RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN WESTERN EUROPE: RELIGIOUS MINORITIES AND GROWING GOVERNMENT INTOLERANCE
TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1999
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Washington, DC
The Commission met at 10:11 a.m. in Room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, and Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman, presiding.
Commission Members present: Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman; Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman; Hon. Sam Brownback; Hon. Steny Hoyer, Ranking Member; and Hon. Benjamin Cardin.
Witnesses present: Willy Fautré, Chairman, Human Rights Without Frontiers; Alain Garay, Esq., on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses; and the Reverend Louis DeMeo, Theological Institute of Nimes, France.
opening statement of
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman
Senator Campbell. Good morning. In the absence of a gavel, I will just use one of our member's names here to call the hearing on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe together, and Chairman Smith will be along very shortly, and I will just fill in starting it until he gets here. I thank you for appearing today.
This Commission has already had two hearings on this issue, but the developments that raised our initial concerns have not stopped, and it is timely to revisit the issue of religious freedom in Western Europe, and that is what this hearing is going to focus on.
I am pleased to join the Chairman to welcome the day's distinguished panel of guests, which I will introduce subsequently, but I certainly look forward to hearing your testimony.
There have been some negative reactions to the Commission's earlier hearings on religious freedom. Some Europeans hold the view that the Commission is attempting to force the American First Amendment views on religion in Europe. The states certainly have different institutions and different values, and that criticism is just plain wrong.
Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act states, and I quote, that "the participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
(1)
And later it says, "Within this framework, the participating states will recognize and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practice alone or in community with others religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of their own conscience."
The Final Act was signed on August 1, 1975, and all participating states voluntarily agreed to this principle.
Principle VII's language was strengthened and elaborated in subsequent Helsinki process documents, all of which were adopted by consensus of all participating states. Thus, the idea that the Commission or the United States is trying to force our views on unwilling European states and peoples simply does not stand up to examination.
What we are doing is asking our European partners to live up to the commitments they have already made to abide by these well-established international standards. The conflicts in Chechnya, Nagorno Karabakh, and the Balkans strong reinforce the need for this focus on religious freedom.
While calling these conflicts religious wars could be wrong, it is true that there have been clear elements of religious intolerance in each of the conflicts, leading to some of the most brutal and vicious actions seen in Europe since the end of World War II.
Thus, recognizing and respecting the individual's right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief is not an abstract ideal. It is an issue with direct impact on peace and security because when this human right is violated, people will react and react very strongly.
Violations of religious liberty are not restricted to newly emerging democracies. We'll hear from our witnesses that some of our long time friends and Western allies are engaged in conduct that violates the Helsinki commitments.
While some of the measures these states have taken are explained with reference to recent tragedies, we believe it is possible for these states to address legitimate welfare and law enforcement concerns without limiting or violating their citizens' human rights.
And I welcome the first panel and would like to introduce them and thank them for traveling many miles to be with us today. Our distinguished panel includes Willy Fautré, Chairman of the Human Rights Without Frontiers; Alain Garay, a human rights lawyer from France and counsel to the Jehovah's Witness; and the Reverend Louis DeMeo of the Grace Church of Nimes, France.
Representatives of the administration were invited to testify, but unfortunately had scheduling conflicts and were unable to join us today.
And with that we'll go ahead and maybe start in that order with Mr. Fautré.
...
testimony of Willy Fautre,
Chairman, Human Rights Without Frontiers
Mr. Fautré. I feel honored to have received your invitation to talk about the
growing tide of religious McCarthyism that is hitting a number of democratic states in Western Europe, and I thank you for your interest in this issue.
In recent years, Europe has been shaken up by a new phenomenon, the fear of sects. This fear has been triggered off by the collective suicides, homicides, and attacks perpetrated on the initiative of leaders of religious movements or movements claiming to be religious.
Western European states have been concerned by this phenomenon and rightly so. The question was asked as to whether their policies on unconventional religious should be changed so as to prevent these tragedies taking place in the country.
The responses have been varied. Eleven out of 15 European Union states considered that sects did not harm the individual, the family, society, or their democratic institutions to the point of having to create new institutions, organizations to combat their influence. In their view, just as in past years, problems posed by certain religious movements could be resolved by the existing legislative arsenal or, where necessary, by resorting to normal legal methods.
These countries have not as a result become a refuge for questionable religious movements or are not experiencing an increase in any crimes of harmful activities carried out by them.
However, four of the countries decided to take a new course of action. Austria simply created an information and documentation center about sects, placing it under the authority of the Federal Ministry of Environment, Youth, and Family. A brochure containing information about sects was also widely distributed.
This prevention campaign warned principally against 11 guru-led movements of oriental origin, three psychological groups, two groups claiming to spring from New Revelations, three religions of Christian origin, and four other groups under the category "various."
Germany set up a parliamentary commission and published a report. Scientology was placed under surveillance, but no legal action is currently being taken against the movement.
France set up a parliamentary inquiry commission which published a report containing a list of 172 so-called dangerous and harmful sects. An observatory of sects was put into action, and then later replaced by a more operational instrument, the Interministerial Mission to Fight Sects.
A widespread climate of suspicion and fear has already been spawned by the media, leading to new acts of intolerance and religious discrimination unheard of before the setting up of the anti-sect policy by the French authorities. The all-out war against sects by the Interministerial Mission reinforces this pervading phobia.
Belgium followed closely on France's heels: creation of a parliamentary inquiry commission; publication of a report annexing a list of 189 movements suspected of being harmful sects; creation of an observatory of sects at the beginning of May, along with an administrative coordination committee against sects; a sect prevention campaign led by the French community of Belgium on TV, radio, along with a massive distribution of an information brochure. The depraved effects noted in France are now spilling over into Belgium.
In France and in the French-speaking part of Belgium, the authorities have chosen to reject any form of dialogue with minority religions, unlike, for example, Sweden or Spain and others, favoring the confrontational method, more often than not with the support of anti-sect associations.
Ever since the beginning of the phenomenon, no dialogue has been entered into, and there is no sign of a change in course.
In Greece, the war against cults has been carried out with much zeal by the Anti-heretic Department of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the state has never felt the necessity of setting up a parliamentary inquiry commission on cults.
However, in 1993, the confidential report drafted by the Greek National Intelligence Service which was leaked to the media revealed that the Intelligence Service had been keeping files and classifying non-Orthodox citizens according to their respective religion, putting their activities under police surveillance, and encouraging authorities to take repressive and preventive measures against these "non-genuine" Greeks.
The Roman Catholic Church and more than 30 Protestant churches and organizations, including the Lutheran Church, were listed as national enemies and put under surveillance by the Intelligence Service. Since then the Greek authorities have put an end to such practices, but one of the victims of this policy, a Jehovah's Witness named Gabriel Tsavachidis, went to court and presented his case in Strasbourg.
The case concerned allegations that he had been placed under secret surveillance by the National Intelligence Service in the context of criminal proceedings against him for operating a church without the necessary permit. In this case, the Greek state was anxious to avoid a new public condemnation by the European Court on Human Rights and asked Tsavachidis to conclude a friendly settlement.
The final agreement concluded on the 21st of January of this year provided that the Greek state would pay him one million and a half drachmas, and that in the future an end would be put to the surveillance of Jehovah's Witnesses.
This decision is of vital importance at a time when several member states of the European Union are putting a number of so-called cults under surveillance in total impunity.
What are the latest developments? Since the European Parliament rejected Mrs. Maria Berger's report on cults in the European Union in July 1998, no further initiative has been taken in that body.
At the Council of Europe, Mr. Nastase's report on cults is pending. On the 29th of April 1999, it was withdrawn from the agenda, but it is now on the agenda for June 21.
In Austria, there are no new developments. The massive distribution of an information brochure warning against a number of sects goes on within the legal framework of the federal law about the setting up a bureau for documentation and information about cult questions.
In Germany, no further initiatives have been taken by the new government formed by the SPD and the Greens, but sect filters barring the access of Scientologists to jobs in the public sector is still in force.
Regarding the Scientology movement, there are now some signs that the authorities at the level of the Landers have no concrete illegal facts to produce against the Scientology movement that justifies continued surveillance.
I will now discuss the aftermath of these policies for minority religious groups. Since the publication of reports in France and in Belgium, Human Rights Without Frontiers has received an increasing number of complaints from individuals adhering to one of the so-called 172 cults: defamation, slander, anonymous threats, loss of reputation, loss of jobs or promotions, dismissals, loss of visitation rights or child custody in divorce settlement, bomb threats in rented rooms, denial of room renting for religious ceremonies and so on.
The so-called campaigns of information and prevention against sects have also produced negative effects. In France, fourth grade students in public junior high schools are subjected to anti-cult propaganda and tales of atrocities about a number of "sects" included in an official school book of civic education.
In Austria, names of so-called dangerous sects are included in a brochure which was massively distributed all over the country.
In Belgium, a free phone help line has been set up to disseminate teaching material on "sects" and to suggest responses to any cultist's questions or concern, or to make a referral to an anti-sect association.
In Belgium, the French community has published 250,000 tracts and 60,000 brochures targeting about 30 movements labeled as dangerous sects. Spots warning against sects are also presented in cinema halls, on radio, and on television.
However, courageous active resistance against this all-out offensive needs to be stressed. The Anthroposophic Society, presented as, "an esoteric sect passing on secret teaching and magic powers," and accused of illegal medical practices supposedly resulting in the death of a young girl, has successfully lodged a complaint against the French Community of Belgium.
A court of first instances in Brussels has ordered the French Community to stop the distribution of its brochure. Now the Anthroposophic Society has filed another complaint against the Belgium Observatory on Sects on the grounds that Belgians who do not profess an established religion or are secular humanists or members of other philosophical or religious movements are discriminated against through the activity of the Observatory
These lawsuits add a new dimension to the ongoing debate over attempts by some European governments to investigate and control religious groups considered to be dangerous cults.
In Greece, the issue of religious intolerance and discrimination is closely connected with the status of its religious minorities which must live in the shadow of the powerful Orthodox Church. Religious minorities in Greece include Orthodox Old Calendarists, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Protestants of various denominations, and Jehovah's Witnesses, to name a few.
In Greece, there are two official categories of religions: known religions and unknown religions. The status of known religions allows a specific faith to fully enjoy the constitutional provisions guaranteeing religious freedom. Known religions have more rights than any other religion.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, which is the dominant religion, enjoys the most privileges. The state finances the salaries of the clergy, the construction and the maintenance of their church buildings, with taxes gathered from all taxpayers, including those professing another faith or no faith at all.
Under the dictatorship of General Metaxas at the end of the 1930s, laws were passed that denied non-Orthodox believers the right to manifest their religion or beliefs in teaching, worship, and observance in community with others and in public, and the right to express their faith and religious beliefs or to publicly endeavor to share them through individual contacts, personal conversations, et cetera.
These laws, called "laws of necessity," made it compulsory to acquire a state permit for building or setting up non-Orthodox places of worship, provided for the expulsion of foreigners engaged in missionary activities and so on. These laws are still in force in 1999.
Another issue also needs to be highlighted: the compulsory mention of religious adherence on the identity cards. Despite repeated condemnations by the European Parliament, Greek authorities have upheld this obligation. Moreover, the Orthodox Church has voiced strong opposition to the parliamentary ratification of the Shengen Agreements because, among other things, religious adherence will not be mentioned on the identification documents in all the signatory countries.
In conclusion regarding the situation in Greece, I'd like to point out that since the socialist government has gained power in Athens, there is an opportunity to end the status quo in religious matters, and it needs to be stressed.
The decisions of the European Courts on Human Rights have largely contributed to the change of the mentalities. Now in Greece there is a political will to adapt the religious policy to the European standards. Yet the powerful Orthodox Church remains an obstacle to the modernization of the existing legislation.
Several battles have been won in the field of conscientious objection to military service, freedom of religious expression, and discrimination toward minority religions.
In the Kokkinakis and Manoussakis cases, half victories have been won against the anti-proselytism laws. They must be transformed into full victories. These laws and the corresponding constitutional
provisions must be abolished by the Greeks themselves. This is of vital importance not only for Greece, but also for other Orthodox countries which have signed the European Convention.
Indeed, tomorrow the parliaments of other countries where the Orthodox Church is dominant or where there is a state church might vote or be tempted to vote for similar laws especially under the guise of anti-cult legislation.
An end must be put to the categorization of religions in Greece, to the discriminatory financing of the sole Orthodox Church, to the mention of religious adherence on identity cards, and, last but not least, to unfair relationships with minority religious communities, particularly the Muslim community.
I will end with a few words about the international agreements that guarantee religious freedom in Europe.
All European states, those I have mentioned, but also others, have agreed to be bound by several international agreements, including the charter of the United Nations, the European Convention, the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, and the OSCE, commitments including the important 1989 Vienna Concluding Document.
In addition to these binding instruments, there are several other important documents that outline international standards, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the U.N. Declaration of the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on the Religion or Belief, and the Human Rights Committee general comment on Article 18.
All major international human rights conventions, as well as other international conventions to which France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Greece, and other European states, are signatories include a clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, and they should be reminded of them.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Fautré, for your excellent testimony.
