Forum 18 — a news service that partners with the Norwegian Helsinki Committee in defending freedom of religion, thought and conscience — posted an updated list of affected sites on Oct 4.

"I think it illustrates the Russian authorities' … obsessions, if you like, in blocking what they call extremist content," Felix Corley, Forum 18 editor and researcher, told OSV News, noting that the bans are also operative in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine.

Among the outlets that can no longer be accessed in Russia is the Belarusian website Katolik.Life, a private, voluntary initiative by an unnamed individual depicting current and historical Catholic life in that nation.

Read More

The Prime Minister, who had just unveiled a memorial plaque at Christchurch's Al Noor mosque, added that she couldn't understand why there would be resistance from other political parties. "I don't see why there should be, and so that's probably a question for every political party, but that's certainly our view."

After a firestorm erupted last week with the announcement of a new hate speech offence to be included in the Crimes Act that carries a maximum penalty of three years' jail and a $50,000 fine, her display of confidence last September seems not so much naive as completely deluded.

The fiery reaction was entirely predictable for anyone who understands New Zealanders' passive-aggressive relationship with authority. While most will tolerate stringent restrictions on their freedom in times of emergency — such as during war or at the height of a pandemic — a marked hostility to being told what we can say or how to behave lurks not far beneath. The furious opposition to Helen Clark's anti-smacking law in 2007 should have given Ardern at least a tiny clue as to how her hate-speech proposals might be received.

Firm opposition to the proposed changes — which would expand the list of protected groups to include not only religion but possibly also sexuality, gender, age, disability and employment status — has come from across the political spectrum, ranging from John Minto on the left to Richard Prebble and Family First on the right and numerous other critics in between.

It would have helped immensely, of course, if both Ardern and her Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, had been able to answer questions put to them by television journalists about the scope and implications of the law changes but both politicians — faced with perfectly reasonable queries about real-life situations — failed miserably.

Ardern was adamant initially that political opinion would not be added as a protected category but later admitted it could be.

The fact neither politician had taken the time to inform themselves fully about changes that have been under discussion for several years represents an extraordinary dereliction of duty — as well as being deeply insulting to voters who are concerned about having fundamental freedoms curtailed.

Ardern has realised she is in trouble. As Act leader David Seymour put it, she is "twisting and turning" on hate speech so much "she could almost qualify to represent New Zealand in gymnastics" in her attempts to get safely out of harm's way.

Her first line of defence is the classic Pontius Pilate manoeuvre of shifting responsibility away from herself. If she isn't identified as the driving force in the push for a law change, it will seem much less like a personal failure if the intense public reaction forces a backdown.

Interviewed last week, she said: "The reason we're having this debate is because the Royal Commission of Inquiry [into the mosque attacks] said to the New Zealand government, ‘You need to include religion.'"

It is a sentiment she has repeated in Parliament but the Royal Commission's report was released publicly on December 8 last year while new hate speech laws were promised within weeks of the mosque attacks in 2019.

Ardern also campaigned on extending legal protections for groups that experience hate speech before last year's election in October.

As well as trying to shift responsibility to the Royal Commission, Ardern appears to be looking to guarantee a way out for herself by declaring that such a law change requires bipartisan support.

Speaking to RNZ, she managed to roll together her principal lines of defence in a single — albeit convoluted — sentence: "So I would reach out to those across all sides of the House and say, ‘Look, given we have been called on to do this, I'd be very interested in what their view is and what they would see as being a way to make sure that we are bringing in those who were at the most extreme end of an experience.'"

In that interview, she acknowledged bipartisan support was needed to ensure any legislation of this kind was going to endure. And in answering Judith Collins in the House, she reinforced that view by saying: "Ultimately, I want these provisions to last as long as the last [hate speech] provisions, which are broadly similar and were introduced 50 years ago."

Yet Ardern knows already — and has for some time — that National and Act are implacably opposed. Last week, David Seymour described the moves as "cancel culture on steroids"; in April, he began a series of free speech meetings the length of the country to oppose any expansion of existing restrictions; in his Address in Reply last November he pledged to gather signatures for a citizens' initiated referendum to overturn any law that mandated new restrictions on free speech.

Last September, after Ardern's visit to the Al Noor mosque, Collins was emphatic she wouldn't support any further loss of freedom of speech. "I'm very clear that our human rights legislation already deals with what needs to be dealt with."

She also promised last week that National would repeal any such law if a government she led came to power, and described the debate as "a total cluster, frankly, and the government needs to stop this now and back away".

Her justice spokesman, Simon Bridges, slated the proposals as "Orwellian".

So, if Ardern knows there is absolutely no chance of bipartisan support across Parliament's divide, why is she continuing to run this particular line? The only plausible explanation for a Prime Minister holding an outright majority is that she is looking to avoid humiliation over a backdown by blaming the lack of support by the Opposition.

In what looks like another move to ease her path away from enacting hate-speech legislation, Ardern is also emphasising that the proposals are a "discussion document". Presumably this is an attempt to make the proposed law change look more tentative than many suspect was intended before the extent and intensity of opposition were revealed.

If Ardern had wanted a thorough discussion of the proposals with a genuine intention to listen and respond, she would have made sure that the window for the public's input was much wider than the six weeks allowed.

Giving the public only until August 6 to make submissions on the changes came as a surprise to Canterbury University law dean Ursula Cheer. As she told RNZ: "I would have thought for a very complex consultation and proposed changes to a law like this, it would be a bit longer. I would have thought to the end of August at least."

The fact that the opportunity for public comment is so short — and indeed that the public has been kept in the dark for so long — appears to be no accident. The Ministry of Justice has obviously not been as sanguine about the popularity of a law change as Ardern professed to be when campaigning.

The ministry has been quietly consulting "affected groups" — including the Muslim community — for some time, in a process driven behind the scenes by the Human Rights Commission, which has long been in favour of more restrictions on speech.

As the Ministry of Justice put it: "In 2019, the Ministry of Justice and the Human Rights Commission met with groups that are most likely to be targeted by hate speech to better understand their experiences and views." Of course, they are the very groups most likely to be firmly in favour of a law change.

In March 2020, the Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said that hate speech was a "tricky thing" to navigate. One of the ministry's aims was to "have a conversation about this and avoid protests."

Kibblewhite was reported as saying that the Human Rights Commission had led some of the work around a law change alongside the ministry as it wanted the conversation to happen away from the political fray — given that a proposed law change could easily be derailed with so many strongly held views.

The kind of strongly held views, in fact, that have erupted into public view this week and which look as if they might derail the Prime Minister's cherished plans after all.

• Graham Adams is a journalist, columnist and reviewer who has written for many of the country's media outlets including Metro, North & South, Noted, The Spinoff and Newsroom.
• First published on Democracy Project. Republished with permission.

Here are Jefferson's very words: "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned" ("Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVII," 1781-1782).

It is useful to recount a few such incidents which occurred during periods prior to Jefferson, some of which he may very well have had in mind.

John Hus (1369-1415) was a Czech Priest, but he had been critical of the Church, especially the perceived moral failings of some of the Church's clerics. In addition, his views on Holy Communion were different from the established doctrines of the Church.

And he was candid about being displeased with the Church's use of Indulgences.

For such things, John Hus was summoned to appear before the Council of Constance (in 1415). Emperor Sigismund had given Hus a guarantee of safe conduct for the Council. But at the Council, he was condemned and then summarily burned at the stake.

But there is more. At this same Council, the views of the English Churchman and Oxford teacher John Wycliffe (ca. 1320-1384) were also condemned. Wycliffe was deceased, though, having died peacefully around thirty years before the Council of Constance.

But he had been buried in a Church Cemetery, so the Council decreed that Wycliffe's body should be exhumed. And in time his remains were exhumed (in 1428), and then callously thrown into the Swift River.

Or again, the great reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) is famous for offering sanctuary to the Spanish physician and theologian Michael Servetus (1511-1553) because Servetus was fleeing from the Roman Catholic Inquisition.

But after the arrival of Servetus in Geneva, John Calvin soon had him burned at the stake, because Calvin was displeased that Servetus did not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Of course, on a much larger scale, the European Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) was a bloodbath anchored in religious garb, leaving in its wake some eight million dead.

It is not surprising, therefore, that Thomas Jefferson wished for freedom of religion to be the law of the land in the United States. Continue reading

Sources

• The Huffington Post, article by Christopher Rollston, Religion Scholar, George Washington University Professor.
• Image: bio.

Imam Mohammed Bin Yahya said there are a lot of non-Christian countries that give aid to Samoa.

"Will they say no aid because you are not Christians, keep your money to yourself?"

"No more money from China, no more aid from Japan because we are Christians and you are Shintos or you are this religion?"

Bin Yahya said people should not discriminate against his faith without knowledge of its teachings.

He said the only Christian church to invite him to talk about Islam was the Methodist Theological College.

What are the Christian principles?

The Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa'ilele Malielegaoi, has said freedom of religion will remain untouched, and any constitutional change would only make it clearer that Samoa is a Christian country.

Bin Yahya, said he does not have a problem with that because the constitution would say that the government should be run to Christian principles.

But Dr Yahya, who was raise as a Catholic, said those Christian principles be defined.

"We have all kinds of Christianity in Samoa, let us not play with it, the truth is Catholics are different, Methodists are different, Congregational churches are different, they are all different, so we need to define what principles they are talking about."

"Just like Islam, there are some other sects in Islam, when you talk about Sunni or Shiite, we need to define, are we talking about this Islam or that Islam," he said.

What is an Imam?

An imam is an Islamic leadership position.

It is most commonly in the context of a worship leader of a mosque and Muslim community by Sunni Muslims.

An Imam may also take on a larger role in providing community support and spiritual advice.

The imam is a respected member of the community.

In some communities, an imam may be specifically recruited and hired, and may have undergone some special training.

In smaller places, imams are often chosen from among the existing members of the Muslim community.

There is no universal governing body to supervise imams; this is done at the community level.

Mohammed Bin Yahya is also know as Mohammed Daniel Stanley and Laulu Dan Stanley.

Source

• radio.nz.co.nz
• radionz.co.nz
• islam.about.com
• Image: radionz.co.nz/Tipi Autagavaia

"To those who celebrate Christmas, we wish you a very happy Christmas. To those who do not, "season's greetings".

The Anglican Bishop of Auckland, Ross Bay, says "All very laudable in a way, though an interesting thing is that non-Christians are some of the biggest celebrators of Christmas and have already reinterpreted it to suit a secular society."

But the word Christmas is not the real problem says New Zealand Herald columnist Brian Rudman.

According to him the real problem is what he calls "karakia at dawn".

Rudman says that as one of the 41.9 per cent of New Zealanders who ticked the "no religion" box in the 2013 census, he has never felt excluded or ostracised by the use of Christian-based words like Christmas or Easter.

But he does take exception to what he calls the "weird Christian custom of "karakia at dawn"," which he says the Auckland Council and government departments have adopted.

"Instead of standing up for our secularism, government officials are busy thrusting religion down our throats," says Rudman.

"They wrap it in a Maori cloak, and if anyone complains, they mutter biculturalism and Treaty of Waitangi."

He says "'karakia at dawn' precede the opening or launch of just about anything. Books, art galleries, wharf extensions, nothing is safe."

"Yet in reality, they're just imposing one religion on the rest of us by stealth."

"We live in a secular society, proudly supporting the right for everyone to follow their own religion - or have none."

Source

• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: radionz.co.nz

"The most important thing is that freedom of religion and of worship guaranteed in the constitution must not be narrowed with regulations that can create problems," Father Guido Suprapto, the Indonesian bishops' laity commission secretary, told ucanews.com.

Legislation, enacted in 2006, laid out onerous requirements to build places of worship.

This has particularly impacted religious minorities in Muslim-majority communities.

Church officials, for example, are obligated to provide a list of names and signatures of 90 worshippers and get signed support from at least 60 local residents along with the approval of a village head.

The legislation provoked a spate of church demolitions this year in Aceh province, where authorities took down places of worship that did not possess required permits.

In one incident, a group of Muslim hard-liners torched a Protestant church.

Source

• globalpulsemagazine.com
• Image: thejakartapost.com

"Christians are fast disappearing from entire regions - most notably a huge chunk of the Middle East but also whole dioceses in Africa. In large part, this migration is the product of an ethnic cleansing motivated by religious hatred," says Persecuted and Forgotten?, published on Tuesday by the Catholic campaign group, Aid to the Church in Need (ACN).

Christianity was "changing from being a global faith to a regional one, with the faithful increasingly absent from ever-widening areas".

Its latest report, covering the past two years, concludes that the difficulties facing Christians have worsened in 15 out of 19 countries under review.

Militant Islamism is the main - and increasing - threat, but Christians have also been targeted by extremists of other faiths and totalitarian regimes such as North Korea.

The report repeats claims that Christians are being "driven out of [the church's] ancient biblical heartland" of the Middle East, saying they are "on course to disappear from Iraq possibly within five years - unless emergency help is provided at an international level on a massively increased scale".

In Africa - described as "the one continent which until now has been the church's brightest hope for the future" - the rise of militant Islamic groups in countries such as Nigeria, Kenya and Sudan is destabilising Christian presence, the report says.

It says that Christians are the most persecuted faith group in the world, citing the Frankfurt-based International Society for Human Rights 2012 report, which estimated that 80% of all acts of religious discrimination were against Christians.

The Centre for the Study of Global Christianity in the US estimates that 100,000 Christians die every year, although some question the legitimacy of this figure. Continue reading

Sources

• The Guardian, from an article written by Harriet Sherwood, the Guardian's religion correspondent.
• Image: The Right Planet

He had refused to work on Saturdays because it was against his faith.

Mark Meulenbroek had worked since 2004 at an Invercargill company that installed TV and audio systems, and was considered a model employee.

In 2011, he rejoined the Seventh Day Adventist Church which he'd attended until he was 16, and wanted to have Saturday off so he could observe the Sabbath.

Meulenbroek's boss gave him some Saturdays off, but not all, and in September 2012 fired him when he refused to work on the Sabbath.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal found his employer had discriminated against Meulenbroek and had no appreciation of his obligations under the Human Rights Act.

Director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings Robert Kee, who represented Meulenbroek, says the case is an important warning for small-to-medium businesses which - like Vision - might not be aware of their Human Rights Act obligations.

If someone believes they are discriminated against in their employment, they have the choice of taking proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal or the Employment Relations Authority.

It is not unusual for people to claim discrimination on grounds of age or race. Proceedings based on religious belief are much less common.

Source

• Yahoo News
• Stuff.co.nz
• Image: Advicenow.com

A 2014 Human Rights Watch report described the African nation as one of the most closed countries in the world, where human rights conditions are "dismal".

Indefinite military service, torture, arbitrary detention and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association and religion provoke thousands of Eritreans to flee the nation each month.

Last year, hundreds of Eritrean migrants drowned off the Mediterranean island of Lampedusa.

This was the island visited by Pope Francis last year in his first trip outside Rome as pontiff.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 305,000 Eritreans have fled in the last decade.

The bishops described Eritrea as "desolate" because so many people had fled or were in the prison or army.

In their 38-page letter, the bishops said Eritreans were going to "peaceful countries, to countries of justice, of work, where one expresses himself loudly, a country where one works and earns".

But there was no-one left to look after the elderly in Eritrea, they said.

The bishops pointedly said that "all those who are arrested should first be handled humanely and sympathetically" and then be presented to court for trial.

The letter was signed by Bishops Mengsteab Tesfamariam of Asmara, Tomas Osman of Barentu, Kidane Yeabio of Keren and Feqremariam Hagos of Segeneiti.

They were careful not to directly condemn the Eritrean government.

Eritrea has no constitution, functioning legislature, independent judiciary, elections, independent press or non-governmental organisations.

All power in concentrated in the hands of President Isaias Afewerki who has ruled since 1991.

Catholicism is one of four permitted or government-controlled religions in Eritrea.

The others are Sunni Islam, Ethiopian Orthodoxy and Lutheranism.

Since 2002, the Eritrean government has jailed and physically assaulted people who practice any other religion.

The Orthodox patriarch in the country was deposed by the government in 2002 and remains under house arrest.

Sources

• BBC
• Human Rights Watch
• HRW World Report 2014-06-10
• Image: World Bulletin

Last Friday, Hela province governor, Anderson Agiru, moved a motion to carry out a nationwide consultation on the question of religious freedom and whether to ban non Christian religions.

The motion was passed with the unanimous support of both sides of the House.

Le Parlement de Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée a lancé en fin de semaine dernière un débat concernant l'éventuelle déclaration du christianisme comme seule religion dans cet État mélanésien de sept millions d'habitants, avec en corollaire l'éventualité d'interdiction de tout autre forme de culte. Vendredi 12 juillet 2013, le Parlement papou a commencé par adopter à l'unanimité une motion visant à lancer une consultation nationale sur les questions de liberté du culte dans ce pays, avec l'intention de demander au peuple si les autres religions que le christianisme devraient ou pas être interdites.

"It is not by banning other faiths that we become more Christian," Father Giorgio Licini said in a statement posted on the bishops' website. "Christianity may well define some sort of cultural identity for modern Papua New Guinea and its 850 tribes; but never forget that true faith is something much beyond constitutional provisions, legal books, and even daily practices."

"Nobody can be prevented from professing his or her own beliefs both in a private and a public manner," Licini said.

In a statement before moving the motion, Agiru said the national pledge in the constitution specifically and unequivocally states that Papua New Guinea shall be a Christian country.

"The question of whether we allow other kinds of faiths to be introduced in Papua New Guinea is the question and that question now needs to be asked."

"For me when they say it's a Christian country it says God Trinity. That is what I believe in and that is what the constitution is promoting so in the end I want to see if the people of Papua New Guinea, the Churches and everyone agree that all forms of other religions which are not Christian must be banned from Papua New Guinea," Governor Agiru said.

"We are a very rich country and yet we still have beggars and hungry people on the street. People are dying every where. I think it is time we bring this country under God."

"The time is right for us in this ninth Parliament to write a new chapter in the national book. We cannot be people who write footnotes and simple sentences. The constitution of the country has been delivered to us and we now have to take it to the next level."

Source

• NewsPad Pacific
• The Catholic Bishops' Conference of Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea
• Courier Post
• Image: Lowyunterpreter.com

There is a recognition that every young person in Europe has a right to hold a particular view, whether religious or secular, within the limits of the law, and that societies need to develop a culture of living together in peace. There is a view that all young Europeans should have a knowledge and understanding of religious diversity in Europe and beyond, but there is no naiveté that this understanding will automatically increase tolerance. In addition, there need to be opportunities for critical and reflective engagement, through moderated dialogue and exchange, for example, and the appropriate sensitivities, attitudes and skills need to be cultivated. This is part of the Council of Europe's message in its White Paper on intercultural dialogue.

But we shouldn't study religions and other worldviews in state schools simply for instrumental reasons. We must not lose sight of the importance of an education which covers all areas of human experience - such as mathematical, scientific, aesthetic, philosophical (including ethical), linguistic, historical, and religious/spiritual. A combination of intrinsic and instrumental justifications gives attention to all aspects of human experience, as well as addressing pressing issues.

My research team's work in various projects in the UK and in Europe, including the Religion and Society programme, provides some observations relevant to the development of policy. Read more

Sources

• Tony Blair Faith Foundation
• Image: The Telegraph