Abuse of the UPR process

Mr President,

We are pleased that the UPR process is beginning to show its worth as perhaps the most important innovation brought in with the creation of the Human Rights Council. It would be wrong, however, to attempt to hide the obvious shortcomings that have clearly been revealed.

First, we have seen how some States under review have blatantly abused the process by denying factual reports of human rights abuse, and rejecting recommendations that actually reflect their responsibilities under international human rights law, and to do so with impunity. We saw one such example on Thursday when the DPRK rejected 50 recommendations for being “against the reality of our country in both legal and practical terms”. Another example was the rejection by Qatar in the working group of the recommendation to remove the provision for stoning from their legislation.

Secondly, as has been recognised by many States and by the High Commissioner herself, the role of NGOs is vital to the UPR process. What is lacking, however, is any obligation on the part of the States concerned to pay any attention to their reports, which are frequently ignored, or rejected as politically motivated. Furthermore, States should be obliged to guarantee the safety of the human rights defenders providing such reports, many of whom have been subjected to reprisals.

Thirdly we have seen the unlovely spectacle of friends heaping praise on States with some of the world’s most dubious human rights records – what one NGO has called “filibusters of praise” – drowning out any real criticism of their human rights record. The UPR working group sessions on Egypt and Iran, for example, saw the usual charade of the Islamic states almost uniformly praising the perpetrators of human rights abuse for their “progress”. Whilst welcoming progress made, Mr President, the main focus of the UPR process should surely be on the problems that remain.

We trust, Mr President, that these obvious shortcomings in the UPR process will be addressed in the forthcoming review of the first five years of the Human Rights Council.

Thank you, sir.

Minarets and Murder

Thank you, Mr President.

We thank Ms. Asma Jahangir for her Report and outstanding work as Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. We are dismayed however by the increasingly strident attacks on freedom of expression in this Council, made in the name of religious freedom by the OIC, and in particular the gross exaggeration of issues such as the recent Swiss vote to ban the construction of new minarets, while the Council is failing to address many real issues of religious freedom, such as the murder of Christians in Egypt and Pakistan, the very recent massacre of Christians on the Jos Plateau of Nigeria, andthe ongoing ethnic cleansing of Christians of Iraq.

Sir, minarets are not central to Islam, any more than spires are to Christianity. Banning the construction of new minarets does not impede in any way the ability of Muslims to freely practise their religion, so why the uproar about a democratic Swiss vote, when the OIC allows so much human rights abuse in Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere to go unchallenged. And why have we heard no condemnation from the OIC and the Council of the call by Libya for a ‘Jihad’– a Holy War against Switzerland, forbidden under Article 2: 4 of the UN Charter:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the UN”.

And how to stop the ongoing persecution of Christians, Mandeans and other minorities in Iraq; of Bahais in Iran and now in Egypt; of Copts in Egypt; and of Ahmadis and Christians in Pakistan? How does the OIC propose stopping the constant attacks on churches and the murder or arrest of priests, pastors and worshippers in several of these countries? The OIC condemns Islamophobia on the slightest grounds, but makes no effort to do the same for Christianophobia, and rampant Judeophobia in the press, radio and TV in their own countries. Surely, Mr President, these are the questions the Council should be asking under the heading of freedom of religion.

Thank you, Sir.

Human Rights Defenders in danger

Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.

Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, Article 1

Thank you, Mister President,

Following the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, we want to present to the Council two situations that we think require its immediate attention.

First,  our representative for West Africa, Mister Leo Igwe, and members of his family have been subjected to a sustained campaign of harassment by local police in Nigeria involving multiple arrests on unsubstantiated charges since 2007, including the charge of murder, following Mr Igwe’s attempts to bring the rapist of a 10 year old girl to justice.

Mr Igwe and members of his family have been arrested, “invited” and questioned on 18 separate occasions since 2007, beaten, intimidated, threatened with guns by police, and forced to pay “bail” to police officers in order to obtain their release. Leo Igwe’s father, who is a 77 year old diabetic in failing health, has been arrested six times on false charges since 2007.

Mr Igwe has also been sued in civil court by Helen Ukpabio for alleged infringement of her freedom of religion when he accused her and her mission of wrongly accusing hundreds of innocent children of witchcraft.

This kind of harassment is about to be legitimized by law in certain countries. In Uganda, the Parliament is currently examining an anti-homosexuality bill that would criminalize not only same-sex relationships, but also human rights defenders. We fully support the appeal of the Special Rapporteur to shelve this discriminatory bill.

We also urge member States to take action against this kind of harassment. The mission of this council depends more than ever on the human rights defenders on the ground.

Thank you, Sir.

Child Abuse and the Holy See

Mr President

At the 12th session of the Council we noted contravention by the Holy See of several articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC), and cited evidence of the part played by the Holy See in the cover up of the long-running and ubiquitous problem of child abuse by priests and servants of the Catholic Church. But the distinguished delegate of the Holy See, in exercising their right of reply, conspicuously failed to deny our allegations, disingenuously attempting to point the finger of blame elsewhere.  He claimed that their report to the CRC, then being finalised would devote “a paragraph ... to child abuse by catholic clergy”. We note however that still, six months later, that report now 13 years overdue, has still yet to be filed.

But what a discourtesy to this Council and to the tens of thousands of child victims to suggest that any single paragraph could explain, far less excuse, decades of abuse in respect of which billions of dollars - and Euros - in compensation have already been paid, and investigations in new countries are regularly being announced, e.g. in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.

The claim by the representative of the Holy See that they “were putting their house in order” is not borne out by the facts. In Ireland, the Papal authorities attempted to obstruct the Murphy Inquiry into the cover up of child abuse by the Dublin diocese, and has refused to cooperate with an inquiry by the Irish Foreign Affairs Committee, refusing to respond to two letters from the Committee to the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, inviting him to appear before it.

To protect children and bring perpetrators to justice, we call on the Holy See:
  1.     to  remove its reservation to the CRC to bring the territory of Vatican City state, to which it has instructed all abuse accusations are to be sent, under the jurisdiction of the CRC,
  2.    to open up its files and records to CRC and state investigators, and
  3.      to instruct all its representatives to cooperate with legal investigating authorities worldwide, something that they have signally failed to do in Ireland.

Thank you sir.

Global Restrictions on Religious Freedom

Mr President,

We would like to draw the attention of the Council to a report by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life called Global Restrictions on Religion. The report finds that 64 States with some 70 percent of the world’s population have high or very high restrictions on religion, the brunt of which falls on religious minorities.

The report distinguishes between government restrictions and social hostility. The highest levels of government restrictions are found in China, Vietnam, Iran and Saudi Arabia although in China and Vietnam the levels of social hostility are relatively low. India, in contrast, has a moderate level of government restrictions but a high level of social hostility to religious minorities. The report notes that “The highest overall levels of restrictions are found in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, where both the government and society at large impose numerous limits on religious beliefs and practices.”

The report clearly shows that many of the States promoting resolutions combating defamation of religion are among those least respectful of freedom of religion, and exposes the double standards at play in their calling for “complementary standards” and further restrictions in freedom of expression.

We also recommend the IHEU report: “Speaking Freely About Religion”, an analysis which shows that the concept of defamation of religion has no basis in international law; that such resolutions violate the right to both freedom of religion and freedom of expression; that laws against defamation of religion are equivalent to laws against blasphemy, and equally open to abuse; and that the concerns these resolutions ostensibly seek to address would be better dealt with by a more uniform application of existing international laws against intolerance and discrimination.

Mr President, we urge the council to reject the resolution “combating defamation of religions” as both unjustifiable and unnecessary.

Thank you, sir.