Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act

On behalf of 61 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter in support of H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2015; and on behalf of 64 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter in support of S. 2878, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act; made contacts in support of a swift markup of either H.R. 1150 or S. 2878 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and in support of Senate passage. We believe H.R. 1150/S. 2878 strengthens IRFA at a critical time when assaults on religious freedom around the world are systemic and growing. In fact, the current state of international religious freedom is one of deepening crisis-according to the Pew Research Centers latest annual study on global restrictions on religion, 74% of the worlds population live in countries with a high or very high overall level of restriction on religion in 2014, up from 68% in 2007. The Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act would: Give the Administration and the State Department new political tools, strengthen the standing of the International Religious Freedom Office and the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom by making clear that the Ambassador reports directly to the Secretary of State. Clarify the Ambassador-at-Larges role in distributing project grants to protect religious freedom globally. Create a Special Watch List and automatic downgrade to a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for states on the list for three straight years. Clarify that CPC designations will occur annually. Require designation of non-state actors as Entities of Particular Concern. Direct the President to focus sanctions on individuals who carry out or order religious restrictions. Set a floor at 25 full-time employees in the International Religious Freedom Office. Require curriculum for training all Foreign Service Officers in the strategic value of international religious freedom. Prioritize IRF programming for groups that seek to strengthen investigations, reporting, and monitoring of religious freedom violations, including genocide. H.R. 1150 passed out of the House by voice vote on May 16. The passage and implementation of H.R. 1150/S. 2878 will result in a strengthened IRFA, as well the integration of this foundational human right into U.S. foreign policy and national security strategies. In so doing, the United States will send a clear and urgent message regarding the inherent dignity of every human being, while advancing global security in the fight against persecution, religious extremism and terrorism. This legislation is consistent with the best of our values, and has the added benefit of practically protecting our national interests as well. On behalf of 42 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of the appointment of a Special Envoy for Nigeria and the Lake Chad Region directly reporting to Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield in order to address the multi-faceted reality of Boko Haram, Fulani militants, security and humanitarian aid. The situation in northeastern and central Nigeria and the Lake Chad region as a whole is rapidly deteriorating. There is a growing security and humanitarian crisis threatening to fracture and destabilize Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa, and now expanding to the whole Lake Chad Region. This crisis cannot be left unaddressed. Thousands are suffering as victims of violent extremism. Whole villages have been burned to the ground with families forced to live in caves to elude terrorists. There are 2.2 million official Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). However, since many IDPs live outside of formal camp structures, the actual number is thought to be closer to 5-7 million. This is a staggering number of people forced out of their communities, deprived of their livelihoods, separated from education opportunities, and left without access to proper healthcare and psycho-social care. We believe the complexity of addressing these real and multi-faceted humanitarian exigencies alone warrants a Special Envoy. The emerging security threat in the Nigerian Middle Belt further augments the critical urgency to appoint a Special Envoy. Since 2014, Fulani militants have been escalating their engagements across the Middle Belt and are now launching attacks in the south of the country. In the past 16 months there have been 55 separate Fulani militant attacks in 14 different states resulting in over 1,000 deaths. Many of these involved sustained offensives, sophisticated weaponry, and targeted religious and ethnic minority communities under the banner of creating grazing territory. Should Nigeria further fracture it would constitute one of the greatest security threats in West Africa. A Special Envoy for Nigeria and the Lake Chad Region directly reporting to Assistant Secretary of State Linda Thomas-Greenfield could relate to Boko Haram, Fulani militants, security and humanitarian aid. It is our firm belief that the United States has a vested interest in confronting one of the worst humanitarian crisis of our day and working to prevent the further unraveling of Nigeria, the country with both the largest Christian and largest Muslim population in Africa. On behalf of 31 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of House Resolution 290, a bi-partisan measure that promotes the rights to freedom of religion, belief and expression by calling for the global repeal of blasphemy laws. We all agree that blasphemy laws are antithetical to modern, prosperous societies, and must be abolished worldwide. Blasphemy laws are used to silence internal critics and alternative interpretations of the faith of the majority religious community, causing minority religious groups and the non-religious to suffer terribly. In an era when fundamentalist religious belief is leading to terror attacks and armed struggles throughout the world, it is more important than ever that we protect freedom of religion and belief. Blasphemy laws do precisely the opposite. H. Res 290 recognizes that many countries have blasphemy laws that punish expression deemed blasphemous and that blasphemy laws are inconsistent with international human rights standards, as they protect beliefs over individuals and often result in violations of the freedoms of religion and expression. The resolution also: Calls upon the President and State Department to make the repeal of blasphemy laws a priority in its bilateral relationships with all countries that have such laws through direct interventions in capitals and multilateral fora; Encourages the President and State Department to oppose any efforts at the United Nations or other international or multilateral fora to create an international anti-blasphemy norm, or to expand the international norm on incitement to include blasphemy or defamation of religions; Urges the President and State Department to designate Pakistan and Egypt each as a country of particular concern under the International Religious Freedom Act for perpetrating and tolerating particularly severe violations of religious freedom; and Urges the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries to amend or repeal their blasphemy laws, to release unconditionally persons imprisoned on charges of blasphemy and, once released, ensure their safety and that of their families. Blasphemy laws and similar restrictions on speech regarding religion exist in at least 44 countries, according to the Pew Research Center. Pew has also found that countries with laws against blasphemy, and apostasy were more likely to have high government restrictions on religion, as well as social hostilities based on religion, than countries that do not have such laws. The United States government is in a unique position to promote the rights to freedom of religion, belief, and expression around the world. This country was founded on respect for the principles of religious freedom and tolerance for difference of opinion, and as a leader in the global community we have a moral duty to advance these principles around the world. Congress in particular can play a significant role in promoting freedom of religion, belief, and expression around the world by passing H. Res 290, which would bring more attention to the troubling use of blasphemy laws and related measures, place deserved attention on worst offenders, and press the administration to make their repeal a more central focus of their foreign policy. On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of inclusion of an amendment in the FY17 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would permit more robust U.S. support of International Criminal Court cases, including those involving religious persecution. The United States has long been a champion of accountability and justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, including in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The passage of this amendment will further solidify American leadership on the rule of law and human rights, and, of particular interest to us, will allow the U.S. to promote accountability and justice in conflict situations involving religious freedom abuses. The International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) is the worlds only permanent international tribunal mandated to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes. The ICCs governing statute specifically includes religious persecution as a punishable offense within the three core atrocity crimes that the Court prosecutes - genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - and religiously motivated crimes are implicated in six of the nine country situations currently before the Court. In light of the ICCs mandate to prosecute perpetrators of religious persecution, and as a result of the recognition that the Court serves to protect core religious values, including justice, bearing witness, redress, protecting the vulnerable, and helping to lay the foundation for durable peace, many faith-based organizations from diverse cultural, social, and political backgrounds support the work and mission of the ICC. Moreover, the U.S. has been broadly supportive of all of the ICCs cases, as they are consistent with U.S. national interests. For instance, the State Departments Rewards for Justice Program was created in 1984 and has been used for over 30 years to help apprehend and prosecute international criminals. In 2013, Congress passed a bipartisan expansion of this program to allow for the payment of up to $5 million to individuals who provide information that leads to the capture of ICC fugitives. Yet, an outdated provision of U.S. law hampers Americas ability to provide the full array of professional, logistical, and other resources to ICC cases. Presently, the U.S. can only provide limited, in-kind support to the ICC on a case-by-case basis. This results in the U.S. being unable to provide the ICC with the resources needed to bring to justice perpetrators of atrocities, including the most egregious abuses of international religious freedom. Essentially, this means that the hands of the U.S. government are tied when it comes to assisting in crucial efforts to prosecute atrocity crimes, including religious persecution. The language we are supporting, a proposed Atrocity Accountability Amendment (Amendment), would make a moderate, limited, and narrowly-tailored change to U.S. law that would allow the U.S. to provide to the ICC the same type of critical support that it provided to the Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, and other international tribunals. This change would ensure that Americas options in the fight against atrocities are not artificially restricted and would give the U.S. more tools in its toolbox to counter impunity, promote accountability, and contribute to justice and peacebuilding efforts. This change could, for instance, mean that the U.S. could offer finances for additional investigators, witness protection assistance, sophisticated law enforcement technologies, and expert scientists and other professionals to the ICCs current investigation of Boko Harams atrocities in Nigeria, religious persecution in the Central African Republic, and Joseph Kony and the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda and other areas - all cases which the United States has a principled and strategic interest in supporting, especially where national security concerns are implicated. The limitation existing under current law should be of serious concern to the United States because, in many cases, the ICC is the only mechanism available to hold individuals accountable for their commission of religiously-motivated atrocities. Indeed, in its 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommended that the U.S. push for a UN Security Council Resolution that refers atrocities committed by the so-called Islamic State to the ICC. In recent congressional testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, the then-chair of USCIRF specifically recommended the change to U.S. law that the Amendment would make. Earlier this year, the House unanimously passed a resolution declaring the atrocities being committed against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria to be genocide and crimes against humanity, and calling for prosecution of these crimes. Passing the Amendment is one of the most concrete and readily available ways in which the House can promote the accountability sought in its resolution, as the change it makes would allow the U.S. to more meaningfully support efforts to bring Islamic State perpetrators of atrocities to justice through the ICC. These efforts would apply not only to Iraq and Syria, but also to Islamic State atrocities in Libya, where the ICC currently has jurisdiction. On behalf of 93 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our deep concern about Federal Laws â„- 374-ФÐ-- and 375-ФÐ--, On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to establish additional measures to counter terrorism and ensure public safety (the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law); and urge U.S. government leaders to engage the Russian government and urge its leaders to ensure the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law is not used against peaceful spiritual groups. The Federal Anti-Terrorism Law further restricts religious freedom. We are particularly concerned about the amendments that introduce an entire new section to the Religion Law, imposing strict limits on sharing beliefs, including where and who may share them, and increase extremism punishments. We are aware of the fact that Russia has to be vigilant in order to prevent extremism, violence and terrorism. But you must fully consider and understand the impact of these amendments on social cohesion and national security. The need to counter violent extremism is pressing, but cracking down on religious freedom is a dangerous and counterproductive response. This conclusion is increasingly bolstered by empirical research. An exhaustive study by academics from Harvard, Notre Dame and Georgetown found that religious communities are most likely to support democracy, peace and freedom for other faiths, and least likely to take up the gun or form dictatorships, when governments allow them freedom to worship, practice and express their faiths freely and when religious communities in turn renounce their claims to permanent offices or positions of policy-making authority. Dr. Brian Grim, a noted expert on society, the economy and religion, has found a strong correlation between government restrictions on religion and religiously-motivated violence. Further, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law poses threats to the fundamental human rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by Russias Constitution and its international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) human dimension commitments, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. When evaluated within these legal frameworks, the Federal Anti-Terrorism Law raises a number of serious problems. It restricts the dissemination of beliefs in public to registered groups and organizations, and bars even informal sharing of beliefs by individuals acting on their own behalf. Perhaps most concerning, it restricts the beliefs that can be shared, limits the places where sharing beliefs can happen and explicitly bans sharing beliefs in residential buildings, "except as provided for by Article 16, Part 2 of [the Religion Law]." Article 16, Part 2, states that worship services and other religious rites and ceremonies may be freely held in residential premises, as well as in premises owned or rented by religious organizations. It is therefore unclear what this part of the amendment will mean in practice. On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our continuing deep concern about rising restrictions on religion in the Republic of Kazakhstan; and urge U.S. government leaders to engage Kazakh President Nazarbayev and leaders of his government regarding the 2011 Religion Law and related amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code, and urge them to amend the 2011 Religion Law and related articles in these Codes in order to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards, Kazakhstans international commitments, and its own Constitution. Related to this, shared the Kazakhstan report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which recommends reforms to the 2011 Religion Law. The brief summary of this formal report on his mission to Kazakhstan stated: While acknowledging a general appreciation of religious diversity in the country, he noticed adverse attitudes towards some non-traditional religious communities. The State monitors religious activities strictly, with a view to preventing extremism and to combating sects deemed destructive to peoples well-being. Many of the measures adopted for this purpose are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, the mandatory registration of religious communities, in conjunction with tightly knit stipulations, largely hampers free religious practice, which takes place in an atmosphere of legal insecurity. Further, the Special Rapporteurs conclusions include: 66. the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations shows restrictive features that are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. The most obvious problem concerns the mandatory status of official registration. Failure to obtain this status means that a religious community is deemed illegal, which has far-reaching negative repercussions on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, even those communities which are registered suffer to some extent from legal insecurity, inter alia due to the official confinement of permitted religious activities to certain predefined issues and territorial boundaries. In general, the 2011 Law is based on the assumption that the exercise of core aspects of freedom of religion depends on specific acts of Government approval - thereby turning the relationship between freedom and limitations, as generally understood in the framework of human rights, upside down. 67. While Kazakhstan has broadly embraced religious pluralism, members of non-traditional small religious communities, frequently branded as sects, continue to experience suspicion, mistrust and discrimination in society. Moreover, some provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code on Administrative Offences - both the existing and the new Codes - which are aimed at combating religious hatred or religious extremism - are defined only vaguely, thus creating a climate of legal insecurity, which is further exacerbated by shortcomings in the handling of criminal procedures, long pretrial detention and related problems. Similar problems are associated with the 2005 Law on Countering Extremism. Finally, the Special Rapporteurs recommendations include: (a) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government consider amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution to bring them into line with article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (b) The Government should bring its constitutional provisions pertinent to freedom of religion or belief fully into line with article 18 of the Covenant and other relevant international human rights standards. (d) Above all, the Special Rapporteur would like to recommend far-reaching reforms of the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations based on an understanding that registration should be in the service of freedom of religion or belief which, due to its status as a universal human right, inheres in all human beings, prior to - and independent of - any specific acts of administrative approval. The most important consequence would be that registration should be an offer, not a mandatory requirement, for religious community practice. Non-registered communities must be able to operate free from discrimination and free from fear of intimidation. Also shared a recent UN Human Rights Committee decision against Kazakhstan. In the Consideration of the merits section of this decision against Kazakhstan are the following three points: 10.The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation by the State party of the authors rights under article 18 of the Covenant. 11.In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including review of his conviction and review of the cancellation of his residence permit. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future. 12.Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether or not there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committees Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views, to have them translated into the official languages of the State party, and to have them widely disseminated. Finally, shared an International Religious Freedom Roundtable submission to the UN Human Rights Committee. Provided this submission to the UN Human Rights Committee in connection with its consideration of the second periodic report of Kazakhstan regarding its compliance with the ICCPR on 22 and 23 June 2016. It lays out our concerns related to Kazakhstan and Article 18 - freedom of religion-and our recommendations. The purpose of this submission was to summarize to date the IRF Roundtable engagement with the Kazakh government and interactions with the UN Special Rapporteur regarding religious freedom in Kazakhstan in light of the deteriorating situation, hopeful that a meaningful dialogue might be renewed-one that does not demonize the government or civil society. We believe this dialogue can be helpful in maintaining stability and peace in Kazakhstan while bringing the Religion Law and related articles of the Criminal and Administrative Codes closer to compliance with UN international standards articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).