Anglo-Brazilian Dialogues on Law and Religion - 12 September - Oxford

Anglo-Brazilian Dialogues on Law and Religion

Diálogos Anglo-Brasileiros sobre Direito e Religião

“Current issues in law and religion:

A transatlantic dialogue”

Papers in English by four Brazilian scholars, with responses from UK discussants.

Oxford Brookes University

12 September 2016

10 a.m to 1 p.m.

Aldir Guedes Soriano - Attorney at Law, Brazilian Bar Association: "Freedom of religion in Brazil and the rule of law: taking Magna Carta seriously".

Fábio Carvalho Leite - Professor of Constitutional Law, Pontifical Catholic University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: "Exploring difficulties in solving conflicts between freedom of expression and religious protection".

Rodrigo Vitorino Souza Alves - Professor of Constitutional Law, Federal University of Uberlandia: "Religion-state relations and human rights: is separation necessary?".

Thiago Alves Pinto - PhD Candidate, University of Oxford: "A brief historical analysis of laws concerning offence to religious belief in the antiquity"



There is no charge for participation, but places are limited. To register for the seminar, please contact Sarah Hayes (sarah.hayes-2015@brookes.ac.uk).

Fundamental Rights and Equality Group, Oxford Brookes University

&

Brazilian Center of Studies in Law and Religion, Federal University of Uberlandia

Joint Law and Religion Seminar - 07 de julho de 2015

Seminários Interdisciplinares sobre Estado, Direito e Religião

O Grupo de Pesquisa Direito e Religião (CNPq/UFU) em parceria com a Universidade Oxford Brookes (Oxford, Reino Unido) realizou o "Joint Law and Religion Seminar". O evento integra a série Seminários Interdisciplinares sobre Estado, Direito e Religião.

O seminário foi uma iniciativa decorrente da aproximação entre as duas instituições, e seu objetivo é reunir professores para discussão a partir de diferentes perspectivas e abordagens, incluindo-se aquelas do Direito e das Relações Internacionais.

O evento realizou-se por teleconferência, em língua inglesa, sendo que um grupo esteve reunido em Uberlândia-MG e outro em Oxford.

Data e horário:

07 de julho de 2015, 09:00 - 12:00

Local:

Sala de webconferência 2 do Bloco 5M

Avenida João Naves de Ávila, 2121, Campus Santa Mônica, Uberlândia-MG 

Participação:

Peter Edge (Oxford Brookes)

Sarah Hayes (Oxford Brookes)

Rodrigo Vitorino Souza Alves (FADIR/UFU)

Filipe Almeida do Prado Mendonça (RI/UFU)

Is Europe Joining the International Religious Freedom Bandwagon?

Growing international threats to religious freedom are coming under increasing scrutiny by Western democracies. Long a foreign policy emphasis in the United States, and more recently in Canada, the crisis in international religious freedom (IRF) is gaining greater attention in Europe, especially in Italy and the United Kingdom. Can these nations be effective in promoting international religious freedom? Will their own domestic struggles with religious freedom handicap their efforts abroad?

Pasquale Annicchino, a fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute and at the University of Salerno, discussed recent developments in IRF promotion by Italy and the EU. David Reeves Taylor, chairman of Christian Solidarity Worldwide and a former British diplomat, addressed recent developments in IRF promotion by the UK. The Religious Freedom Project's Thomas Farr moderated.

Featuring

Pasquale Annicchino is a research fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, a fellow in constitutional law and comparative constitutional law at the Department of Political Science of the University of Salerno, and a member of the European University Institute’s Ethics Committee. Annicchino serves as book review editor for Religion and Human Rights: An International Journal and is a member of the editorial board of Quaderni di Diritto e Politica Ecclesiastica, published by Il Mulino. He has written on law, religion and religious freedom in Europe, and is a member of the ReligioWest project. This project studies how different Western states in Europe and North America are redefining their relationship to religions, under the challenge of increasing religious activism in the public sphere, associated with new religious movements and with Islam. Annicchino received his doctorate in law from the University of Siena, his LL.M/D.E.A. from the European Academy of Legal Theory in Brussels, and an LL.M from University College London, where he also served as editor in chief of the UCL Human Rights Review.

David Taylor is an international affairs analyst with a particular focus on the Middle East. He spent 17 years in the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, most of it focused on the Middle East and North Africa. He then spent 14 years as Middle East editor and deputy editor of the Daily Brief at Oxford Analytica. He now divides his time between editorial work for Oxford Analytica, the Lausanne Movement and other clients, and working with Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW), the Religious Liberty Partnership and other NGOs on international religious freedom issues.

Source: The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University.

Article 18: An Orphaned Right - A Report by the APPG on International Religious Freedom

About the APPG on International Religious Freedom

The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on International Religious Freedom was established in July 2012 with the following purpose: “To raise awareness and profile of international religious freedom as a human right amongst parliamentarians, media, government and the general public in the UK; and to increase effectiveness and awareness of the UK’s contribution to international institutions charged with enforcing this human right.”

THE REPORT - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Centrality of Article 18

Article 18 UDHR remains the benchmark against which the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief should be measured. Although there is also a considerable range of normative and institutional activity focussing on freedom of religion or belief, as well as unilateral and multilateral state initiatives which parallel or supplement this activity, the primary contention of this report is that when considered against the standard set by Article 18, freedom of religion or belief is not currently being protected internationally as it ought.

No treaty

Unlike many other human rights, there is as yet no focussed United Nations (UN) Convention directly addressing the subject of freedom of religion or belief. In consequence, freedom of religion or belief has for many years been something of a “residual” right, only protected to the extent that it does not stand in the way of achieving some other goal or ambition. While the UN Vienna Declaration of 1993 asserts that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and inter-related, in practice within the family of human rights this freedom remains on the margins. It is in this respect an orphaned right, and the purpose of this report is to commence a process of reuniting this right with its family.

What Article 18 promises

Article 18 states that freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental right which may not be derogated from, even in times of public emergency. It protects traditional, non-traditional and new religious beliefs and practices, as well as numerous beliefs not associated with divine or transcendent powers, or not of a religious nature. Everyone has the freedom to manifest their religion or belief, either alone or together with others, publicly or privately. Nobody is to be subject to coercion that would impair the individual’s freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, nor is discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief permissible.

The reality

However, as this report explains, almost 75% of the world’s population live in countries with high levels of government restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, or where they face high-level hostility due to their religious affiliations, and this figure is rising. Across the globe there is widespread denial of freedom of worship, and of freedom to teach, promote and publicly express one’s religion or belief.

This report instances examples of state intimidation, discrimination and violence towards people on account of their religion or belief, as well as situations where states do not offer adequate protection from persecution by non-state actors. This is not limited to any one region, or any one form of religion. Through evidence submissions and other means, the group is aware of a deeply troubling scale of violation of freedom of religion or belief worldwide. This catalogue of abuse covers Shia Muslims in Bahrain, Baha’is and Zoroastrians in Iran, Christians across large swathes of the Middle East, Sufi muslims from the Sunni tradition in Somalia, atheists in Indonesia, Falun Gong practitioners in China, Buddhists in Tibet, Jewish people in Europe and Hindus in Pakistan — truly a global concern that affects the full range of religious and non-religious belief.

Defamation of religions

While the UN has declared that everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief, it has done relatively little to make this a reality. Much of the work at the UN is focussed on a very different question, the so-called “defamation of religions” debate, which focuses on protecting religions — not believers — from criticism, and becomes a means of restricting rights and freedoms, rather than safeguarding them. The firm position of this report is that the focus of the UN ought to be less on when it might be appropriate to restrain rights in the name of religion, and more on encouraging and supporting international action to champion the freedom of religion or belief for all. At the same time as pursuing this goal, it is necessary to identify effective UK policy and action, and this report makes a number of recommendations in this regard.

Response of the FCO

In the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) report Human Rights and Democracy 2012, freedom of religion or belief is described as “one of the Government’s key human rights priorities”, and it outlines a strategy for promoting this freedom. The recognition that it is not only the promotion but also the protection of freedom of religion or belief that is a key priority is to be greatly welcomed — but what is now needed is further effective action. This report seeks to identify a number of practical strategies that can be adopted.

This report goes on to outline five overarching prerequisites for the construction and implementation of any successful policy on international freedom of religion or belief:

- Clear commitment from across the domestic political spectrum, based on the recognition of the central significance of the freedom of religion or belief as an essential freedom for all

- Broad-based consultation across the spectrum of religion and belief

- International action that is reflective of, and grounded in, a full respect for freedom of religion and belief in domestic policy

- International action that is focused on freedom for all people, irrespective of the nature of their religion or belief

- Grounding for all action in freedom of religion or belief as set out in the UDHR Article 18, which includes freedom for everyone to adhere to a religion or belief of their choice, including the right not to have, or to be associated with, a religion or belief, the right to change religion or belief and the right to manifest religion or belief in accordance with the Universal Declaration and as subsequently developed under international law, in a manner that is respectful of the human rights of other individuals

Against that background, this report makes a number of detailed recommendations, but has identified the following as a matter of priority:

Recommendation One

We ask that the British Government consider the appointment of an Ambassadorial-level focal point on freedom of religion or belief, to spearhead the implementation of mainstreaming, country and thematic work within the FCO and across relevant departments, and to assist the FCO in projection and implementation of its strategies.

Recommendation Two

We call on the British Government to become a state party to the First Optional Protocol of the CPPR. This would allow individuals in the UK to raise questions about potential violations of their rights directly with the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), and in addition show leadership to encourage other states to follow suit.

Recommendation Three

We ask the Foreign Secretary to establish a sub-group of the Human Rights Advisory Group to focus on freedom of religion and belief.

Recommendation Four

We call on the FCO to undertake a baseline evaluation of the extent, quality and impact of mainstreaming issues concerning freedom of religion or belief into the work of the office, and undertake further evaluations at fixed intervals to determine progress.

Recommendation Five

We call on the Department for International Development (DfID) to ensure that where aid is provided or contracts are awarded overseas, it is channelled to civil-society organisations and government programmes that can demonstrate a sophisticated understanding of freedom of religion or belief, and can show how their work will have a positive rather than negative impact in this area.

Recommendation Six

We ask the FCO to consider revising the Human Rights and Democracy Programme (HRDP) to enable support of longer-term projects than the one-year cycle currently permits.

Recommendation Seven

We ask the British Government to make representations to the UN to ensure that there is sufficient funding to support a paid, full-time Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief and resource their office.

Recommendation Eight

We call on DfID to identify freedom of religion or belief as a new priority in its work.

Recommendation Nine

We ask the British Government to make representations to the UN nations to ensure that the Rabat Plan of Action is woven into continued engagement with HRC Resolution 16/18 and the Istanbul Process, making sure that the international focus remains the duties of states to protect the freedom of religion or belief of those subject to its jurisdiction, rather than deviating from the rights laid down in Article 18 to address issues around “incitement to religious hatred”.

Recommendation Ten

We urge the FCO to convene an expert group to scope the issues involved in initiating a process to consider a convention on freedom of religion or belief at the international level.

To read the full report , click here.

Source: anorphanedright.net/

Sharia law, the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill

Baroness Cox Equality Bill - Second Reading

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill

Second Reading

12.01 pm

Moved by Baroness Cox

That the Bill be read a second time.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords speaking in this debate and to many other noble Lords, too many to mention by name, who have expressed their support for the Bill but are unable to be here today. The Bill seeks to address two interrelated issues: the suffering of women oppressed by religiously sanctioned gender discrimination in this country; and a rapidly developing alternative quasi-legal system which undermines the fundamental principle of one law for all. The Bill is strongly supported by many Muslims and by Muslim women’s organisations such as Inspire, as well as by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, the Henna Foundation, Karma Nirvana, British Muslims for Secular Democracy and the National Secular Society. I am grateful to them all for their support.

Awareness of the need for the Bill arose from mounting evidence of serious problems affecting some women in this country from the application of Sharia law. I immediately reassure your Lordships that I am not anti-Muslim. Indeed, I am deeply concerned that Muslim women enjoy their full legal and civil rights under the law of this land. If women from other faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, the provisions of this Bill would also be available for them as it does not name any religion.

The problems I will highlight often arise because many women believe that Sharia courts are real courts and do not know that they have other rights under English law or they are pressured by their family or community not to seek those rights outside their community. I give two examples of the kinds of problems afflicting women in this country. I have met these women and witnessed their distress. One suffered such severe domestic violence that she was hospitalised. She was pressured by her family not to seek help from the police as this would bring “shame” on the community. She went to the local Sharia court or council and was told to return to her husband. She did so and suffered more domestic violence. Then her husband divorced her, went back to his country of origin and returned with a second wife. As a devout Muslim, she wanted a religious divorce to allow her to remarry in accordance with her faith but the Sharia court demanded her marriage certificate which her husband’s family kept. Attempts to retrieve it resulted in violence in the name of “honour”, as she was blamed for bringing shame on the family by seeking a divorce. Seven years later this devout and desperately lonely Muslim lady is still unable to obtain her divorce and remarry.

Secondly, a Muslim widow wanted to remarry but was told by the Sharia council or court that she must obtain the permission of a male relative. She had no male relative in this country so she had to travel to Jordan to obtain the written permission of a seven year-old boy relative in order to be able to remarry in this country. It is not surprising that another young woman complained, “I feel betrayed by Britain. I came to this country to get away from all this but the situation is worse here than in my country of origin”.

Other examples concern children. Under Sharia law a father who divorces his wife can claim custody of his children once they reach the age of seven. This gender discrimination violates the fundamental legal principle in this country that custody should be determined according to the best interests of the child. These examples are just the tip of an iceberg as many women live in fear, so intimidated by family and community that they dare not speak out or ask for help. A lady came to see me in my home. I shall never forget seeing her hide behind a tree because she was so terrified of being seen. We should not have such fear in this country.

The first fundamental concern my Bill seeks to address is the development of a parallel quasi-legal system based on inherently discriminatory principles. This may involve proceedings operating under the terms of the Arbitration Act or it may involve less formal community forums for resolving disputes. While some operate in ways which are not problematic, others give cause for the second and related concern that many women suffer from gender discrimination in these contexts. This discrimination includes unequal access to divorce as between a husband and wife. A husband can obtain a divorce merely by saying, “I divorce you” three times, whereas a wife has to go through all sorts of procedures at a Sharia court or council. It also includes tolerance of certain forms of domestic violence, a man’s right to polygamy, inequality between men and women with regard to child custody and inequality with regard to inheritance provisions. It even affects rules of evidence, since under Sharia law a woman’s testimony counts for half that of a man’s.

Let me make clear what the Bill does not do. The Bill does not interfere in the internal theological affairs of religious groups. If people wish to submit voluntarily to the rulings of any body, religious or otherwise, even if that means surrendering their rights under English law, they are free to do so. The Bill does not force them to give up religious law or abnegate conscience in favour of the law of the land. The Bill also recognises existing legally sanctioned forums for arbitration, including Muslim arbitration tribunals or MATs and various forms of mediation available in religious or secular contexts. The Bill will not affect the continuation of these provisions or their growth and development in accordance with the law of the land.

Let me here acknowledge valid concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, and say that I accept the need to amend the Bill to reflect recent developments in relation to family law arbitration. I intend to remove the references to family law in the new criminal offence created by the Bill. Family law arbitration will therefore continue to be permitted. However, the non-discrimination provisions of the Bill will apply. Therefore, this will not be an obstacle to mainstream family law arbitration, but will reinforce the need to address sex discrimination in religious arbitration.

I now turn to some specific concerns and how the Bill addresses them. The Arbitration Act 1996 facilitated the establishment of arbitration tribunals. Some operate according to Sharia law. They allow parties to settle certain civil, largely financial, disputes in such a way that the arbitration awards can be enforced in UK courts. However, there is a concern that even when these tribunals are operating within the terms of the Arbitration Act, some are practising sex discrimination. For example, a tribunal in Nuneaton adjudicated on an inheritance dispute between three sisters and two brothers and, in accordance with Sharia law principles, the men were given double the inheritance of the women.

Some arbitration tribunals appear to act outside their legal remit. The MAT claims on its website to be able to hear disputes involving,

“allegations of money squandering/misappropriation”.

There have also been reports of MATs dealing with acts of grievous bodily harm. An investigation by Edna Fernandes, reported in the Daily Mail on 4 July 2009, concluded that,

“scores more imams dispense justice through their own mosques”,

and that,

“sharia is being used informally within the Muslim community to tackle a plethora of crime”.

The Arbitration Act does not empower MATs to arbitrate on criminal matters, and it is surely unacceptable to condone a situation where non-Muslim offenders get a criminal record, but Muslims do not. My Bill would make it a criminal offence to falsely claim legal jurisdiction. Any person who purports to arbitrate in any matter which is within the jurisdiction of the criminal courts would be liable, on conviction, to a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

One report has estimated that there are at least 85 Sharia forums in the United Kingdom. As far as we can ascertain, the Sharia courts or councils keep scant records, and have no right of appeal. There is nothing like the control over justices’ appointment and conduct that apply in secular courts. Most do not operate under the Arbitration Act. Instead, they informally resolve disputes under what is loosely termed “mediation”. As I have said, many women wrongly that think these informal tribunals are real courts and submit to their rulings accordingly.

The Bill cannot solve every problem, but it does offer one opportunity for redress. Where a negotiated agreement is formalised in a consent order, the Bill would make it easier to set aside the consent order if it was reached under duress, or where a party’s consent was not genuinely informed—for example, where a woman was not aware that she would have had different rights according to UK civil law. Also, my Bill would make it easier for women who are unhappy with discriminatory rulings to apply to the courts to have them overturned on the grounds of gender discrimination. The Bill also strengthens the power of the police and courts to protect victims of domestic violence from coercion and intimidation. It also enhances the public sector equality duty. For example, police, social workers or healthcare workers interacting with Muslim women would be encouraged to explain to Muslim women how their legal rights are diminished if their marriages are recognised only under religious law and not civil law. Many women have described how they are discouraged from having a civil as well as an Islamic marriage. This gives rise to grave problems, especially when, as often happens, a husband subsequently divorces his wife, leaving her with no civil rights.

In conclusion, as these are such complex, sensitive and delicate issues, I intend to request the Liaison Committee to consider the subject for one of the ad hoc committees in the New Year, or to establish an independent committee of inquiry to enable a wide range of views to be presented, reflecting a broad spectrum of experts and personal testimonies, and those with concerns about the Bill. A full report will be made available which will, I hope, help greatly to clarify many of the issues, explore ways in which the Bill can be amended to make it more appropriate, and open up these issues for broader public discussion.

We cannot continue with the present situation in which so many women are suffering from gender discrimination in our country today in ways that would make the heroines of the suffragette movement turn in their graves. We must address the danger that a parallel de facto legal system may become entrenched, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of our liberal democracy: the principle of one law for all.

Read more at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/121019-0001.htm#12101923000438

Secrets of Britain's Sharia Councils

Panorama goes undercover to investigate what is really happening in Britain's Sharia Councils - Islamic religious courts. Some women reveal they have suffered domestic violence ignored by these councils as campaigners say it is time to tackle the parallel legal system which can run counter to British law.

Video source: BBC.

Read more at: Gatestone Institute.