance in political platforms could pose a serious threat to human rights, and solidarity between victims of defamation of religions and other forms of discrimination could be a force to overcome negative trends of division and intolerance by promoting a sense of unity and equality among members of different religions and groups. This would be a process which would transform the singularity of one’s experience into solidarity with the cultural, ethic and religious experience of other communities. What main human rights elements could be included in such an initiative, and how could this complement, not duplicate, existing initiatives, the Philippines asked.

There should be a reasonable balance between freedom of expression on the one hand, and freedom and respect of religion on the other hand. No religion or race should be disrespected, and incitement to religious and racial hatred and intolerance were unacceptable and should be countered in the hearts and minds of people through intellectual, ethical, and other peaceful means.

RAHMA SALIH ELOBIED (Sudan) said Sudan welcomed the Special Rapporteur’s diagnosis of the reasons behind Islamophobia. It was a trend that had to be contained. Sudan welcomed regional and international initiatives on enhancing religious tolerance. Sudan was concerned about pressure on religious communities to abandon their lands and homes. Sudan had adopted policies aimed at entrenching increased understanding among religions, leading to peace and national reconciliation.

KHADIJA RACHIDA MASRI (African Union) said resolution 61/149 of the UN General Assembly insisted on the importance of tackling racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. The Human Rights Council had no choice but to deplore in the most vigorous language the facts relayed by Doudou Diène in his report. He should enjoy full financial and human resources support for his continued efforts. Following adoption of these resolutions, defamation of religions persisted while the majority of humanity sought guidance and certainty in a troubled world through religious belief, and this was a basic right. There must be a fight against the trend to take religion hostage for political ends.

LELOHANG MOQHALI (Lesotho) said since the attacks of 11 September 2001, the scourge of Islamophobia had grown in the form of racism and religious hatred, and incitement against Muslims. These horrible attacks were committed by certain Muslims, but many Muslim States condemned the attacks. Nobody of good sense could throw away the whole sack of potatoes after finding one rotten potato in the sack; not all Muslims were terrorists.

The Special Rapporteur should explain whether he had seen or heard about the infamous racist poster of the white sheep kicking a black one out of a European country, and if so what were his comments. The Human Rights Council should assign the Special Rapporteur to report fully on Christianophobia, as in some States where Christians were in a minority, they were not allowed to worship or practice their religion freely.

BENNY YAN PIETER SIAHAAN (Indonesia) said that the manifestation of the defamation of religion was a predominant area of concern because of the increase of this trend. The view that the media in certain countries had played a part in reinforcing prejudice and stereotype was a worrying trend. Indonesia urged efforts towards balanced and continuous dialogue at the national and international levels. This would also promote religious understanding and tolerance as well as social and cultural diversity. If countries collaborated through interfaith dialogue, much of the challenges of combating all forms of discrimination would already have been dealt with.

ARJAN HAMBURGER (Netherlands) said the Special Rapporteur had concluded that Christianophobia was a common phenomenon in Europe, due to dogmatic secularism, the separation of State and Church, and the rejection of religion, leading to an anti-religious culture and intolerance against any religious practice. The Netherlands did not recognise itself, or most of Europe, in this description. Freedom of religion and belief was a precious freedom, which the Netherlands sought to defend, both at home and abroad. The Special Rapporteur should elaborate in his next report on education and civil society organizations based on religion in Europe and other parts of the world.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said Morocco recognized the clear and balanced approach adopted by Doudou Diène in his research. The rise in racism and intolerance, especially acts targeting Islam, was clear, and governments, parliaments, civil society and the media had a duty to thwart the drift towards racism and its use for political and electoral ends. Morocco rejected practices that negated the right of others to dignity. One of the recommendations in the report was that deeper thought was needed in pondering relevant articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Moroccan delegation strongly supported this.

IDHAM MUSA MOKTAR (Malaysia) highlighted the increasingly disturbing phenomena of defamation of religions and incitement to racial and religious hatred, with a particular focus on Islamophobia. As a multi-racial and multi-religious country, Malaysia had always maintained the promotion of respect and tolerance high on its national agenda. The Government provided financial support for building various worship places. Malaysia had gone beyond its borders to promote peaceful and harmonious co-existence among societies and civilizations. There should be appropriate follow-up to the Special Rapporteur’s report.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said while the international community tried its utmost to fight discrimination against religions, including defamation, it should also take care of their underlying causes and the need to promote all efforts to combat these phobias and all forms of discrimination. The goal of living together both in the national and international context should constitute a core value system in society, based on the balance between freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and, consequently, the non-incitement of racial and religious hatred. Thailand was convinced that cooperation and dialogue among civilisations, cultures and religions would help in complementing national efforts. The Council should seriously consider the Special Rapporteur’s recommendations.

OMER BERZINJI (Iraq) said Iraq hoped to see the Council adopt a definitive and binding resolution on the defamation of religions. Iraq denounced the abuse of images of the Prophet Mohamed and of any religious image or symbol. A culture of tolerance should be cultivated and freedom of expression should be put in the service of tolerance and coexistence. It was unacceptable that 1 billion Muslims should see their religion defamed as had been done lately. The values of humanism, human rights and mutual respect and tolerance must be upheld.

SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) considered that religious freedom was a basis and refuted the concept of the clash of civilisations. Spain was endeavouring for the promotion of tolerance in the Alliance of Civilizations. This network between States and civil societies had the goal of establishing relations and smoothing the way for a dialogue. It would hold its first annual meeting in January in Madrid.

ANDRZEJ MISZTAL (Poland) said the report touched upon very important issues. It could not be denied that due to a complex combination of factors the phenomena of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had become serious problems which required immediate attention and comprehensive remedies in most of the Member States of the United Nations. Poland did not wish to deny that it, just as in any other democratic country, had to deal with a variety of views being expressed publicly; this did not mean, however, that these views were representative of the majority of Polish society.

A. ESHRAGH JAHROMI (Iran) said increased trends towards racist and xenophobic political platforms, combined with increasing defamation of religions, endangered peaceful coexistence among societies and civilizations. Political resistance to cultural diversity had led to denial of basic human rights of minority groups, immigrants, foreigners and indigenous people. The right to freedom of expression was not absolute, constrained as it was by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Iran strongly condemned defamatory cartoons published in a Swedish newspaper and reiterated the need for a convention to combat defamation of religions.

SILVANO TOMASI (Holy See) said that there was a perception that the international community was confronted with the difficult task of balancing freedom of religion and freedom of expression; respect of religious and non-religious beliefs and convictions, and defamation of a religion and members of a religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights showed that religious freedom could serve as an element of synthesis, among the diverse categories of human rights. The profession of a religion in public or in private was in fact a freedom that belonged not only in the area of civil and political rights – and therefore linked to freedom of thought, of expression and worship – but also in that of economic, social and cultural rights. Public powers should work in a way that the profession of a religion should not limit civil rights or political and institutional participation, nor should it ever be used to deny economic, social and cultural rights to individuals or to communities.

ABDUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) said the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief would enrich the discussion of the issue of defamation of religions and its consequences on the effective enjoyment of human rights. A joint reading of the report and that of the High Commissioner on the same topic confirmed the scope of the problem, in that it touched on several religions, and the urgency of implementing durable and concrete solutions to halt the growth in discrimination based on religion. There should be initiatives in the field with the inclusion of civil society and populations to encourage the respect of diversity of culture and religions, as well as the knowledge and acceptance of the other. The recommendations formulated in the two reports should be the object of the best possible follow-up by the Council, and there should be a strengthening of cooperation and political will to fight against defamation of religion.

DANIEL ULMER (Canada) said religious intolerance was a matter of great concern and the world would benefit from increased tolerance and respect for cultural, ethnic and religious diversity. Canada worked to combat all forms of religious intolerance. The Council’s focus should be on the individual’s right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. The issue of defamation of religions also involved issues of free speech. All States should ensure full respect for rights to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

MICHEL FORST, of the International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, said that national human rights institutions had long fought human rights violations, one of which was racism. During the Danish cartoons incident they had noted that defamation of religions was not the right way to make use of one’s freedom of expression. There was a need to develop clear ambitions and policies to fight religious defamation internationally.

WIKO W.K. LAMAIN, of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts, said to this day Japan ignored its past racial practices and denied the legally established facts of its war crimes committed during the Second World War. The Japanese Government was still of the opinion that Japan deserved a seat on the International Court of Justice. With their present war record, and their handling of the past, that wish should be denied. The Japanese Government and its Parliament should face the facts, acknowledge their wrongdoing and repair the damage done to the victims. The younger generation of Japan deserved a non-racial Government which made reparations for its war past.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South America, said religious discrimination was often used for political ends, and indigenous peoples had been subject to that despite the recognition accorded to them in law and policy. The doctrine of discovery title was still used to justify discriminatory practices against indigenous peoples and the Special Rapporteur’s mandate should be extended to review cases of denial of land, territory and title to indigenous communities.

GENEVIEVE JOURDAN, of Association of World Citizens, said that half of the world’s population today lived in cities. The world's city population would be over 2 billion in the coming years. Among the risks encountered by the population was racism. Recent xenophobic posters were reminiscent of the 1930's. Everyone should be committed to fight for peace and justice. However, the ideal could never be enshrined in a national plan. It was urgent for world governments to broaden knowledge of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Concluding Remarks by the Special Rapporteur on Racism and Racial Discrimination

DOUDOU DIÈNE, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in concluding remarks, said the issue of defamation of religions was as old as the world, and it was also historical and cultural. Religious and racial intolerance ran deep in cultures and consciences. It was important that the Council further the implementation of the international instruments that addressed those problems, and that it protect the freedom of religion, as well as rights. Interfaith dialogue was important, and the Council should call on stakeholders to go further than the law, and root out the root causes of defamation of religion.

The world had reached a phase where Islamophobia was becoming deep-rooted in people’s minds, showing how important the problem was. Mr. Diène said it was important for him to work together with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, in order to gain a holistic view of the problem. There were many different forms of racism, racial discrimination, and xenophobia, and efforts should be made to deal with them in depth.