Tweet
FORUM 18 NEWS SERVICE, Oslo, Norway
http://www.forum18.org/
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief
========================================== =======
Tuesday 24 March 2009
ARMENIA: A "SERIOUS SETBACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN, PROGRESSIVE
AND LIBERAL ARMENIA"
Armenian human rights defenders and religious communities remain deeply
concerned by many parts of the draft Religion Law, Forum 18 News Service
has found. Serious concern has also been expressed about the proposed new
Article 162 in the Criminal Code, which would punish the sharing of
beliefs. Both drafts were approved by Parliament in their first readings. A
joint review of the new Laws are expected to be conducted by the Council of
Europe's Venice Commission and the OSCE. Armen Ashotyan, a parliamentary
deputy of the Republican Party in the government coalition, who is leading
the adoption of the Laws, told Forum 18 that deputies will wait for the
review before proceeding further. However, he declined to pledge that all
the review's recommendations will be accepted. Alarm has been caused by,
among other provisions, a high legal status threshold of 500 people, bans
on sharing beliefs, and unclear wording of provisions allowing religious
organisations to be banned. They have been condemned as a "serious setback
to the development of a modern, progressive and liberal Armenia"
ARMENIA: A "SERIOUS SETBACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN, PROGRESSIVE
AND LIBERAL ARMENIA"
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service <http://www.forum18.org>
Armenia's controversial proposed new Religion Law and the proposed new
Article 162 in the Criminal Code to punish the sharing of beliefs were
approved by Parliament in their first readings on 19 March, the
parliamentary website reported. A wide range of religious communities and
human rights activists within Armenia have expressed deep concern to Forum
18 News Service about these proposed new Laws. Armenia's Parliament
requested a review of the draft Laws from the Venice Commission of the
Council of Europe. The review is expected to be conducted jointly with the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and to be
presented in June, the Venice Commission told Forum 18 News Service from
Strasbourg.
Armen Ashotyan, a parliamentary deputy of the Republican Party in the
government coalition, who is leading the adoption of the Laws, told Forum
18 from the capital Yerevan on 23 March that deputies will wait for the
review before proceeding further. However, he declined to pledge that all
the review's recommendations will be accepted.
The draft Religion Law and amendment to the Criminal Code began their
passage through Parliament on 5 February, taking many religious communities
by surprise. Protestants, Russian Orthodox and Jehovah's Witnesses are
among those expressing concern about many provisions of these proposed Laws
(see F18News 9 February 2009
<http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?articl e_id=1251>).
High legal status threshold
Concerns about the initial text of the Laws particularly focused on the
1,000 adult citizen members required before a religious community would be
able to apply for legal status. Deputy Ashotyan told Forum 18 that in late
February, deputies preparing the Law reduced this to 500, adding that this
was the version adopted on 19 March. He insisted this would satisfy
concerns from religious minorities.
Ashotyan defended the requirement to have 500 adult citizens to register a
religious community. "We compared approaches from European countries and
took Austria as a model," he told Forum 18. Asked why Austria was chosen,
he responded: "We looked for the most proper model for Armenia. Austria is
a country with a similar model to Armenia."
Asked how that meets the OSCE / Venice Commission's recommendations in
their guidance on drafting religion laws that "High minimum membership
requirements should not be allowed with respect to obtaining legal
personality" (see
<http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_13600. html>), Ashotyan responded: "500
is not a high number. It is a very small number." He insisted that
religious communities without registration would still be able to function.
He refused to explain how they could run bank accounts, own property,
employ people or conduct other business that requires legal status.
Equally satisfied with the version adopted in the first reading is Vardan
Astsatryan, head of the government's Department on National Minority and
Religious Issues. "Armen Ashotyan met some religious organisations," he
told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 23 March, "and as a result there was some
softening." He welcomed the reduction from 1,000 to 500 adult members
required for registration, and denied that even this number is too high.
However, Stepan Danielyan, Chair of the Collaboration for Democracy
Centre, which has worked on religious tolerance in Armenia, is among human
rights defenders who question why the number of adult members required to
found a religious community in a revised Article 5 is raised from 200 in
the current Religion Law (already a high number) to 500.
Bans on sharing beliefs
Religious communities were also highly concerned by the broad definition
of "proselytism", which attracted heavy penalties in the initial version of
the Laws. Deputy Ashotyan claims that redrafting has specified that such
"proselytism" would have to be "aggressive" and "repeated" before resulting
in penalties. He likewise insisted this meets valid concerns.
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre, and many religious
minorities, remain worried by the definition of "proselytism" and the
punishments imposed for it in the revised Criminal Code Article 162. This
states:
"Forming associations encroaching the rights of the persons or against a
person, leading or supporting them, proselytizing
1. Establishment, management of such religious or non-governmental
association, or supporting them, whose activities inflict damage to the
health of individuals or with encroachments on other rights of individuals,
as well as inciting the individuals to refuse their civil duties:
is punished with detention maximum for the term of two years.
2. Proselytism is punished with a fine in the amount of five hundredfold
of the minimum salary or detention maximum for the term of one year."
The revised Article 8 of the Religion Law also bans "proselytism",
defining it as sharing faith using material incentives, using "physical or
psychological pressure", spreading hatred or mistrust of other faiths,
using "offensive expressions" about other individuals or faiths or
addressing a person without their prior consent at least twice in their
home, place of work or place of rest, either in person or by telephone.
Those found leading organisations whose activities "are accompanied with
inflicting harm upon persons' health or encroachments upon other rights of
persons, or inciting persons to refuse to perform their civic duties" would
face up to two years' imprisonment. Those who conduct such "proselytism"
would face up to one year's imprisonment or a fine of 500 times the minimum
monthly wage.
"Such extensive descriptions are unacceptable, especially as they apply to
a delicate issue such as religion," Danielyan of the Collaboration for
Democracy Centre told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 24 March. He complains that
the proposal to amend the Criminal Code is "highly repressive" which, if
adopted, "could effectively apply to any religious activity".
However, parliamentary deputy Ashotyan defended the controversial
provision. He insisted that the definition of "proselytism" is in line with
a European Court of Human Rights case from 1993 that upheld the rights of a
Jehovah's Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, who had been punished for spreading
his faith in his native Greece (see MS Word text at
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm .asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C11 66DEA398649&key=408&sessionId=21119661& ;skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true>).
"Thi s judgment distinguished between 'proper' and 'improper' proselytism
and what we have produced is in line with international standards,"
Ashotyan claimed. He declined to say in exactly what way international
human rights standards were upheld by the draft Laws.
Ashotyan brushed aside concerns that punishment could be imposed merely
for spreading one's faith from door to door. "Look, people will only be
punished if they do this to a person more than once." He refused to explain
how someone who knocks on a door to promote a religious view is different
from someone who knocks on a door to promote a political, or any other
view.
Removal of explicit commitment to international human rights law
The new Religion Law removes the current Religion Law's explicit reference
to international human rights standards, including religious freedom
commitments in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. However, the draft Law claims that all people enjoy
religious freedom. The same article of the draft Law would recognise "the
exclusive mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as the National
Church in the spiritual life of the Armenian people, the development of its
national culture, and the preservation of the national identity", a
commitment that human rights defenders and religious minorities point out
is in contradiction with the equality of all faiths and a secular state.
Article 2 pledging that all citizens are equal before the law regardless
of their faith would be revised to remove a commitment that they are equal
"in all spheres of civil, political, public, economic, and cultural life".
Theological test for legal status
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre also questions why
Christian communities can only apply for legal status if they believe in
"Jesus Christ as God and Saviour and accept the Holy Trinity".
Non-Christian communities do not face such limitations. "The State has no
right to interfere with arguments over faith or, what is more, to introduce
limitations by law," he told Forum 18. "Such a practice exists only in
religious states, and would contradict the secular nature of the State, as
safeguarded by the Constitution. Stipulating faith definitions by law would
mean that the State is acting as an official party in the arguments between
churches."
Unclear wording of provisions banning organisations
A revised Article 19 would ban "religious organisations that, during their
activities, exercise or try to exercise control over members' personal
life, awareness, health, and ownership." Danielyan of the Collaboration for
Democracy Centre complains that this is too broadly framed and could
include any religious community. "The proposal is unacceptable and
contradicts international standards".
Article 18 of the amendments specify that the activity of religious
communities that fail to gain re-registration "shall terminate". Danielyan
points out that international standards do not allow religious
organisations to be banned, as long as they do not violate the rights of
their members or other people under very narrow criteria.
A "transition from a secular to a religious state"?
Danielyan is among those expressing concern that these proposed legal
changes, coming on top of a greater role for the Apostolic Church enshrined
in amendments to the Constitution in 2005, amount to "a transition from a
secular to a religious state". He believes these amendments are the result
of lobbying from the Apostolic Church.
The 2005 Constitutional amendments recognised "the exclusive historical
mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, in the
spiritual life, development of the national culture and preservation of the
national identity of the people of Armenia".
Forum 18 put written questions on 24 March to Bishop Arshak Khachatryan,
the Chancellor of the Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church,
asking the Church's view of the proposed new Laws and whether it had made
its views known to the drafters of the Laws or the government. No response
had been received by the end of the day on 24 March.
State claims no complaints and no contradictions with international law
Bishop Khachatryan had attended a roundtable to discuss the new Laws at
the Yerevan Office of the OSCE on 18 March, other participants told Forum
18. Deputy Ashotyan, the main initiator of the Laws was also present, as
was Vardan Astsatryan, head of the state's Department on National Minority
and Religious Issues, and representatives of religious communities.
"Unfortunately Ashotyan, Astsatryan and the bishop left very quickly, even
though many of us had many questions for them," a religious minority
participant told Forum 18. "All of us were against these Laws except for
them."
Astsatryan of the Department on National Minority and Religious Issues
claimed to Forum 18 that there are now "no contradictions" between the Laws
and Armenia's international human rights commitments. He also claimed that
no religious communities have complained to him about the new Laws. "The
government is now broadly in favour of the Laws."
Petros Demirchyan, the government's deputy spokesperson, concurred. "The
government said it was ready to cooperate with the authors to improve the
text," he told Forum 18. "We worked with them ahead of the first reading
and the government is now satisfied."
The impact on freedom of religion or belief
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre thinks the proposed
Laws will result in new moves against religious communities. "We already
see moves against religious minorities, including on the ground and in the
press," he told Forum 18. "If these Laws go through, these will turn into
serious attacks and all religious minorities will suffer."
Danielyan says he believes Armenia's Catholic minority, mainly in the
north west, and Yezidis, followers of an ancient faith held by the
country's remaining Kurdish minority, are less likely to suffer than
communities like Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and the small Baha'i
community. "The main aim of these Laws is the Jehovah's Witnesses, but all
these do things the Armenian Apostolic Church doesn't like." He believes
the resident population of Iranian citizens, mostly Muslims, will also not
be affected. "They are targeting ethnic Armenians who are members of others
faiths."
Richard Giragosian, a diaspora Armenian who heads the Yerevan-based
Armenian Centre for National and International Studies (ACNIS), a think
tank affiliated with former foreign minister and opposition parliamentary
deputy Raffi Hovanissian, fears the new Laws will mark a "serious setback
to the development of a modern, progressive and liberal Armenia". "With an
overly homogenous population, Armenia needs to move toward greater
openness, moderation and tolerance, none of which would be helped by such
legislation," he told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 24 March.
Asked by Forum 18 to explain why Armenia needs to revise its Religion Law
and introduce a new "crime" into the Criminal Code, parliamentary deputy
Ashotyan responded: "I don't think members of parliament have to explain
why they need to propose new laws." He then claimed that the Religion Law
needs to be updated to take account of the 2005 changes to the
Constitution.
National security?
Asked why the justification for the new Laws presented to parliament in
February spoke of "national security" as a reason for the amendments,
Ashotyan refused to explain. "Just read Armenia's National Security
Strategy."
Apart from a commitment to "support the spiritual, moral, social and
cultural activities of the Armenian Apostolic Church" and to "protect the
historic, spiritual, cultural heritage and the ethnic identity of the
national minorities living in Armenia", Forum 18 can find nothing relating
to religious life in the 2007 National Security Strategy.
Paragraph 8 of the former UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 22,
on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically
states that "national security" is not a permissible reason to limt freedom
of religion or belief (see
<http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9a3011 2c27d1167cc12563ed004d8f15>).
Armenia continues to hold 80 Jehovah's Witness prisoners of conscience,
jailed for conscientious objection to military service. The country
promised the Council of Europe that it would introduce a genuinely civilian
alternative to military service by January 2004 (see F18News 11 December
2008 <http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id= 1228>). (END)
Further coverage of Armenian-related religious freedom issues is at
<http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&a mp;religion=all&country=21&results=50>
A printer-friendly map of Armenia is available at
<http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpedition s/atlas/index.html?Parent=asia&Rootmap=armeni& gt;.
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News http://www.forum18.org/
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at
http://www.forum18.org/
http://www.forum18.org/
The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one's belief or religion
The right to join together and express one's belief
========================================== =======
Tuesday 24 March 2009
ARMENIA: A "SERIOUS SETBACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN, PROGRESSIVE
AND LIBERAL ARMENIA"
Armenian human rights defenders and religious communities remain deeply
concerned by many parts of the draft Religion Law, Forum 18 News Service
has found. Serious concern has also been expressed about the proposed new
Article 162 in the Criminal Code, which would punish the sharing of
beliefs. Both drafts were approved by Parliament in their first readings. A
joint review of the new Laws are expected to be conducted by the Council of
Europe's Venice Commission and the OSCE. Armen Ashotyan, a parliamentary
deputy of the Republican Party in the government coalition, who is leading
the adoption of the Laws, told Forum 18 that deputies will wait for the
review before proceeding further. However, he declined to pledge that all
the review's recommendations will be accepted. Alarm has been caused by,
among other provisions, a high legal status threshold of 500 people, bans
on sharing beliefs, and unclear wording of provisions allowing religious
organisations to be banned. They have been condemned as a "serious setback
to the development of a modern, progressive and liberal Armenia"
ARMENIA: A "SERIOUS SETBACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MODERN, PROGRESSIVE
AND LIBERAL ARMENIA"
By Felix Corley, Forum 18 News Service <http://www.forum18.org>
Armenia's controversial proposed new Religion Law and the proposed new
Article 162 in the Criminal Code to punish the sharing of beliefs were
approved by Parliament in their first readings on 19 March, the
parliamentary website reported. A wide range of religious communities and
human rights activists within Armenia have expressed deep concern to Forum
18 News Service about these proposed new Laws. Armenia's Parliament
requested a review of the draft Laws from the Venice Commission of the
Council of Europe. The review is expected to be conducted jointly with the
Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) and to be
presented in June, the Venice Commission told Forum 18 News Service from
Strasbourg.
Armen Ashotyan, a parliamentary deputy of the Republican Party in the
government coalition, who is leading the adoption of the Laws, told Forum
18 from the capital Yerevan on 23 March that deputies will wait for the
review before proceeding further. However, he declined to pledge that all
the review's recommendations will be accepted.
The draft Religion Law and amendment to the Criminal Code began their
passage through Parliament on 5 February, taking many religious communities
by surprise. Protestants, Russian Orthodox and Jehovah's Witnesses are
among those expressing concern about many provisions of these proposed Laws
(see F18News 9 February 2009
<http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?articl e_id=1251>).
High legal status threshold
Concerns about the initial text of the Laws particularly focused on the
1,000 adult citizen members required before a religious community would be
able to apply for legal status. Deputy Ashotyan told Forum 18 that in late
February, deputies preparing the Law reduced this to 500, adding that this
was the version adopted on 19 March. He insisted this would satisfy
concerns from religious minorities.
Ashotyan defended the requirement to have 500 adult citizens to register a
religious community. "We compared approaches from European countries and
took Austria as a model," he told Forum 18. Asked why Austria was chosen,
he responded: "We looked for the most proper model for Armenia. Austria is
a country with a similar model to Armenia."
Asked how that meets the OSCE / Venice Commission's recommendations in
their guidance on drafting religion laws that "High minimum membership
requirements should not be allowed with respect to obtaining legal
personality" (see
<http://www.osce.org/odihr/item_11_13600. html>), Ashotyan responded: "500
is not a high number. It is a very small number." He insisted that
religious communities without registration would still be able to function.
He refused to explain how they could run bank accounts, own property,
employ people or conduct other business that requires legal status.
Equally satisfied with the version adopted in the first reading is Vardan
Astsatryan, head of the government's Department on National Minority and
Religious Issues. "Armen Ashotyan met some religious organisations," he
told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 23 March, "and as a result there was some
softening." He welcomed the reduction from 1,000 to 500 adult members
required for registration, and denied that even this number is too high.
However, Stepan Danielyan, Chair of the Collaboration for Democracy
Centre, which has worked on religious tolerance in Armenia, is among human
rights defenders who question why the number of adult members required to
found a religious community in a revised Article 5 is raised from 200 in
the current Religion Law (already a high number) to 500.
Bans on sharing beliefs
Religious communities were also highly concerned by the broad definition
of "proselytism", which attracted heavy penalties in the initial version of
the Laws. Deputy Ashotyan claims that redrafting has specified that such
"proselytism" would have to be "aggressive" and "repeated" before resulting
in penalties. He likewise insisted this meets valid concerns.
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre, and many religious
minorities, remain worried by the definition of "proselytism" and the
punishments imposed for it in the revised Criminal Code Article 162. This
states:
"Forming associations encroaching the rights of the persons or against a
person, leading or supporting them, proselytizing
1. Establishment, management of such religious or non-governmental
association, or supporting them, whose activities inflict damage to the
health of individuals or with encroachments on other rights of individuals,
as well as inciting the individuals to refuse their civil duties:
is punished with detention maximum for the term of two years.
2. Proselytism is punished with a fine in the amount of five hundredfold
of the minimum salary or detention maximum for the term of one year."
The revised Article 8 of the Religion Law also bans "proselytism",
defining it as sharing faith using material incentives, using "physical or
psychological pressure", spreading hatred or mistrust of other faiths,
using "offensive expressions" about other individuals or faiths or
addressing a person without their prior consent at least twice in their
home, place of work or place of rest, either in person or by telephone.
Those found leading organisations whose activities "are accompanied with
inflicting harm upon persons' health or encroachments upon other rights of
persons, or inciting persons to refuse to perform their civic duties" would
face up to two years' imprisonment. Those who conduct such "proselytism"
would face up to one year's imprisonment or a fine of 500 times the minimum
monthly wage.
"Such extensive descriptions are unacceptable, especially as they apply to
a delicate issue such as religion," Danielyan of the Collaboration for
Democracy Centre told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 24 March. He complains that
the proposal to amend the Criminal Code is "highly repressive" which, if
adopted, "could effectively apply to any religious activity".
However, parliamentary deputy Ashotyan defended the controversial
provision. He insisted that the definition of "proselytism" is in line with
a European Court of Human Rights case from 1993 that upheld the rights of a
Jehovah's Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, who had been punished for spreading
his faith in his native Greece (see MS Word text at
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm .asp?action=open&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C11 66DEA398649&key=408&sessionId=21119661& ;skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true>).
"Thi s judgment distinguished between 'proper' and 'improper' proselytism
and what we have produced is in line with international standards,"
Ashotyan claimed. He declined to say in exactly what way international
human rights standards were upheld by the draft Laws.
Ashotyan brushed aside concerns that punishment could be imposed merely
for spreading one's faith from door to door. "Look, people will only be
punished if they do this to a person more than once." He refused to explain
how someone who knocks on a door to promote a religious view is different
from someone who knocks on a door to promote a political, or any other
view.
Removal of explicit commitment to international human rights law
The new Religion Law removes the current Religion Law's explicit reference
to international human rights standards, including religious freedom
commitments in Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. However, the draft Law claims that all people enjoy
religious freedom. The same article of the draft Law would recognise "the
exclusive mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as the National
Church in the spiritual life of the Armenian people, the development of its
national culture, and the preservation of the national identity", a
commitment that human rights defenders and religious minorities point out
is in contradiction with the equality of all faiths and a secular state.
Article 2 pledging that all citizens are equal before the law regardless
of their faith would be revised to remove a commitment that they are equal
"in all spheres of civil, political, public, economic, and cultural life".
Theological test for legal status
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre also questions why
Christian communities can only apply for legal status if they believe in
"Jesus Christ as God and Saviour and accept the Holy Trinity".
Non-Christian communities do not face such limitations. "The State has no
right to interfere with arguments over faith or, what is more, to introduce
limitations by law," he told Forum 18. "Such a practice exists only in
religious states, and would contradict the secular nature of the State, as
safeguarded by the Constitution. Stipulating faith definitions by law would
mean that the State is acting as an official party in the arguments between
churches."
Unclear wording of provisions banning organisations
A revised Article 19 would ban "religious organisations that, during their
activities, exercise or try to exercise control over members' personal
life, awareness, health, and ownership." Danielyan of the Collaboration for
Democracy Centre complains that this is too broadly framed and could
include any religious community. "The proposal is unacceptable and
contradicts international standards".
Article 18 of the amendments specify that the activity of religious
communities that fail to gain re-registration "shall terminate". Danielyan
points out that international standards do not allow religious
organisations to be banned, as long as they do not violate the rights of
their members or other people under very narrow criteria.
A "transition from a secular to a religious state"?
Danielyan is among those expressing concern that these proposed legal
changes, coming on top of a greater role for the Apostolic Church enshrined
in amendments to the Constitution in 2005, amount to "a transition from a
secular to a religious state". He believes these amendments are the result
of lobbying from the Apostolic Church.
The 2005 Constitutional amendments recognised "the exclusive historical
mission of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, in the
spiritual life, development of the national culture and preservation of the
national identity of the people of Armenia".
Forum 18 put written questions on 24 March to Bishop Arshak Khachatryan,
the Chancellor of the Catholicosate of the Armenian Apostolic Church,
asking the Church's view of the proposed new Laws and whether it had made
its views known to the drafters of the Laws or the government. No response
had been received by the end of the day on 24 March.
State claims no complaints and no contradictions with international law
Bishop Khachatryan had attended a roundtable to discuss the new Laws at
the Yerevan Office of the OSCE on 18 March, other participants told Forum
18. Deputy Ashotyan, the main initiator of the Laws was also present, as
was Vardan Astsatryan, head of the state's Department on National Minority
and Religious Issues, and representatives of religious communities.
"Unfortunately Ashotyan, Astsatryan and the bishop left very quickly, even
though many of us had many questions for them," a religious minority
participant told Forum 18. "All of us were against these Laws except for
them."
Astsatryan of the Department on National Minority and Religious Issues
claimed to Forum 18 that there are now "no contradictions" between the Laws
and Armenia's international human rights commitments. He also claimed that
no religious communities have complained to him about the new Laws. "The
government is now broadly in favour of the Laws."
Petros Demirchyan, the government's deputy spokesperson, concurred. "The
government said it was ready to cooperate with the authors to improve the
text," he told Forum 18. "We worked with them ahead of the first reading
and the government is now satisfied."
The impact on freedom of religion or belief
Danielyan of the Collaboration for Democracy Centre thinks the proposed
Laws will result in new moves against religious communities. "We already
see moves against religious minorities, including on the ground and in the
press," he told Forum 18. "If these Laws go through, these will turn into
serious attacks and all religious minorities will suffer."
Danielyan says he believes Armenia's Catholic minority, mainly in the
north west, and Yezidis, followers of an ancient faith held by the
country's remaining Kurdish minority, are less likely to suffer than
communities like Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and the small Baha'i
community. "The main aim of these Laws is the Jehovah's Witnesses, but all
these do things the Armenian Apostolic Church doesn't like." He believes
the resident population of Iranian citizens, mostly Muslims, will also not
be affected. "They are targeting ethnic Armenians who are members of others
faiths."
Richard Giragosian, a diaspora Armenian who heads the Yerevan-based
Armenian Centre for National and International Studies (ACNIS), a think
tank affiliated with former foreign minister and opposition parliamentary
deputy Raffi Hovanissian, fears the new Laws will mark a "serious setback
to the development of a modern, progressive and liberal Armenia". "With an
overly homogenous population, Armenia needs to move toward greater
openness, moderation and tolerance, none of which would be helped by such
legislation," he told Forum 18 from Yerevan on 24 March.
Asked by Forum 18 to explain why Armenia needs to revise its Religion Law
and introduce a new "crime" into the Criminal Code, parliamentary deputy
Ashotyan responded: "I don't think members of parliament have to explain
why they need to propose new laws." He then claimed that the Religion Law
needs to be updated to take account of the 2005 changes to the
Constitution.
National security?
Asked why the justification for the new Laws presented to parliament in
February spoke of "national security" as a reason for the amendments,
Ashotyan refused to explain. "Just read Armenia's National Security
Strategy."
Apart from a commitment to "support the spiritual, moral, social and
cultural activities of the Armenian Apostolic Church" and to "protect the
historic, spiritual, cultural heritage and the ethnic identity of the
national minorities living in Armenia", Forum 18 can find nothing relating
to religious life in the 2007 National Security Strategy.
Paragraph 8 of the former UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment 22,
on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically
states that "national security" is not a permissible reason to limt freedom
of religion or belief (see
<http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9a3011 2c27d1167cc12563ed004d8f15>).
Armenia continues to hold 80 Jehovah's Witness prisoners of conscience,
jailed for conscientious objection to military service. The country
promised the Council of Europe that it would introduce a genuinely civilian
alternative to military service by January 2004 (see F18News 11 December
2008 <http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?article_id= 1228>). (END)
Further coverage of Armenian-related religious freedom issues is at
<http://www.forum18.org/Archive.php?query=&a mp;religion=all&country=21&results=50>
A printer-friendly map of Armenia is available at
<http://www.nationalgeographic.com/xpedition s/atlas/index.html?Parent=asia&Rootmap=armeni& gt;.
(END)
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855
You may reproduce or quote this article provided that credit is given to
F18News http://www.forum18.org/
Past and current Forum 18 information can be found at
http://www.forum18.org/