0

Oxford International Model

United Nations

OxIMUN2011

BACKGROUND GUIDE

w w w . o x i m u n . o r g

1

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Contents - Introduction ...... pg 3 -Topic History ...... pg 4 -Discussion of the Problem .............. pg 5 -The Future ......... pg -Points Resolutions Should Address ... pg -Bloc Positions .... pg -Further Reading . pg -Bibliography ....... pg

Committee Director: Yusra Suedi yusra.suedi@gmail.com Assistant Directors: Juliane Guderian juliane.guderian@stcatz.ox.ac.uk Iakovos Dimitrou iakovos.dimitriou@hotmail.com

HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

The Human Right to Freedom of Religion

A Message from your Directors:

Dear Delegates,

It is our pleasure and honor to welcome you to the United Nations Human Rights Council of Oxford International Model United Nations 2011! Your team of Directors is comprised of Yusra Suedi, Juliane Guderian and Iakovos Dimitriou. All three of us are MUN enthusiasts! Yusra and Juliane are undergraduate law students at the University of Geneva in Switzerland and Oxford University respectively, and Iakovos is a Master’s student at King’s College, studying Politics and Governance in the European Union. The topic we have chosen to discuss in the HRC is not only interesting, but prevalent in international relations over the last few years. We felt that it was particularly relevant to students from entirely different cultures and religious backgrounds coming together from all corners of the globe to address the contemporary issue of freedom of religion, government interference with this human right and hopefully come to a consensus on what the international community should be doing in order to facilitate its widespread access and practice. We hope that you will find the topics both thought-provoking and challenging. Please use this guide as a launching point for your exploration of your committee’s topics and of your country or leader’s policies. The more preparation you do for your committee, the more OxiMUN will be able to offer you. Take the time to read carefully through the study guide and to complete additional research. We look forward to meeting all of you and having a great time! Feel free to contact us if you have any questions, at unhrc@oximun.org. Sincerely,

Yusra Suedi, Juliane Guderian, Iakovos Dimitrou.

0

The Human Right to Freedom of Religion

Introduction

The term “religion” or “belief” was defined in 1993 by the Human Rights Committee – a UN body of 18 experts - as “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief.” While religions provide faith, solace and potential for peace to billions across the globe, history has shown that they have also been the source of conflict and tension. This difficulty is demonstrated by the ever-developing history of the protection of the freedom of religion in the context of international human rights.

The struggle for religious freedom has been on-going for centuries, and has led to countless conflicts. An effort to codify common values related to religious freedom has been seen throughout the twentieth century. The struggle for this freedom subsists nonetheless.

History of the HRC

The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the UN system made up of 47 States responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. The Council was created by the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006.

The main aim of the Human Rights Council is to reach effective and efficient results in dealing with human rights issues around the world. Its main task is to improve the level of promotion and protection of the human rights. It aims to promote universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedom for all without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner according to all. Recommendations are made on all noted human rights violations including gross and systematic violations.

Members of the Human Rights Council are elected by the UN General Assembly, based upon (1) the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and (2) their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto. Additionally, members elected to the Council shall (1) uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights; (2) fully cooperate with the Council and (3) bereviewed under the universal period review mechanism during their term.

The mechanisms and procedures which the Council uses in order achieve these goals are:

Special Procedures, established by the former Commission on Human Rights and pursued by the Human Rights Council in order to monitor the human right violations in a specific country or examine global human rights’ issues. The mandate holders are either individuals who are leading experts in particular area of human rights (commonly referred to as Special Rapporteurs) or working groups composed of five members.

Resolution 5/1 (2007) established a new complaints procedure to address consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms occurring in any part of the world and under any circumstances.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)is an innovative mechanism which was set up to review the fulfillment of the human rights obligations and commitments by all UN member States on a periodic basis. It will be conducted by the entire Council

1

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

sitting as a working group through an interactive dialogue with the concerned State.

History

Definition The freedom of religion can be defined as the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. It has been generally recognised to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow a religion. The freedom to leave a religion or discontinue membership of a religious group (apostasy) is a vital component in defining this term. In a country with a state religion, freedom of religion is considered to mean that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion and does not persecute beliefs in other faiths. The freedom of religion is considered by many to be a fundamental human right.

Protection under International Law

In 1948, The United Nations recognized the importance of freedom of religion or belief in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Universal Declaration). Article 18 states that “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his *her+ choice.” The

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) adopted in 1966 expanded its prior statement to address the manifestation of religion or belief, and included the following: “1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice, and freedom either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his [her] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. “2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his [her] freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his [her] choice. 3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” Some of the articles of the ICCPR regarding fundamental freedoms have become international conventions, which are legally binding treaties. For example, more detailed treaties have codified prohibitions against torture, discrimination against women, and racial discrimination. However, because of the complexity of the topic and the political issues involved, Article 18 ICCPR has not been elaborated and codified in the same way. After twenty years of debate, intense struggle and hard work, the General Assembly in 1981 adopted without a vote the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981. While the Declaration lacks any enforcement procedures, it remains the most important contemporary codification of the principle of freedom of religion and belief.

2

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Other international instruments have addressed the issues related to the right of freedom of religion and conscience, such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in its Article 18. However, certain restrictions that are “in accordance with law” and “necessary in a democratic society” are permitted.

Important Historical Dates

1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18.

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18

1981

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief

1993

Human Rights Committee’s General Comment Number 22 on Article 18 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Discussion of the Problem

Failed Implementation An indisputably important right, the freedom of thought, conscience and religion is at once controversial and yet still agreed to by many states – representing many different beliefs – that drafted the ICCPR. State parties must enact legislation to embody and protect these freedoms. In addition, states parties must take steps to ensure that persons within its jurisdiction are protected from forms of private coercion. State legislation implementing Article 18 may contain exceptions to the manifestation of such thought, conscience or religion, but they must be necessary, set forth in the law, and designed to accomplish one of the criteria mentioned in the international law texts, i.e. Article 18(3) ICCPR.

Many international treaties have a mechanism to monitor the implementation of international laws guaranteeing the freedom of religion as a fundamental human right. As part of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18 is legally-binding and is monitored by the Human Rights Committee. As of 2002, there are149 States Parties to this Covenant. Under an Optional Protocol, 102 States Parties recognize the authority of the Human Rights Committee to consider confidential communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any rights proclaimed under the treaty. Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding, the USA passed the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998, creating the Commission on International Religious Freedom and mandating that the United States government take action against any country found to violate the religious freedoms outlined in the Declaration. More than 25 UN Member States have national protection or service agencies to monitor legally binding human rights treaties or non-binding human rights declarations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also is working to create National Institutes of Human Rights, as called for by the Paris Principles and endorsed by the General Assembly in 1993 (Resolution 48/134). All states have government ministries and departments for matters relating to freedom of religion or belief. They located primarily in Ministries of Justice, Education, Culture, or, for international human rights treaties, Foreign Affairs.

Statistics

Despite the widespread affirmation of the importance of freedom of religion, the reality shows that this fundamental human right is breached in more countries than it is protected. The Pew Research Center’s Forum of Religion and Public Life is the foremost institute publishing studies on freedom of

3

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

religion, using information from the United Nations, the US-American State Department and Human Rights Watch. In a study entitled “Global Restrictions on Religion” of December 17, 2009, the Forum stated that almost all countries protect religious freedom in their constitution or laws, while only about a quarter of countries were found to fully respect these legal rights in practice.

In its more recent study entitled “Rising Restrictions on Religion,” published in August 2011, the Forum found that:

“As of mid-2009, government restrictions on religion were high or very high in 42 countries, about one-in-five worldwide. ... Government restrictions were in the moderate range in 39 countries. A much larger number of countries – 117 – had low levels of government restrictions. But because many of the more restrictive countries (including China and India) are very populous, more than half of the world’s population (59%) was living with high or very high government restrictions as of mid-2009.

As of mid-2009, social hostilities involving religion were high or very high in 40 countries, about one-in-five worldwide. ... Social hostilities were in the moderate range in 43 countries. A much larger number of countries – 115 – had low levels of social hostilities. But because many of the countries with high or very high social hostilities (including India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria) are very populous, nearly half of the world’s population (48%) was living with high or very high social hostilities involving religion as of mid-2009.

Government restrictions or social hostilities were high or very high in about one-third of the countries as of mid-2009. But because some of the most restrictive countries are very populous, nearly 70 percent of the world’s 6.9 billion people were living in countries where governments imposed high restrictions on religion or where there were high levels of religious hostilities in society.”

4

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Women in Jos, Nigeria, mourn as they march against a recent bout of sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians, April 2010.

Case Studies The Burqa Ban There are concerns about the persecution of religious minorities such as the banning of worn religious articles such as the burqa, Christian cross, or Jewish skullcap in certain European countries. The so-called ‘Burqa Ban’ is a particularly pertinent case. Especially the new French law has very different international reactions.

France prohibits students and staff from wearing clearly visible religious symbols. Since 2004, burqas have not been allowed to be worn in public schools. In July 2010, the French National Assembly passed the “Bill to forbid concealing one’s face in public,” which in essence bans the wearing of burqas and niqabs in public as of April 11, 2011. Though France has received the most media-coverage, such bans are, in fact, already in existence in other nations. Italy, for example, passed an anti-terrorism law in 1975 which forbids the wearing of dress which conceals a person’s face; in May 2010, a Tunisian woman

was fined 500 EUR for this offence. Moreover, the Belgian lower house on April 29, 2010 unanimously passed a bill banning any clothing that would obscure the identity of the wearer in places like parks and in the street. The bill has yet to be discussed by the Senate. In Australia, on the other hand, the burqa ban was not enacted. Also non-Western nations have imposed restrictions on burqas. For example, in Syria burqas may not be worn in schools or universities, by students and staff alike. .

Persecution of Egyptian Christians Religious freedom conditions in Egypt have deteriorated under the Mubarak regime over the past several years, particularly for religious minorities. Even prior to and after former President Hosni Mubarak stepped down in February 2011, the Egyptian government tolerated religious freedom violations against religious minorities – for example, Coptic Orthodox Christians - and indigent Muslims. Since February 11, military and security forces reportedly have used excessive force and live ammunition targeting Christian places of worship and Christian demonstrators. The level of violence combined with the failure to convict those responsible, fostered a climate of impunity, making further violence more likely. Implementation of previous court rulings – related to granting official identity documents to Baha‘is and changing religious affiliation on identity documents for Christian converts – continues to lag. In addition, the government has not responded adequately to combat widespread and virulent anti-Semitism in the government-controlled media. Despite initial efforts by the transitional government to dismantle the state security apparatus, the state of emergency remains in place and discriminatory laws and policies continue to have a negative impact on freedom of religion or belief in Egypt. lack of adequate security in the streets has contributed to lawlessness in various parts of the country.

5

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Fundamental Causes

At this stage we have examined two common cases of the violation of religious freedom – the banning of religious symbols in European countries, and the discrimination of minorities in religious states. Several reasons can be identified for each form of violation of religious freedom. Concerning the banning of religious symbols, three reasons can be identified.

Upholding values of secularism

Secularism is the principle of separation

between government and religious

institutions. A secular state can be

summarized to claim three things: to be

neutral in matters of religion, to treat all its

citizens equally regardless of religion, and to

avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from

one particular religion over others religions

(or non-religion). In current affairs, numerous

analysts have suggested that the spreading

phobia for religions across continental Europe

is tied to a disease “pushing the continent

toward broad cultural and economic decline”.

According to the Pew Research Center, while

59% of Americans say that religion is very

important in their lives, only 11% of the

French, 21% of Germans, and 33% of Britons

do. A prevailing attitude of European elites

toward religion has been recently noted --

particularly traditional religion and

particularly in the public sphere. From the ban

on the wearing of visible religious symbols in

French public schools to the refusal of the EU

to include specific mention of Christianity's

influence on Europe's distinctive civilization in

its first constitution, a mountain of anecdotal

evidence suggests that secularism is afoot in

Europe. BBC Online has stated that

“Secularists oppose religion or the religious

being afforded privileges, which - put another

way - means others are disadvantaged.

Religious secularists don't think that belief is a

reason for *their own+ special treatment.”

Positive ideals behind the secular society

include a deep respect for individuals and the

small groups of which they are a part, equality

of all people, each person should be helped to

realize their particular excellent and breaking

down the barriers of class and caste. The

establishment of a secular system with

respect for and equal treatment of all

religious faiths under the law is considered to

be a fundamental imperative of any

democracy.

Map of Secular Countries. Legend; Red = Secular states,

Yellow = Religious states, Grey = ambiguous/without

data.

Equality

The European Union has demonstrated their fear of lack of equality and discrimination on any grounds through some of their recent policies. Their ‘gender equality’ ruling, for example, means young men cannot be charged more for their car insurance – even though they are ten times more likely to have a serious crash. In relation to religion, the EU refused to include specific mention of Christianity's influence on Europe's distinctive civilization in its first constitution. Scandinavia's largest daily newspaper, the Swedish “Aftonbladet”, stated that referring to Christian values in the constitution and placing them above other values would be a 'huge mistake' because it would 'exclude groups and raise new walls. Terry Sanderson, vice president of the UK's National Secular Society, told EU observer, "We are very glad a reference to God has been left out, it would have created unnecessary barriers in Europe...Europe has to be secular for it to be really unified."

6

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

The importance of equality as a justification for the banning of religious symbols can also be seen in Quebec, where “Bill 94”, banning Muslim women from receiving or delivering public services while wearing a Niqab, was passed in 2010. Speaking to the media, Quebec premier Jean Charest said the step was needed for maintaining gender equality and secular character of public institutions. "This (bill) is (…) not about making our home less welcoming, but about stressing the values that unite us. An accommodation cannot be granted unless it respects the principle of equality between men and women, and the religious neutrality of the state,'' the premier said. However, it has been argued, notably by the “No To Bill 94 Coalition” of Quebec, that the bill would in fact perpetuate gender inequality by legislating control over women’s bodies and sanctioning discrimination against Muslim women who wear the Niqab. Instead of singling out a minuscule percentage of the population, government resources would be better spent implementing poverty reduction and education programs to address real gender inequality in meaningful ways.”

Public Security

Public security is the function of governments which ensures the protection of citizens, organizations, and institutions against threats to their well-being – and to the prosperity of their communities. After 9/11, there was a persistent call in various United Nations Resolutions for action to counter terrorism through the acceptance of relevant international conventions and protocols, and by adopting laws and implementing other measures designed to combat terrorism. While recognizing both the need to take firm action to prevent terrorism and the

complexity of the issues involved, it was observed that some of the responses have resulted in inappropriate actions that violate the right to freedom of religion or belief. For example, Germany, in the wake of 9/11, has enacted amendments to its Association Law that give the government full discretion to simply shut down religious organizations that it considers a threat to national security without due process. It has been retaliated that the separation of one part of a population by the government establishes resentment and alienation among those groups, and that in itself poses a threat to national security. Principal reasons for states that hinder their population in having the possibility to choose what religion they wish to follow are religious uniformity and the elimination of heresy, blasphemy and apostasy in societies.

Religious uniformity

This occurs when the government is used to promote one state religion, denomination or philosophy to the exclusion of all other religious beliefs. The government of Myanmar for example is accused of actively promoting Buddhism, which 90% of the population practices, over other religious minorities. Christian and Islamic groups have faced social struggle, Anti-Muslim violence has been noted, and it has been reported that the government applied pressure on students and poor youth to convert to Buddhism. Adherence or conversion to Buddhism is generally a prerequisite for promotion to senior government and military ranks.

7

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

The elimination of Heresy,

blasphemy and apostasy

Heresy is defined as “a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion that conflicts with established dogma”. It distinguishes itself from both apostasy and blasphemy; the former being the formal denunciation of one's religion, principles or cause, and the latter denoting irreverence toward religion.

Historically, religious blasphemy had been a crime punishable by death in much of the Christian world. The United Kingdom’s last blasphemy execution was 20-year-old Thomas Aikenhead, executed in 1697.

Heresy, blasphemy and apostasy are all criminal offences in Saudi Arabia for example, and subject to persecution. In this state, proselytising by non-Muslims and apostasy are both illegal, the latter carrying death penalty. As of 2010, however, there have been no confirmed reports of executions for

apostasy in recent years. It must be noted that there is often a distinction between the religion of Islam and the practice of a state’s government. For example, neither the Quran nor the Hadith mention blasphemy and certain scholars claim that nothing in Islam supports it. Rather, Muslims jurists made the offence part of Sharia. Moreover, not all Muslims countries have caused violations of religious freedom. Morocco is a tremendously important model as an Arab Muslim state that recognizes the integrity and importance of religious freedom as a national policy.

The Future Despite documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or individual countries’ constitutional protection of human rights, reality shows that human rights are not maintained enough. Furthermore, passing new, hostile laws such as the ‘Burqa Ban’ only worsens international freedom of religion. The new Human Rights Council, as well as the work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and inter-governmental organisations (IGOs) could potentially reach successes for religious freedom in the future.

Enforceability of Documents

Currently, documents such as the Universal Declaration or the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief are not legally enforceable. The important definitions included in the Universal Declaration, such as ‘fundamental freedoms’ or ‘human rights,’ are binding on all Member States. Breaches, however, result in no legal consequences. Rather, such documents are regarded as ‘customary international law,’ and can be used as a tool for applying diplomatic and moral pressures on

8

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

governments who violate the terms.Should such declarations be given more enforceability, for example through international legal or economic sanctions in the future?

Growing Hostilities

As government and social restrictions on freedom of religion, such as the ‘Burqa Ban’ and persecution of Egyptian Christians, continue to grow, a vicious cycle has begun. Such policies may deepen the hostilities between different nations and religions. For example, taking the Burqa Ban: though France aims to protect itself from Islamic influences in fear of radicalism, the policy will may only anger radical Islamists and cause hostile reactions, which is precisely what is supposed to be safeguarded against. Should radical Islamist actions increase, it seems likely that the French government would further implement restrictions on Islam, hence continuing the vicious circle. Likewise, unfriendliness towards a state religion in one country may lead to countries with that state religion to grow more hostile towards the main religion in the first country. It seems likely that government and social hostilities towards religion will result in less freedom of religion in the future.

The New Human Rights Council

In 2006, the UN Commission on Human Rights was replaced by a new body, the UN Human Rights Council, which meets more often, is marginally smaller, and has certain new procedures such as the Universal Periodic

Review (UPR). The Human Rights Council was intended to address and correct the perception that the Commission on Human Rights unfairly singled out some states for repeated scrutiny while ignoring many others. Through the UPR process, which commenced in 2008, UN members will assess the human rights performance of every UN member state, some of whose human rights records have never before been reviewed by an intergovernmental body. The first cycle of review of all 192 UN member states will be complete in late 2011.

Cooperation with NGOs

There are numerous NGOs working in the field of human rights, and some in particular in promoting freedom of religion. Their continued efforts may lead to further successes in the future. Some notable NGOs include: Amnesty International: is an international non-profit NGOwhich aims "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated." It was founded in London in 1961 and has since won many prestigious prizes, such as the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize or United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights in 1978. Freedom of religion is frequently targeted. Its violations were a significant trigger leading to the foundation of Amnesty International.

Human Rights Watch: in 1988 grew out of the “Watch Committees” which were founded in the USA throughout the 1980s to monitor various regions’ compliance with human rights. It conducts research and advocacy on human rights, regarding freedom of religion as one of the fundamental human rights. The International Association for Religious Freedom: (IARF) is a non-profit organisation working for worldwide religious freedom. Founded in

9

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

1900, it is the oldest international interfaith group. Over 90 groups spread over 20 countries are affiliated to it and a wide range of faiths are represented. Since 1972 it has been granted consultative statues with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). Forum 18: is a Norwegian human rights organisation that promotes freedom of religion. Its News Service, a Christian web and e-mail initiative to report on threats and actions against the religious freedom of all people, whatever their religious affiliation, in an objective, truthful and timely manner, publishes both daily and weekly reports. These are widely used, for example by Amnesty International, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and numerous news sites with different religious affiliation.

Points Resolutions Should Address

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental human rights, and has been enshrined as such in numerous international and domestic documents. Nevertheless, it is violated in various nations, comprising 70% of the world’s total population. Governments have differing policies and enacted laws discriminating to very different degrees, and social hostilities limit religious freedoms in some nations as well. To work towards solutions to these problems, resolutions should address:

International Documents and Treaties: How can they be strengthened to ensure more compliance? Is more enforceability, such as legal or economic consequences, possible; moreover, is it desirable?

Overcoming the fundamental causes of restrictions of freedom of religion: How can these be tackled and prejudices overcome? Think carefully about realistic solutions, which do not infringe national sovereignty. Especially because religion consists of such individual beliefs which may be in great conflict with other faiths, it will be difficult for resolutions to achieve this. What could the role of education or interreligious exchange play?

Discriminatory government action: Some government policies, or even laws that are enacted, severely violate freedom of religion, even if it is supposedly enshrined in other law. How can governments be prevented from doing so, without compromising national sovereignty? What sort of reactionary measures could there be in cases of violations?

10

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Removing social hostilities and their effects on religious freedom: In addition to the actions of governments, society and its attitudes can have severe effects on how citizens can exercise religious freedom. How can this be overcome to ensure that communities worldwide are more tolerant?

Case-specific solutions: In addition to possible solutions for the above factors on a global level, identify specific cases of contemporary freedom of religion violations. Tackle the causes, government and social factors for that specific problem and provide solutions.

Bloc Positions

Freedom of religion by country (Pew Research Center study, 2009). Light yellow: low restriction; red: very high restriction on freedom of religion. North and South America: The Americas continue to have the lowest levels of both government and social restrictions upon religion. Europe: Though in Europe there are relatively few restrictions implemented by governments, social hostilities involving religion are increasing rapidly. Middle East and North Africa: In this region, the highest levels of both government and social restrictions upon all

aspects of religious life can be found. Furthermore, many Islamic countries severely restrict religious freedoms even further, and highly favour Muslim citizens. In countries which have adopted Sharia law there is no freedom of conscience. Sub-Saharan Africa: Social hostilities which may result in compromises of freedom of religion have been declining in most nations of Sub-Saharan Africa.

Asia: Many Asian states have high government restrictions, and social hostilities have also been rising. Non-Secular Countries: Many countries who have a state religion limit missionary activities of religions other than that state religion, regardless of which region of the world they are situated in. Examples include Islamic countries, China and Greece.

11

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

Further Reading

Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved 2011-09-05: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Retrieved 2011-09-05: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/religion.htm

United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. (Report). Retrieved 2011-07-11: http://www.uscirf.gov/images/book%20with%20cover%20for%20web.pdf

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, Study “Global Restrictions on Religion”, December 17, 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-31: http://pewforum.org/Government/Global-Restrictions-on-Religion.aspx

Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion and Public Life, Study ‘Rising Restrictions on Religion’, 2011 examining changes between 2009 and August 2011. Retrieved 2011-08-31:http://pewforum.org/Government/Rising-Restrictions-on-Religion(2).aspx?src=prc-headline

The Evolution of Religious Liberty as a Universal Human Right, by Derek H. Davis, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor:http://web.archive.org/web/20080201105738/http://usinfo.state.gov/dd/eng_democracy_dialogues/religion/religion_essay.html

The Idea of a Secular Society, D. L.

Munby, London, Oxford University

Press, 1963.

Bibliography

Websites. Amnesty International. “Amnesty

International”. 2011. Web. September 5, 2011.

Bath, Raphael. “International Association for

Religious Freedom: belief with integrity”. 2009. Web. September 5, 2011.

BBC. “BBC News”. 2011. Web. May 23, 2011. Forum 18. “Forum 18, Oslo, Norway”. 2011.

Web. September 5, 2011. Human Rights Watch. “Human Rights Watch”.

2011. Web. September 5, 2011. The Pew Research Center Forum on Religion

and Public Life. “The Pew Research Center Forum on Religious and Public Life”. 2010. Web. August 31, 2011.

Religious Tolerance:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/const_eu.htm

God kept out of EU constitution: France leads charge to pander to Islamic immigrant populations," WorldNetDaily, 2003-MAY-29, at: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=19030

12

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011

EU Urged to Leave God Out Of Constitution," National Liberty Journal, 2003-MAR, at: http://www.nljonline.com/

Jihad Watch: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/03/quebec-bans-niqab.html

Bill 94 Quebec: http://www.racialicious.com/2010/04/07/quebec-niqab-ban-nonon-to-bill-94

Madeley, John T. S. and Zsolt Enyedi, Church and state in contemporary Europe: the chimera of neutrality, p. , 2003 Routledge

US News: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/050530/30europe.htm Religious Freedom: http://www.theta.com/religious-freedom/20050119.php The Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361750/Car-insurance-women-soar-25-men-face-10-CUT-EU-rules.html#ixzz1ZQeV6LXF

2

Oxford International Model United Nations 2011