Naujienos

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is my pleasure to extend a very warm welcome on behalf of the Lithuanian OSCE Chairman in Office, Foreign Minister A. Azubalis.

This Conference on Preventing and Responding to Hate Incidents and Crimes, is the second in our series designed to fight religious intolerance and hate actions.

 
The Prague Conference focused on Anti-Semitism. Today’s discussions of hate crimes against Christians, and the Vienna conference in October  dealing with discrimination against  Muslims reflect the Chairmanship’s conviction that constant attention is required to build religious acceptance and combat the corrosive spread of hate and discrimination against religious practices and beliefs.

 
It requires an ongoing process of open reflection, improved education at all levels and constant public awareness building and legislative action, if we are to stamp out this most insidious form of human rights’ violation.

 
These conferences seek to elicit and consolidate practical recommendations for all key stakeholders to support efforts to combat intolerance and discrimination.  To achieve our goal we require the work of State actors, civil society, educational institutions, the media and, perhaps first and foremost, religious leaders and institutions.  It is only when entire societies, and all the key actors in them, are engaged will we be able to overcome religious intolerance and hate crimes.

 
The Florence and Prague conferences called to mind the numerous international charters on human and religious rights, the relationship of church and state, the impact of established state religions on religious freedom and the rights of the individual believer – or non-believer – on freedom of belief and practice of one’s belief in today’s global, inter-cultural societies.

 
The work done at these conferences, and the conventions and charters which were discussed, point to the following basic conclusion. The right to hold religious beliefs, to change them, or abandon them freely, to promote and express them openly, and to expect the state to protect them, is a basic human right.

    
But having this right does not allow any person on organization to impose its beliefs on others.  Our freedom to practice our religious beliefs, as in the case of all freedoms, is limited, as John Stuart Mills wrote, when it impinges on the rights of others.

It is in the tension among our rights and freedom of belief, and the expression of one of the most personal and important of all our beliefs that tensions and therefore conflicts arise, often to the point of stimulating aggressive discrimination and hatred leading to crime.

 
Discrimination often arises in the otherwise justifiable goal of separating “church and state.”

Conflict and consequently discrimination frequently arises because of the desire to protect “traditional cultural norms and practices” and religious views, particularly on matters such as gender equality, abortion, divorce and homosexuality.

 
Conflict arises over external manifestations of religion, both when practiced by Christians (for example crucifixes in schools, public crèche displays) and when Christian societies object to the displays or practices of Non-Christians-  e.g. the building of  minarets on mosques or the wearing head scarves or burkas.

These themes and topics are only illustrative.  There are certainly more, and I am sure you will raise them in your working sessions. Points of differences and dispute are not in and of themselves necessarily of a criminal nature.  Nor are they issues which are points of contention only between non-Christians and Christians, but also among different Christian denominations themselves.

  
They can, however, serve as a basis on which a hate crime may be constructed.

 
And finally a word or two on the nature of what constitutes a Hate Crime:

Legally speaking a ‘crime’ is a behavior or act included in the criminal code of a political entity.  Such as assault, murder, arson.   The criminal codes of our individual participating States vary.

  
What if a violation by a State actor or community group or individual of a basic fundamental human right, such as freedom of religious belief, is not included in the criminal code?  Should it be?

In some countries – the United States for example – legal procedures make it possible to take civil action before the courts for cases which for various reasons cannot be brought before a criminal court.

 
Would civil action be a viable alternative for fighting hate actions by providing a means for the injured party to take direct action against the offender, with the State serving as a guarantor of religious rights without, however, becoming a party to the dispute?

     
Christians, indeed all ‘People of the Book,’ face a dilemma when considering their response to acts of violence done to them, their families, their fellowships and property. Many believers eschew acts of retribution or forced punishment because it only stimulates counter force and counter action.  Is this a viable approach?

Hate crimes against Christians are a serious problem in the OSCE area and throughout the world. What is the responsibility of a Christian Believer and practitioner of the faith?  What is my responsibility as a leader of a fellowship, responsible for its safety and well being?  What is the duty as a citizen in a rule of law society?  Where do they intersect, and where do they diverge in practical terms?

If we are to demand tolerance and anti-discrimination, must not we ourselves consider how we discriminate?  If we are to receive forgiveness, and acceptance, must not we practice forgiveness?

What can we reasonably do to reduce the number of circumstances which may contribute to hate crimes?

The events in Oslo remind us that even in an unusually peaceful, open and transparent society an individual can act out of hate, with dreadful consequences.

 
Watching the response of the society and the system in Norway could be an instructive example for us all.

 
I would like to thank Personal Representative Dr. Introvigne and ODIHR for their efforts in organizing this conference; Italy for providing the facilities for the conference, and Italy and the Holy See for providing the funding which made this conference possible

I look forward to your deliberations.