Minister of International Development and Human Rights, Hilde F. Johnson

Welcome and Opening Remarks

The Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Holmenkollen Park Hotel, Oslo, 12 August 1998

Ladies and gentlemen,

Many of you are probably familiar with Hermann Hesse's novel, Siddhartha, where Siddhartha says to the ferryman, Vadsudeva, "Is it not true, my friend, that the river has very many voices? Has it not the voice of a king, of a warrior, of a bull, of a nightbird, of a pregnant woman and a sighing man, and a thousand other voices?' // 'It is so,' nodded Vadsudeva, 'the voices of all living creatures are in its voice".

In my view these words also apply to the world's religions. There are many religions, many voices, many faiths and beliefs, just as the river has many voices, many melodies and many moods. The river cannot be stopped, just as religion and the practice of religion cannot be stopped. Religion is a powerful force, and religious freedom, the right to freedom of religion or belief, is a basic human right.

---------------

On behalf of the Norwegian Government it is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to this conference. I am grateful for the opportunity to share some of my views with you this morning, and I am particularly pleased to see that so many were able to attend this conference. I understand that religious communities and humanist societies from around the world, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions are almost equally represented here. This is highly appropriate. It is through dialogue and the exchange of views and experience between people of different backgrounds that coalitions are formed, interests are shared and a deeper understanding and respect is achieved.

This is a non-governmental conference, whose aim is to give insight and inspire you in your own work, and to provide valuable advice to governments and others engaged in the pursuit of greater respect for human rights. I hope your work here will also be of use to governments that have not yet fully recognized the need to improve their own human rights standards.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to stress that all human rights are fundamental. As you embark upon three days of intensive discussion and deliberation, I feel it is appropriate to say that a case can be made for arguing that religious freedom may take precedence over other rights. The freedom to worship corresponds to a fundamental spiritual need of the individual. Religious freedom is thus the most basic existential freedom that we enjoy. Political ideologies that are based on a materialistic conception of the individual have indeed failed, partly because they overlook this inherent spiritual need. But today we must also be aware of the non-political materialism which reduces the individual to a mere market actor or a commodity - a pervasive tendency in the globalized economy. I believe your deliberations here will show, however, that there is a growing recognition of man's spiritual nature in almost all countries, although religious freedom continues to be suppressed in many places, especially where religious convictions are at odds with political power. Without freedom to worship, there can be no real political freedom - nor freedom of thought and freedom of conscience. These are interrelated.

Religious freedom is thus in the same category as other basic rights relating to the protection of the integrity of the human being, in particular the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, the prohibition of slavery and the right to life.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the promotion and defence of religious freedom is one of the most pressing items on the international agenda. It also deserves higher priority. The work of promoting respect for human rights is rooted in a fundamental belief in human dignity. Thus, human rights are based on moral values. One of our overriding aims is to contribute to a world in which every human being is guaranteed the right to life, an opportunity to live in peace, freedom and security, and the fulfilment of basic needs. Respect for human rights is the foundation of a life of dignity. These are grand words, but they are true, and they should serve as a call to action. The government I represent has made the promotion of human rights a guiding principle for our political decisions.

The opportunity to freely practise one's own religion or belief has been challenged frequently throughout history, and is all too often challenged today. In other countries it is not the lack of religion which results in violations of freedom of religion or belief, but the lack of tolerance for more than one religion. Many nations - including my own - are based on constitutions which also have a religious foundation. The dilemma of retaining the values of the majority while respecting the rights of religious minorities is not an easy one to resolve - nor can it be resolved permanently in an ever-changing society. But the basic rule of respect for the choice and the rights of the individual is actually easy to apply if there is political will. Whether the laws of the land are defined as religious is not important; what is important is that these laws must be applied so as to benefit all citizens in accordance with international obligations. These obligations do not restrict the exercise of religion. They are - like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - based on the concept of the inherent dignity of individual.

There is another truth that may be uncomfortable but that must nevertheless not be overlooked. It is not religion that is the problem, but the ways in which religion has been practised throughout history. I am aware that blacks have been treated more poorly than whites in the name of religion. I know that women are often severely disadvantaged in the name of religion. I deplore the fact that fellow human beings are killed in the most despicable manner because of their sexual orientation in the name of religion. Discrimination is an abomination.

Few issues are as capable of raising so much emotion as those relating to our religion or belief. In a sense, therefore, it is easy to understand why the decision to change one's religion or belief is such a difficult one to make - and for others to accept. This is why everyone would be well served by clear-cut legislation that ensures respect for the decision of the individual. I realize that these issues are difficult, but that is why I believe that standards must be set.

This raises of course the issue of proselytizing. Norway has had a strong tradition of missionary work, and I am glad to say that I believe the continuing development of these missionary traditions shows that is possible to find a favourable balance between sharing one's convictions with others while respecting their right to freedom of religion or belief.

When we single out particular aspects of human rights, as you will be doing during this conference, we must consistently remind ourselves and our interlocutors that all human rights are fundamental. I think most of us here today recognize the fundamental role of religion in the fabric of society. These issues touch upon our very identity. There is little doubt that questions relating to religion and belief can have dramatic consequences. Our own history - indeed the history of many nations - testifies to this fact. Unfortunately, the dramatic manifestation of violations of this basic human right is also a pressing issue today. Thousands, if not millions of people are currently subject to religious persecution. Religious minorities are harassed and oppressed, and often forced to practise their religion or uphold their belief or conviction in secrecy and fear. Individuals are imprisoned, tortured and in many cases forced to denounce their faith. Before the end of the Cold War, persecution on anti-religious grounds was an important feature of government policies behind the Iron Curtain. Now, religion and religious intolerance are becoming an increasingly important feature of intranational and international tensions.

The world today is characterized by increasing interdependence and cooperation between peoples, groups, institutions and nations. At the same time, ethno-religious and interreligious conflicts as well as the instrumentalized, political uses of religion are causing growing concern in many parts of the world. Because of the relationship between religion and nationality, ethnicity, social status, and even political aspiration, religious issues have perhaps been the most common denominator in armed conflict and strife between and within nations. No period in history and no part of the world have been left untouched by this. Is it so that the people of Kosovo have to suffer so terribly because most of them attend the mosque and not the church? Are soldiers and others really fighting in Kashmir today because some are Hindu and others are Muslim? Are hundreds of thousands starving in Sudan because some leaders are Christian and others belong to Islam?

We must not ignore the emotional focus that differences in religion or belief can lend to any conflict. There is enough bigotry and intolerance in the world for any spark to ignite strife when the social, economic, military, political and other conditions are right. Those of us who are active in our churches or communities must make every effort to prevent religion from being used to fuel fires that might escalate into open conflict. In my view it is usually the strategic use of religion and not religious beliefs in themselves that causes tension and conflict. In fact, employing religious language and its symbols can be one the most forceful strategic “weapons” in a conflict. If we had more understanding of how religion can contribute to conflict or the escalation of conflict, and not least how such beliefs can be strategically utilized by parties to conflicts, we would be better equipped to prevent conflicts. If we had more experience and will to work together - across professional and confessional borders, we would be better prepared to deal with potential conflicts as well.

The paradox here is of course that if religion can really contribute to - or at times be even a precipitating factor in - the outbreak of hostilities within or between nations, then religion can be an equally important, powerful stimulus for ending conflict. In my view, one of the top priorities for religious leaders today should be to make sure that every opportunity for positive engagement is used in order to defuse conflict, facilitate peace and reconciliation, and create a more stable post-conflict situation. This potential role should be utilized to a much greater extent than is the case at the moment. My Government is deeply engaged in supporting such processes. I would again like to emphasize the importance of coalition-building between religious groups and communities and religious leaders as a means of preventing and alleviating conflicts and potential conflicts around the world.

This is a topic of great complexity. A precondition for such coalition-building is tolerance, respect for others’ beliefs and religious convictions, a commitment to understanding and cooperation. On the government side, persistent and vigorous efforts to defend and promote the right to freedom of religion and belief are fundamental. Given these developments, how can the international community ensure the effective promotion of freedom of religion at the dawn of the twenty-first century?

The two central questions concerning UN action in the field of religious freedom or belief continue to be: a) whether the UN should proceed to work on a binding legal instrument based on the 1981 Declaration; or b) whether one should concentrate on how to utilize existing implementation machinery most effectively. In the latter category I include such elements as strengthening the role of the Special Rapporteur, expanding his mandate and the possible devising of a new mechanism such as a Working Group. In our view, this is mainly a matter of tactics, of choice of measures, to reach the same goal.

Therefore it is also my firm belief that these two measures are not opposed. Under the present circumstances, we for our part believe that one should try to give priority to the second goal. Over the last few years, we have experienced that standard setting initiatives in the field of religious freedom or belief are indeed not an easy task. I would not rule out the possibility that we may see a hardening of positions if we were to embark on the drafting of a legally binding instrument, thus threatening to dilute hard-won normative standards established by the Declaration and other international treaty provisions protecting religious freedom. Moreover, the resources of the UN remain limited.

The second option must be based on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. We should look for creative ways of expanding monitoring and implementation procedures. This is, by the way, nothing new in the UN human rights field - we have seen similar developments in related human rights mandates. To develop more effective remedies and working methods is part of the mandate given by the Human Rights Commission. The Norwegian Government strongly endorses the Special Rapporteur's unique role as the most important instrument we have for promoting religious freedom throughout the world. However, there is an unfortunate discrepancy between the task and the resources available. In my call to action address at the end of the conference I will recommend concrete measures.

Every government also needs to examine the status of human rights within its own jurisdiction. This may be an uncomfortable exercise, and even an unwelcome exercise at times, but it is never an unnecessary one. In fact, the call to start with yourself, to critically examine your own behaviour from a moral perspective, is a central tenet in the doctrines of history’s great religious teachers, such as Confucius, Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed.

As background for a discussion of issues related to respect for the freedom of religion or belief, I would like to remind you of the fact that the Kingdom of Norway was Christianized around 1,000 years ago. The Church of Norway is not only founded on the Evangelical Lutheran faith, which is the predominant religion in Norway; it is also institutionalized as the State Church. His Majesty The King is head of the Church, the highest officials of the Church are appointed by the King in the Council of State, and the taxpayers' money is used to fund the activities of the Church. The state church system in Norway therefore implies something more than just the pragmatic organization of the affairs of a nation church. Some researchers define this relationship by saying that “Norway is a state with a religion”. This state of affairs might in itself be of concern to this conference, were it not for the fact that freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed in our Constitution and practised in our policies. Other churches and religious communities are free to conduct their own affairs and they too receive public support.

I mention this by way of background because the relationship between the Church and the State is an important issue in most countries, and a relevant one for this conference. It is also a pressing domestic issue in Norway today. This is why the Church of Norway’s National Council (Kirkerådet) has recently appointed a commission to study the relationship between Church and State. The head of this commission and other members are, as far as I can see, present here today.

Part of my mandate as Minister of International Development and Human Rights is to contribute towards raising human rights issues that remain the responsibility of other members of the Government. The exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief provides a number of opportunities to exercise this mandate. Let me mention a few of these, which may also serve as inputs to your deliberations on similar - and frequently more serious - issues.

Among the issues debated in my country in relation to freedom of religion is the position of private schools and home education in Norwegian society. We pride ourselves on having established a universal public school system of high quality. One of the major motivations for establishing private schools in Norway has therefore been the desire to provide pupils with an educational environment based on a particular faith or philosophy of life which is not sufficiently provided by the public schools. The major part of the operating costs of private schools are generally covered by the State, although there is no explicit obligation concerning this in the international conventions. The curriculum is regarded as more of a stumbling block. Private schools have a choice between following the public school curriculum or demonstrating that their own curriculum meets a standard equivalent to that of the public schools, so that the further educational and employment opportunities for their pupils are not in any way jeopardized. The potential for conflict and disagreement is not difficult to find, for those who seek it. A breakthrough was recently achieved in that the authorities approved the establishment of the first Muslim school in Norway, which will offer a one-year programme for pupils who have completed lower secondary school.

Another question of debate as to the role of the Church of Norway and the freedom of religion in my country deals with gender issues. One of the highest officials in the Church of Norway, the Bishop of Hamar, is a woman. The role of women in Norwegian church life has become more clearly recognized, in keeping with the trend in other areas of society. Yet it would be wrong of me not to say that the issue of gender equality is one that still causes concern in some religious circles as well. This ranges from a lack of openness and will to take action in cases of abuse, to the fact that some circles, even within the Church of Norway, still maintain that women's place in the Church is to serve, not to guide. There is less discrimination on the base of gender than previously, but other forms of discrimination are coming into focus. These are problems that are the subject of debate with a view to promoting greater respect and understanding.

Another controversial issue from the current Norwegian political debate is the position of religion in education. Together with the above-mentioned issues - the relationship between the law of the land and the religious freedom of the individual, the question of discrimination, and the role of religion in causing and settling conflict - these questions relate directly to your agenda.

I have already had occasion to emphasize the vital importance of forging new links in the chain in our efforts to promote greater respect for the freedom of religion. Accepting the challenge of building a coalition to protect universal freedom of religion or belief is the subtitle of this conference. This is a fitting title and a fitting priority. The academic and NGO communities as well as religious communities provide so much knowledge, competence, skill and human resources that every government and every international institution would be well served to support and draw upon such a coalition.

The task at hand is complex, varied and very large. It entails close and dedicated attention to practical issues such as research, collection and dissemination of information, monitoring, training and education, mobilization of public opinion and facilitation of national and international debate and action. I am emphasizing the practical and policy aspects of the issue, because I believe we have an adequate normative framework to proceed along the path towards greater respect for the freedom of religion or belief.

Norway will next year take up its position as a member of the UN Commission on Human Rights. In connection with this we will continue our tradition of consulting with NGOs and other human rights organizations in preparing ourselves for this task. In this process, we will establish priorities in order to focus the work of the delegation. I am pleased to be able to announce today that efforts to achieve enhanced respect for freedom of religion or belief will be given priority during our membership of the commission. I hope the Special Rapporteur and other parties involved will take advantage of this decision, and will seek our assistance in identifying measures that can help to provide and improve implementation in this field.

I would like to conclude my address by telling a story from the historical development of the freedom of religion in Norway, which is also a story from my native district, or rather my political constituency, since I was born in Africa. When the Norwegian Constitution was adopted all public preaching required the permission of the local Lutheran minister. Recent research underlines the role of the Quakers in the process towards freedom of religion in Norway. A small community of Quakers lived in Stavanger and other parts of southern and western Norway. The Quakers managed to shake the very foundation of the Lutheran State, for instance by refusing to greet the Lutheran priest in the street and to do military service. These were quite radical challenges at the time. Together with the far more widespread movement of lay preachers and radical democrats within the Lutheran church, the Quakers succeeded in pressing the new national government to grant them freedom of religion only thirty years after the Constitution was adopted in 1814.

The story of the Quakers’ and the lay preachers’ struggle in Norway during the 19th century may help us to draw some general conclusions about freedom of religion;

i) the struggle for freedom of religion was originally an intra-Christian strife in Norway, which is often the case in most countries today;

ii) there were and still are very few religiously homogenous political entities in the world;

iii) it is neither possible nor desirable to create such homogenous communities;

iv) the human rights paradigm is primarly concerned with the interests of minorities and not so much with those of the majority of the population.

Turning from my hometown, Stavanger of the 1830s, and the historical development of freedom of religion in my country, I would like to end my address by focusing on the future. You have an important task ahead of you. The complexity of the issues to be dealt with is immense, but they are fundamentally important. I wish you all the best in your deliberations, and I am confident that you will make the best possible use of each other and the time and facilities available. During the next few days we hope to learn about your concerns and ideas, your fears and hopes, your analyses and proposals. This will also provide some of the basis for my final address in the call for action at the end of the conference. At the opening of this conference, therefore, it is my pleasure to welcome you to Norway and to Oslo. It is my hope that this conference will bring progress to the work for the right to freedom of religion or belief. That would also be a worthy celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

In conclusion, I would like to remind you of another truth from Hermann Hesse’s novel “Siddhartha”; “Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom”. ( - ).

Thank you.