Statement by H. E. Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi
Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the United Nations and Other
International Organizations in Geneva
“Report of the Special Rapporteur
on freedom of religion or belief”
Mr.
President,
In today’s world, because of their faith or belief, persons belonging to
religious minorities experience various degrees of abuse that run from physical
attacks to kidnapping for ransom, from arbitrary detention and obstacles in
requesting registration, to stigmatization. Effective protection of the human
rights of persons belonging to
religious minorities is lacking or inadequately addressed even in the U.N. and
international systems. Lately this worrying situation has caught the attention
of some Governments and segments of civil society. Thus awareness about this
serious problem has become more evident. On the other hand, widespread
discrimination affecting religious minorities persists and even increases.
The Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or
Belief has rightly focused his Report on the many human rights violations
perpetrated against persons belonging to religious minorities. States may be
directly involved through indifference toward some of their citizens or through the political will to
marginalize, suppress or even eliminate communities with a different identity
no matter how long they historically have been rooted in their own country. In some circumstances, non-State
actors also take an active and even violent role by attacking religious
minorities. The extensive indication of the variety of violations reported
offers a realistic picture of today’s oppression of religious minorities and
should serve as a call to action.
However, the Report underplays the basic issue that
minorities are defined either from the perspective of a “majority” or from the
perspective of other “minorities”. Moreover, according to the Report the State
should act in a neutral way in the recognition of religious groups. Indeed, the
Report defines individual persons as holders of the right to freedom of religion and sees the goal of
protection of religious freedom directed at “ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural,
religious and social identity of the minorities concerned”[1].
It indicates individual protection of religious freedom as the way to achieve
the protection of religious communities, a process that will not translate
automatically in their protection. In fact, the Report itself shows very well
that most violations of religious freedom occur at the religious group level.
While the State should enforce the universality of
human rights by balancing freedom and equality, it often identifies itself with
the “dominant community” in a way that unfortunately relegates minorities to a
second class status, thus also creating
problems for the religious freedom of individuals.
Individual freedoms and rights can be reconciled and
harmonized with those of the community that wants to preserve its identity and
integrity. There is no opposing dialectical process, but a necessary
complementarity. The person should not become a prisoner of the community nor should the community become vulnerable
simply because of the assertion of individual freedom. The Special Rapporteur
rightly states that by stressing too narrow an understanding of equality, we
may lose the diversity and specificity of freedom.
The legal recognition of a minority is the starting
point for the necessary harmony between individual and group freedom. By
adopting such a realistic approach to this issue the coexistence of communities
is facilitated in a climate of relative tolerance. However, before such a
realistic approach can be pursued, legal status must be granted to religious
communities as is required by the innate human right of any person, which
precedes and is binding on the State. We fully agree then with the Special
Rapporteur’s recommendation: “What the
State can and should do is create favourable conditions for persons belonging to religious minorities to
ensure that they can take their faith related affairs in their own hands in
order to preserve and further develop their religious community life and
identity” [2].
Only through respect for this balance can both peaceful coexistence and the
advancement of all human rights be attained.
The State’s role as guardian and enforcer of the
freedom of religion not only for
individuals but also for religious communities reveals that this balance is
highly political. The secular State often is not neutral toward existing
religious communities; not even in Western democracies where liberalism leads
not so much to a neutral society but to one without a public presence of
religion. But the State can preserve a religious identity provided it acts with
neutrality and justice toward all religious groups in its territory. It can be
added that the State should monitor violations of freedom of conscience and the
Rapporteur should address in this connection conscientious objection when it
becomes impossible for a person to conform to the dominant social norms that
are in contrast with moral dictates.
Mr President,
Religions are communities based on faith or belief, and their
freedom guarantees a contribution of moral values without which the freedom of
everyone is not possible. The recognition of the freedom of other religious
communities does not reduce one’s own freedoms. On the contrary, the acceptance
of the religious freedom of other persons and groups is the corner stone of
dialogue and collaboration. Genuine freedom of religion bans violence and coercion,
and it opens the road to peace and authentic human development through mutual
recognition. The experience, and by now a tradition, of interreligious dialogue
in Western societies proves the value of a reciprocal recognition of religious
freedom.
Religious
freedom is also a duty, a responsibility to be fulfilled both by individuals
and religious groups. The recognition of the religious freedom of individuals
and social groups implies that they should act by the same standards of the
freedom they enjoy and such a condition justifies their presence as important
and authentic actors in the public square. To eclipse the public role of
religion creates a society which is unjust since it would fail to take into account
the true nature of the human person and would stifle the growth of authentic
and lasting peace for the whole human family.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento