Apr 30, 2021 | News
The ICJ today condemned the Sri Lankan cabinet’s approval of the proposed ban on face coverings, which, if adopted by Parliament would directly discriminate against Muslim women
The Cabinet on 27 April approved the proposal put forward by Minister of Public Security Sarath Weerasekara on March 13 to ban face coverings including the burqa and niqab citing national security grounds.
The ICJ has called on the Sri Lankan Parliament to categorically reject this discriminatory proposal as a violation of the right to freedom of religion.
“The Sri Lankan Government’s justification for banning face coverings rings hollow during a time when it has quite sensibly made the wearing of face masks in public mandatory to address the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Ian Seiderman, ICJ’s Legal and Policy Director.
The Government of Sri Lanka temporarily banned full-face coverings by way of an emergency regulation in the aftermath of terrorist attacks on Easter April 2019, in which 269 people were killed and at least 500 others injured. This ban resulted in the stigmatization and harassment of Muslim women, including those who were only wearing a hijab (head covering).
“While the Sri Lankan Government has an obligation to protect its inhabitants from the threats to their lives and well-being, that protection is a part of, and not in conflict with, its overall duty to protect human rights,” said Ian Seiderman.
Freedom of religion and belief is guaranteed under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Sri Lanka is a party. Freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice is similarly guaranteed by Article 10 of the Sri Lankan Constitution. Article 14 (1) (e) ensures the freedom to manifest one’s religion in worship, observance, practice and teaching.
The UN Human Rights Committee has affirmed that under the ICCPR “the observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.”
The ICJ concurs with Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, who has stressed that “burqa bans are incompatible with international law guarantees of the right to manifest one’s religion or belief and of freedom of expression.”
“While the authorities may take necessary and proportionate steps to confirm a person’s identity to meet a specific security concern, a blanket ban on face coverings in the name of national security does not hold water,” Seiderman said. “It would invariably result in discriminatory practices and lead to the stigmatization of Muslim women,” he added.
Under ICCPR article 18(3) any limitation on freedom of religion must be non-discriminatory and must be necessary and proportionate to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The UN Human Rights Committee has consistently held that under international law, a blanket ban on face coverings cannot be justified as necessary or proportionate to its stated legitimate aim of promoting public safety, while recognizing the need for States, in certain contexts, to be able to require that individuals show their faces. Even this restriction, however, would generally only apply to veils that fully cover faces and not, for example, to head coverings.
Contact
Osama Motiwala, ICJ Asia-Pacific Communications Officer, e: osama.motiwala(a)icj.org
Feb 27, 2020 | Advocacy, News
In January and February 2020, the ICJ supported community dialogue events on international and national law and standards relating to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
The events were organized by the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) for around 50 youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region in Myanmar.
The program sought to improve the capacity of local youths and human rights defenders from Chin State and Bago Region to understand how freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) is protected by the international and national legal frameworks and apply this understanding to their activities.
The ICJ’s national legal researcher, Ja Seng Ing, introduced the concept of freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) u, and applicable international standards on FoRB for Myanmar including how FoRB interacts with other human rights such as freedom of expression. She presented an overview of the domestic legal framework on FoRB and highlighted the State’s obligation to implement such laws and policies to respect and protect the equality, non-discrimination and other rights of individuals and to particularly address violations of their rights to FoRB.
The participants raised the need to improve the quality of public discussion on FoRB and related human rights, and shared this experiences in advocating for the protection of FoRB – including the limitation and challenges that they have faced.
The activities are part of the ICJ’s ongoing effort to convene civil society actors and lawyers in Myanmar with a view to advancing FoRB in the country, and builds on the ICJ’s previous work on this theme.
Contact
Ja Seng Ing, ICJ Legal Researcher, e: jaseng.ing(a)icj.org
Related material
Primer on international human rights law and standards on the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, January 2019
New report examines right to freedom of religion or belief in Malaysia, March 2019
Dec 11, 2019 | News
The ICJ today condemned The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2019 passed by the Rajya Sabha (upper house of the Indian Parliament) on 11 December 2019, after the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Parliament) adopted it on 9 December.
The ICJ calls on India to reconsider and repeal, or substantially amend, the Bill to bring it in line with international legal obligations and Indian Constitutional principles.
“The implementation of this proposed legislation would violate core principles of non-discrimination, equal protection of the law and freedom of religion, guaranteed under international law and the Indian Constitution,” said Frederick Rawski, ICJ’s Asia Director.
The Bill amends the Citizenship Act, 1955, which governs questions of citizenship and aspects of lawfulness of migration status in India. While it purports to provide protection and shelter to religious groups such as Hindus and provides them paths to citizenship, it excludes from its ambit certain religious groups such as Muslims.
The Bill gives protected status to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian migrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, all Muslim-majority countries, who entered India on or before 31 December 2014. Similarly situated Muslims are categorized as “illegal migrants”.
Furthermore, the Bill provides to the above-mentioned religious communities and countries an expedited route of citizenship giving them the opportunity to be eligible for citizenship by naturalization if they have lived or worked in India for six years, as opposed to twelve years, as otherwise required.
“The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill creates two tiers of citizenship and migration status in India based on religion, with Muslims relegated to the lower end,” added Rawski. “This Bill, which entrenches discriminatory practices into law, must not be implemented unless substantially amended to provide for equal protection for persons of all religions or other status.”
The legal framework for citizenship identified by this Bill is incompatible with bedrock rule of law and democratic principles. It is highly discriminatory and arbitrary, and manifestly fails to satisfy the State’s obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party.
The arbitrary inclusion of some groups while excluding others violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and Article 26 of the ICCPR. India’s international obligations require that its regulation of citizenship under domestic law be compliant with the principle of non-discrimination, equality before the law, and equal protection of the law without discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, race, religion, or ethnic or national origin. This Bill, which provides for differentiated criteria for citizenship and other legal protection based on membership of religious group, complies neither with international law nor Indian constitutional law.
The arbitrary inclusion of some groups while excluding others would only be permissible under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and Article 26 of the ICCPR if the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia between the group excluded and the group that is included, and (ii) the differentia has a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act.
The Bill claims religious persecution as the ground of reasonable classification, but then arbitrarily excludes several similarly situated and widely persecuted religious minorities such as Ahmediya Muslims and Shia Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh, Rohingyas from Myanmar, Hazaras from Afghanistan from its protective ambit. It therefore does not meet these criteria under the Indian Constitution and international law.
The adoption of the Bill comes as the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Indian Government issued a directive on August 8, 2017 to state governments to “identify and deport” 40,000 Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, which has led to deportation of 7 Rohingya men to Myanmar already.
In addition, the Indian Government has indicated that it will pursue nationwide National Register of Indian Citizens, which will likely exclude numerous people, many also Muslim, who should be recognized as Indian Nationals. A similar exercise undertaken in Assam earlier this year was an arbitrary and discriminatory process that rendered some 1.9 million people stateless. This violates international law and standards which protects the right to nationality and safeguards against statelessness.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, ICJ Asia-Pacific Director, t: +66 64 478 1121; e: frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Maitreyi Gupta, ICJ India Legal Adviser, t: +91 77 560 28369 e: maitreyi.gupta(a)icj.org
Nov 3, 2019 | News
Bangkok, Thailand – From 1 to 2 November 2019, ICJ in collaboration with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, hosted a consultation on gender and the right to freedom of religion or belief with the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed.
The primary objective of the consultation was to provide a forum for human rights defenders, particularly women and human rights defenders belonging to sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) minorities to share their perspectives on laws, practices and anti-rights strategies based on religion or belief that discriminate against women and SOGI groups and individuals in Asia. The consultation was attended by at least fifty-two (52) human rights defenders from all over Asia.
Emerlynne Gil, ICJ’s Senior International Legal Adviser, in her opening address, emphasized that gender equality and the right to freedom of religion or belief should not be viewed as inimical to each other. She said, “Women and individuals belonging to sexual orientation and gender identity minorities should also be able to being to a faith or religion of their choice, or religion into which they are born and they should continue to belong to the religion or belief without being discriminated against by the faith or religious community.”
The consultation included discussions on the domestic contexts and legal frameworks in relation to freedom of religion and the rights of women and SOGIESC minorities, including in relation to the right to health. The participants considered challenges faced by women and SOGIESEC minorities when religious leaders act as justice actors were also discussed. The consultation, while highlighting the good practices in advancing the rights of women and SOGIESC minorities, also explored existing challenges and tensions in respect of achieving gender equality.
At the conclusion of the consultation, Dr. Shaheed noted the diversity of the participants in the room, who came from all over Asia. He emphasized that “in order to engage more effectively and strategically, it is imperative that we improve our literacy in relation to the human rights framework and of religion in order to better understand its intersectionality.”
Contact
Sushmitha Thayanandan, National Legal Advisor, Sri Lanka (ICJ) e: sushmitha.thayanandan(a)icj.org
Oct 21, 2019 | News
A new briefing paper by the ICJ calls upon Myanmar authorities to ensure that the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief and respect for culture and tradition are never used as pretexts to justify discrimination and violence in the country.
“The analysis in the ICJ’s paper makes clear why there is a pressing need for Myanmar authorities to undertake significant legal and practical reforms, to ensure that all people can exercise their freedom of religion and belief and enjoy equal protection of their human rights,” said Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Region Director for the ICJ.
The paper focuses its analysis on two particular sets of laws – the colonial era ‘blasphemy’ laws, which in recent years have also been used as one of the several measures to restrict free speech and the controversial ‘race and religions laws’ passed in the run up to the national elections in 2015, particularly those related to religious conversion and marriage of Buddhist women.
“The briefing paper highlights a number of laws in Myanmar that impair the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief’’, said Canadian Member of Parliament David Anderson, Chair of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief Steering Committee, which supported production of the paper.
In recent years, Myanmar courts have convicted individuals under ‘blasphemy’ provisions even in the absence of any evidence of deliberate and malicious intent to insult a religion, let alone on the basis of irrefutable evidence of incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination on religious grounds.
In addition to the use of colonial-era blasphemy laws, Myanmar has a more recent set of four laws that appear to specifically target non-Buddhists, and particularly the Muslim community. While all four laws give rise to concerns about the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, the laws related to conversion and marriage are the most problematic.
The briefing paper also identifies a number of other challenges related to the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief in Myanmar. These include:
- Highly discriminatory legal arrangements for citizenship and the rights of residents in Myanmar;
- Arbitrary restrictions on places of worship, mostly for Christians and Muslims;
- Preferential treatment of Buddhism, for example in the national school curriculum.
In light of these challenges, the briefing paper offers 11 key recommendations to the Government of Myanmar in ensuring that Myanmar’s legal framework is implemented in accordance with international human rights law and fully protects the right to freedom of religion or belief.
This report is part of a series of ICJ publications on the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Contact
Frederick Rawski, Asia Pacific Director for the ICJ, frederick.rawski(a)icj.org
Liv H. Kvanvig, Coordinator, IPPFoRB, lk(a)nhc.no
Palak Rao, Communications and Advocacy Adviser, IPPFoRB, pr(a)nhc.no
Download
New Briefing paper on Challenges to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Myanmar
See also
New primer on Freedom of Religion or Belief in International Human Rights Law
New Briefing paper on Challenges to Freedom of Religion or Belief in Malaysia
