Proposition 52K2031

Proposition de résolution concernant la survie des communautés chrétiennes et des minorités religieuses et philosophiques au Proche-Orient, au Moyen-Orient et dans le reste du monde.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Nathalie Muylle
Ecolo Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
LE Christian Brotcorne, Georges Dallemagne, Clotilde Nyssens
MR Olivier Hamal, François-Xavier de Donnea
PS | SP Patrick Moriau

Submission date

June 3, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Middle East Christian Christianity religious discrimination resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Jan. 28, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, as the rapporteur of the draft resolution on the preservation of Christian communities, religious and philosophical minorities in the Middle East, the Middle East and the rest of the world, I would like to first give a brief overview of the discussion in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

The proposal was discussed in the committee on 12 January 2010. The applicant, our good friend Georges Dallemagne, first gave a brief explanation in which he highlighted the deteriorating situation of Christians in the Near and Middle East. He pointed out that not only religious minorities are harassed because of their beliefs, other groups are also the victims because of their life-conscious beliefs. Only the Flemish Belang was, according to Francis Van den Eynde, not enthusiastic about the proposal, given the possible consequences for the refugee flow to our country.

Mr. Dallemagne indicated that people who flee for persecution because of their religion often want to stay as close to home as possible. Therefore, we need to raise awareness in neighboring countries to provide these refugees with a temporary but safe shelter. Together with some colleagues, I submitted several amendments to extend the draft resolution to include life-conscious minorities, and also to expand the location to the rest of the world.

The proposal, with the amendments, was adopted by eight votes and one abstinence.

Colleagues, I do not have to tell you that Open Vld strongly supports this proposal and is pleased to pay attention to the deteriorating situation of religious and philosophical minorities, everywhere in the world.

Mr. Minister, we hope that the government will take the necessary steps so that no one is yet confronted with religious or life-thinking intolerance.

Open Vld will approve the resolution later.

First of all, I would like to thank Ms Vautmans for her excellent report and for her support for this resolution. I also thank the co-signers of this resolution as well as the members of my group who have worked a lot on this issue with me, Clotilde Nyssens and Christian Brotcorne but also Roel Deseyn, Nathalie Muylle, François-Xavier de Donnea, Patrick Moriau, Thérèse Snoy and Olivier Hamal.

I would like to return, in a few words, to the origin of this resolution. This comes from a personal experience. In another life, I have been faced with extremely serious humanitarian problems, including Muslims in Srebrenica or certain communities suffering from anti-Semitism or other types of extremely serious problems affecting certain religious minorities.

I realized that an actuality concerning Christian minorities was already extremely important a year and a half ago and is still so today. By some kind of pudding, these questions had not been much debated. I also realized that there has been no question on this subject in Parliament since I was a member.

These problems are extremely serious. The most important problem concerning religious minorities, especially Christian minorities, is today’s Iraq. Before the 2003 war, 800,000 people (Arabians, Syrians, Chaldeans, etc.) who lived there for ever and had these beliefs since the dawn of Christianity, were victims of harassment, pogroms, targeted assassinations, to such an extent that in a few years, 500,000 of these people decided to leave their country or areas where they lived for millennia.

It should be noted the welcome that was reserved for them in countries such as Jordan or Syria but also in Europe. These communities demand only one thing, that they can continue to live at home.

Christians, Iraq or even the Middle East are not the only ones facing problems. In Saudi Arabia, Christians are completely forbidden; Filipino workers, many, celebrate their worship clandestinely and can be severely punished if they are discovered. Millions of Copts in Egypt are in a worrying situation. As for the community of Bethlehem, half of which was Christian, it is now only a small minority.

Outside the Middle East, these problems also concern other countries such as India or Malaysia, of which we talked recently, and various religious minorities. We talked about the problem of the Baha’i, of the Mandeans in the Chatt el-Arab, of the Zoroastrians in Iran, of minorities of Islam such as the Bektachis, the Druses, the Alevis or the Yezidis. Finally, agnostics and unbelievers are also targeted; it has recently been seen in Lebanon where they have manifested themselves.

It is therefore the whole of Christians, Muslims, Jews and non-believers who must face the rise of fundamentalism, which no longer allows for a mosaic of traditions, memories, beliefs, or a cultural and religious heritage, a set of freedoms and fundamental rights of peoples who have always lived in these regions.

The land of the East has been for two thousand years the land of religious pluralism. It is a land of great human beings, a land of civilization. The Middle and Middle Eastern society is a mosaic of cultures, beliefs, histories, memories that cross and answer, and thoughts that are inseparable as they owe each other.

Nomads and citizens, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druses, Baha'i and other believers and unbelievers, Arabs, Egyptians, Persians, Turks, Israelis, Kurds and other national groups, all together they are the Middle East. They participated in the great adventure of the multiplication of cultures and civilizations that arose in this place of the world. It would not be necessary today that exclusion, intolerance and homogenization reinstate.

I also think that this situation that takes place on the steps of Europe is not without consequence on the way we consider living together here, on the way we view interculturality, respect for one another, whether we are believers or non-believers, Christians, Jews or Muslims.

I think this issue is very important in terms of international relations. The purpose of this resolution is that, through our diplomacy and cooperation, we are attentive to ensuring that this diversity and respect for minorities long settled in these countries are ⁇ ined. We must also take care not to be confronted more and more with intolerance and homogenization of cults, beliefs and civilization.

This problem is central. And I very much hope, through the attention that Parliament pays to this issue, that Belgium and Europe will be able to be active.

Finally, I will tell you two anecdotes. This resolution was voted in the committee a few days ago. I have already received very interesting reactions. Thus, the Egyptian embassy wanted to demonstrate what its government was doing to protect the Coptic minority. In addition, with colleagues, I met a delegation of Turkish MPs who also wanted to express their great attention to this issue.

Through such an initiative, we are already engaging in a dialogue with the states and governments of countries where these issues arise sharply.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it will not surprise most of you that our group has signed this resolution on the Christian communities in the Near and Middle East.

In fact, this is a global phenomenon. Therefore, this was also extended to the Near and Middle East through an amendment that I supported. People around the world are being persecuted for their beliefs or beliefs. At this point, too, we wanted to extend the proposed resolution, although we all know that religion is the primary motive for oppression here. People around the world are being persecuted for their faith, even in the 21st century. When it comes to the persecution of Christians, the number rises to over 100 million people worldwide.

Faith costs the most sacrifices—or I must say victims—in North Korea, in the Far East, and not in the Near—or Middle East. North Korea is not by chance a communist dictatorship, a country where the “loved” leader Kim Jong II would like to be worshipped as a god. More than 200,000 people are imprisoned in prison camps and Christians gather there, putting their lives at risk.

Further in that ranking we then see Iran, the country where President Ahmadinejad even denies the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, which is disheartening 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz. Other rogue states — excuse me for the word, I found no better — compared to religious minorities include Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen.

This shows that it is mostly Muslim countries that pose the greatest threat to Christians. Societies that were very pluriform a hundred years ago are now becoming exclusively Islamic. However, Buddhist Laos is also in the top 10 of persecution of Christians. Christians are seen there as handlers of their enemy, the United States of America.

Recently I have also heard reports from the Gaza Strip where Christians are being harmed by Hamas. This is expressed very gently. This happens while Hamas attempts to strain the European Christians in the struggle against Israel, often without shaking the distortion of the facts.

In Iraq, the situation for Christians may be even worse. Colleagues, we must ⁇ not forget that Iraqi Christianity is older than the Iraqis themselves, more than 2,000 years.

The passport killings I asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs about more than three years ago, and which were previously committed in Lebanon on the Christian Maronites, appear to be repeated now in Iraq. Churches in Iraq are being burned by radical Sunniists, members of the Christian communities are kidnapped and killed, and the bodies are thrown away like old dirt. We can talk about religious purification.

In response to my question in early 2007, the Minister of Foreign Affairs admitted that the identity cards on which the religious group is listed are used as a tool to categorize someone in that particular group. In this case, Christians are killed after radical Muslims are shown the identity card. During the Presidency of the European Union, however, we must give a strong signal to erase this bad formula on the identity cards.

It is estimated that two-thirds of Iraqi Christians have left the country fleeing terrorism. It is not that the social position of Christians in other countries in the Middle East is ideal, sometimes far from that. Even in a country like Egypt, where many Westerners go on vacation, Christians are severely understated and even murdered, but not a tourist who sees it.

In Turkey, throughout history, Christianity has been increasingly repressed, repressed and marginalized by the government. Even now that Turkey is applying for accession to the European Union, obtaining an equal position for Christians is difficult. It is significant for the real intentions of Turkey towards the Christians.

Even in the Palestinian territories, Christians are feeling bad. In Bethlehem, the birthplace of Christ nota bene, is regularly land of the Christian Palestinians captured by the Sunni Palestinians.

I would therefore like to emphasize here that the nutrient ground for this violence, the decisive factor on the basis of which these minorities are persecuted, is religion. In this way, the amendments that add the term “visual” in the text, in our opinion, do not actually do much on the subject.

The role of Europe in the world has been weakened in political, economic and military terms in recent decades. However, Europe does not have to be powerless when it comes to defending oppressed Christians worldwide. For example, political sanctions and trade boycott are proven means. If the soul of Europe is still Christian, the oppressed Christians, unfortunately, notice very little of this at this time. The European Council should take this into account.

Christians in every country of the world should be able to freely profess their faith and to spread it to everyone. With more than 100 million persecuted Christians, Christianity is the most oppressed religion in the world.

Let the persecution of Christians cease, as we respect all forms of religious and philosophical minorities, everywhere in the world. That respect is embedded in our Western culture. The culture of hospitality and tolerance is aimed at combating Muslim fundamentalists in our countryside. Think of the first major planned attack by Al Qaeda, which did not take place in New York, but in Strasbourg in December 2000, when it was intended to blow up a heavy bomb at the local Christmas market. This attack could only be avoided at the nippet.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that our driving force in relation to the resolution is not the Christian religion itself, but the human rights and respect for the fundamental freedoms and rights of each individual. Religious freedom and respect for one’s beliefs are the perfect measurements for the state of human rights in a country, for the degree of legal certainty in society, and for the democratic content of a political system.

As the resolution nuanced but also convincingly shows, several countries in North Africa and the Middle East score poorly. At that point, the resolution should have been a little sharper. After all, most of these countries are located on the Mediterranean and belong to our immediate region.

The importance currently attached by some EU Member States to the new EU Neighbourhood Policy is just one example. The connection we have with many of these states through both geography and immigration brings great opportunities as well as great challenges.

One of the challenges will be to challenge religious intolerance among our partners in North Africa and the Middle East in a substantiated and convincing way.

After all, respect for human rights begins not only in distant countries and territories such as Tibet and South America, but here on our street. In that regard, we hope that the resolution will be a first step rather than a one-off statement.

For all these reasons, the amended draft resolution enjoys our full support.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to comment for a moment on the report presented here orally. I formally contest that.

Ms. Vautmans says that Mr. Van den Eynde was not enthusiastic at all and that he bothered, especially because people who were persecuted in the Middle East would be brought here. This is in no way consistent with what I said at the time.

Mrs Vautmans, I quote the written report that I myself approved.

Mr. Van den Eynde notes that the deterioration of the situation of many minorities in the Middle East and the Middle East cannot be disputed. This is especially the case for the Christian minorities, who are victims of the radicalization of Islam. The speaker, however, disagrees with the government’s seventh request in Belgium to arrest asylum seekers who are victims of abuse of power and serious threats due to their religious beliefs. He assumes that people who want to flee their country, because they are threatened there because of their religious beliefs, usually do not intend to leave their country permanently. They hope to be able to return when security is restored. Therefore, it does not seem to him to be wise to seek to receive refugees in Europe from the Near and Middle East.”

This is a very different story, Mrs. Vautmans.

I am enthusiastic about this case. If you have not understood it, you either have not listened, or you are not bona fide. I am enthusiastic. In a sense, I would like to congratulate the applicants, because it is ⁇ not politically correct at this time to worry about the fate of Christian minorities.

Other religions have a more envious position in the official interest of the West. However, the fact that Christian minorities have problems, including in the Middle East, stands like a pillar above water.

Moreover, very little information is provided about the oppression of those Christian minorities, precisely because it is not politically correct to talk about it. But well, one has had that courage, even though courage is an exaggerated word. Mr. Dallemagne was then explaining to us that it was not usually referred to “par pudeur.” One does not do it because it is not politically correct and because it does not fit in the current atmosphere that prevails with us. In this regard, I want to correct things. It is time for us to address these problems.

Don’t mind, colleagues, that I limit myself to solidarity with Christians in this area. In the Foreign Affairs Committee, for a very long time, a draft resolution from me has been waiting for consideration regarding the persecution of the Bahá’ís in Iran. I have heard several times references to the sad fate of that Bahá’í. Well, Mr. Dallemagne, Vlaams Belang has long taken an initiative in that sense. However, as is often the case with what we submit, this has not yet been addressed. But it has been there for a long time, I can assure you.

My solidarity, and that of my party, goes, of course, to all those who are oppressed, wherever in the world and of whatever people they belong, because of their views on the religious, philosophical, and political level. This is also often forgotten, Mr. Dallemagne. One can be oppressed and get trouble because of political views.

In this regard, Mr. Dallemagne, I speak as an experienced expert. I am part of a party that has experienced the difficulty of being persecuted for its political views. I know what I am talking about. That only strengthens my sense of solidarity with those people.

When I was critical, I wasn’t even completely critical. During the discussion in the Committee on Foreign Affairs – a discussion that, by the way, was worth the effort to follow – at a certain moment it was expanded...

Can Mrs. Vautmans interrupt you?

very pleased.

It is stronger than me.

It is a cold shower.

First, I would like to inform you, however, with regard to the report, that I am grateful to you for giving you the exact reading. I must tell you that my summary and interpretation, knowing you and the points of view of your party, still proves to be correct, if I hear you.

Second, what you are doing now, comparing your position with the position of oppressed religious or philosophical minorities in the rest of the world, you must only dare.

Yes, I dare to.

People are hanged because of their beliefs or other beliefs. I ⁇ ’t go so far to compare your situation with those people.

Mrs Vautmans, I will answer two things.

From the first argument you cited, it is clear that you did not base your report on what I said, but on what you assume I think. You have admitted this with so many words. You were prejudiced. You have admitted it.

Affliction is oppression. You, as a feminist, should know that one cannot be a little pregnant. When one is dragged as a party before the court, when one must experience that one changes the law up to four times to be able to drag a party before a court, I say that this is tribulation!

You may not be proud of it. You may not want to admit it, but that is the reality.

It’s not that I didn’t dare this discussion, but I return to the subject of which it is concerned, namely the tribulation, first and foremost of the Christians, in the Middle East.

I think the spokesman of the Christian Democrats has just given a number of very good examples of the oppression of Christians. I do not want to add too many words to this, except that Christians are being oppressed not only in the fundamentalist Saudi Arabia or in the fundamentalist Turkey. He has also rightly referred to Iraq, where it has become much more difficult for Christians, strangely enough, since the American-European invasion. Christians are also oppressed in the progressive and socialist Algeria, where churches are still tolerated, but where they are not allowed to recruit. You can open a church, but with it the song is done. In Saudi Arabia, the situation is worse. It is not permissible to pray Christianly. Ms. Vautmans would say that the comparison between Algeria and Saudi Arabia doesn’t work out, but I repeat that oppression is oppression.

My first critical approach, which I have not, by the way, put forward in the committee – I admit that greed – is that the draft resolution has been extended to the whole world. This does not mean that the oppression of ideas, religions and political opinions should not be fought all over the world. I mean only that it may be more efficient to work in that area, to choose a goal and to bring it forward. Admit, if one wants to improve the whole world at the same time, then one risks having to wait very long for results. Well, I could still approve the text.

Now to the famous point 7. This has led to a serene discussion in the committee. I would like to thank Mr. Dallemagne for this. The famous point 7 actually comes down to the fact that one should be able to receive those people with us in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I would like to repeat the argument I used there. People who are oppressed for their views, whether religious, political or philosophical, do not emigrate permanently. On the contrary, they hope to be able to return to their homeland as soon as possible in order to live their political, philosophical, or religious views there.

Mrs. Vautmans, if your system ever caused me to emigrate because of my nationalist beliefs, I will return as soon as possible, even if it were to come to contradict you. I can promise you. This is a first determination.

Therefore, it makes no sense to move those people to a completely different world. The further away they are from their homeland, the more difficult the contacts are and the more difficult it becomes to ever return. From this view, Mrs. Vautmans – I have explained this with so many words in the committee – my party has long advocated that such refugees should be taken as close to their homeland as possible. Unfortunately, there is nothing to read about this in the famous point 7, which we contest, from the further not at all evil text that precedes here.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have permitted myself to submit an amendment on this subject, which I have already defended here. I was opposed in the committee to the Geneva Convention, which allows these people to come here. We do not dispute that. But when we advocate for receiving and helping those people in a region that is close to their own homeland, it is not at all in conflict with the Geneva Convention. In that sense, we have submitted an amendment which, instead of the original text, reads as follows: “to ensure and take initiatives so that asylum seekers who are victims of abuse of power and serious threats due to their religious and life-confessional beliefs, are welcomed in the immediate vicinity of their country of origin.”

I hear my colleagues talk about extremism. Therefore, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that at the EU summit in Edinburgh on 12 December 1992 it was declared – I literally quote – “that displaced persons should be encouraged to stay in the safe area closest to their place of residence.”

Marc Bossuyt, former Commissioner-General for Refugees and Stateless Persons, also stated in the journal Liberalism nr. 3 from 1993.

The [...]

Mrs Vautmans, I quote my sources. You should know them. It is an ideological magazine of your direction.

I quote: “It is far more preferable to ensure that as many refugees as possible are welcomed in a neighboring country of the country they are fleeing, rather than having to accommodate them in a distant country.”

That is the only position...

Mr. Van den Eynde, the one does not exclude the other. You would only want, when they have to flee a country, that they be placed in camps near that border. You would like to keep them there. We say that it can be there, but also here, in a humane way. You oppose this.

Mrs. Vautmans, your prejudice is now shaving high tops. You did not listen.

Then you said that you were a voice here in the wilderness, and I answered you that I listened to you. You have not done it yourself now. You have not heard what I said later about the Geneva convention, that it is best possible for them to come here, but that we should not be an opponent...

The [...]

Mrs Vautmans, would you like to be so kind and so kind to let me speak?

One does nothing against the Geneva Convention if one says that it is better for them to be welcomed in their surroundings. If I dream of camps, it also applies to Mr. Bossuyt. I would dare to say that the magazine Liberalism of you should be quite one and the other. I ⁇ ’t want to talk about “Mein Kampf”, but there’s a lot in it, then. These are all the things you are telling here. Try now to read your own texts, instead of prejudicing your paralytic opponents.

In this respect, I have submitted my amendment.

My group originally planned to approve the present text, just like the previous one. We are not prejudiced. We will approve the text of Mrs Vautmans. Even the texts of Ms. Vautmans we approve, if they are good, of course.

My group was willing to approve the text. After reading them carefully, we have indeed fallen on that point, hence the amendment. My group will approve all amendments, including those of Ms. Vautmans. However, if our amendment is not approved – I think I should have little illusions about it – then my group will abstain. Indeed, the matter of freedom and of oppressed people for the sake of religion, political and philosophical opinions is too close to our heart to vote against the proposal.