OAS Permanent Council Special Session on the IACHR Study on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion or Belief in the Americas
Honored to speak before the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States during their special session on promoting religious freedom in the Americas. I respond to the Inter-American Commission report and provide practical recommendations for next steps the OAS and its members can take to protect religious freedom for all.
You can watch my 8 minute presentation here: https://x.com/OEA_oficial/status/1849105337871200669
Full Statement
OAS Permanent Council Special Session on the IACHR Study on the Right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion or Belief in the Americas
Presentation by Knox Thames
October 23, 2024
I congratulate the OAS for considering the vital topic of religious freedom and tasking the Commission to examine it in light of Inter-American standards. I also want to congratulate the Commissioners and staff for their hard work. Examining the topic with majority and minority voices represents the essence of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. In too many other regions of the world, such introspection is not found. In fact, the reality of global persecution is one that many governments wish to hide. The fact we are here today reflects how religious freedom is a foundational value of the Americas.
For these reasons, I first became involved with the OAS and its members in 2016. My expertise has focused on combating violent religious persecution in the Middle East and Asia and building alliances to counter violations. When serving at the State Department in a special envoy role during the Obama and Trump administrations, we began engaging this body around the shared value of religious freedom for all, in an effort to meet the pandemic of religious persecution impacting millions daily.
But the fact that our hemisphere is good on this issue doesn’t mean bad things don’t (and aren’t) happening. We can be better. I will provide thoughts on Inter-American standards, how the report engages them, and practical recommendations for next steps.
It is positive that the countries of the Americas, both North and South, have generally supported religious freedom. However, we all face complex challenges, such as recent changes in religious and sociocultural demographics and the legacy of colonization and segregation. Different visions relating to family, marriage, personal autonomy, and even questions of when life begins pose difficult questions for OAS nations, and thus the OAS, to resolve. Conflict by itself isn’t bad but it must be handled constructively.
In this context, Inter-American standards are incredibly relevant and well covered by the Commission report. There is no hierarchy of rights, but freedom to believe and question goes to the core of the human experience. The American Convention phrases it well as “freedom of conscience and religion,” connecting both faith and free thought.
OAS standards support and reinforce UN standards on freedom of religion or belief and echo standards created through other regional bodies, particularly in Europe. I will note, however, one element of OAS religious freedom standards that extend protections beyond UN standards – the explicit recognition of freedom of association for religious purposes in Article 22 of the American Declaration and Article 16 of the American Convention.
After outlining these parameters, the Commission report addressed its intersectionality with different issues.
I agree that religious freedom intersects with other rights. As I’ve written elsewhere, I refer to religious freedom as a bundled right. It’s unique, as to be fully respected, other rights must be respected and protected. Just think about the rights enjoyed when going to church, mosque, synagogue, or temple. Belief. Worship. Association. Speech. Expression. Movement. Parental rights. Legal recognition. Property rights.
Looking at it in reverse shows how human rights limitations intersect with religious freedom. The dismal human rights situation in Cuba provides a helpful example. On the island, individuals face penalties when they disagree with the state’s ideology, but belief is a right untouchable by governments under any circumstance. Freedom of worship is blocked when the Cuban government refuses to recognize religious communities. The impossibility of registering means all worship is technically illegal, and pastors are subject to criminal penalties. This also violates freedom of association for religious purposes, again that unique element of Inter-American standards.
Also in Cuba, freedom of speech is constrained, limiting what pastors can preach or what laity can share. Authorities penalize freedom of expression through dress or processions when unapproved or deemed to challenge government narratives. Pastors and clergy who advocate for the needs of their community or defend their members are jailed or forced into exile, similar to others considered human rights defenders.
While Cuba is an outlier, many of these issues arise elsewhere in our region. Issues of denial of legal recognition are common, as are attacks sadly against religious minorities. Indigenous communities are often overlooked and increasingly victimized for their different beliefs, cultures, and spiritual practices.
Religious freedom, because of its bundled nature, intersects with many rights. Yet, from reviewing the report, the Commission could have discussed and explored these elements further. In addition, I was struck with the few Commission and even fewer Court decisions that speak to the foundation question of religious freedom violations. While our region is exemplary, there are problems. The few other references are dated except for recent statements on Nicaragua.
These are straightforward issues OAS mechanisms are well positioned to address and help resolve.
Of the intersectional issues discussed by the report, I felt the real challenges facing LGBTI persons and indigenous peoples were positioned in opposition to religious freedom. That’s unfortunate. Freedom of conscience and religion protects the rights of individuals to draw their own conclusions on many of these issues. It protects an individual’s right to hold beliefs others disagree with and their right to express them openly. It creates space for peaceful debate.
At the same time, as a longtime religious freedom advocate, I fear religious freedom being subsumed into these larger debates on social issues difficult to resolve. That’s not to say these aren’t important issues – they are. However, viewing them through the lens of religious freedom will absorb limited time and energy from the core work of protecting individuals wishing to practice their beliefs without fear of discrimination or violence.
In this regard, I welcomed the last two General Assembly resolutions for highlighting practical religious freedom limitations experienced in the Americas, such as security of places of worship, discrimination against religious minorities, including indigenous and Afro-Caribbean and Afro-Brazilian groups, and issues of anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim hatred, and hate speech against Christians and others.
For recommendations, I encourage member states to request the Commission sponsor another discussion on religious freedom, repeating the excellent meeting from last year that included countries and civil society actors from across the political and religious spectrum. It could focus on ways to protect places of worship from violence, something everyone can agree is wrong and every country is grappling with, especially for minority and Indigenous communities. It would allow for sharing best practices while also providing opportunities for the Commission to highlight how its tools can help. The Commission briefing religious and indigenous communities on accessing their mechanisms would increase engagement and jurisprudence.
The Commission could also explore how to promote positive pluralism between religion and belief groups through education that can equip and empower youth to navigate our diverse world. We should teach children about their rights and the rights of others different from themselves.
In conclusion, defending pluralistic societies and freedom of religion or belief can promote peace and maintain regional stability. As the French philosopher Voltaire wrote in 1733 when describing the tolerance he found in England, he said, “If there were only one religion in England, there would be danger of tyranny; if there were two, they would cut each other’s throats; but there are thirty, and they live happily together in peace.”
We are blessed in our region with many religions, beliefs, and cultures, which give our nation energy and vitality and create new possibilities. But there are also challenges.
Promoting positive pluralism is hard work. Protecting and promoting freedom of conscience and religion is crucial, as it reaffirms the human dignity that each person carries.
コメント