Proposition 53K3487

Proposition de résolution concernant la protection de la communauté chrétienne et des autres minorités religieuses et philosophiques en Afrique du Nord, au Proche-Orient et au Moyen-Orient.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn, Peter Luykx, Steven Vanackere
LE Georges Dallemagne
MR Corinne De Permentier, Denis Ducarme, François-Xavier de Donnea
Open Vld Herman De Croo

Submission date

March 25, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Maghreb Middle East protection of minorities Christianity religious discrimination resolution of parliament human rights

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

April 23, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, due to an unexpected attack of youthism, I was just a little too early, but now we are at the point about which I wanted to speak.

First I will give you a brief report. We have the custom, and I must thank President Donnea for that, to further discuss and amend resolutions which we feel can be reached unanimously, and also here we have reached a solution, after which the resolution was unanimously adopted.

We have enriched this resolution by referring to life-visual elements. It is necessary to protect not only religious minorities, but also free-thinking and agnostic people, who in these countries would experience difficulties, sometimes even very serious difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, I use my speaking time very briefly to make a few considerations. It is obvious, and I thank our government for this, that we here regularly try to put the rights of minorities in the religious and other fields into consideration and try to see them safeguarded by the authorities of states where this is less or not happening.

It is important to consider that religions, with all the advantages they have and the positive sides they show, from time to time exhibit troubles of a severe nature. A year ago I was present in Turkey at a debate on the monotheistic religions. I was there a duck outside of its usual pond, but it has struck me that several religions have very great tensions with each other. Today, unfortunately, this is the case with Islam and we have experienced it for 127 years in Europe with religious wars between one form of Christian faith and another form. What affects me, and always makes me a little sick, is that one can kill other people in the name of the same god. This is unacceptable and I think this should be openly and loudly accused here from time to time.

We have known in that part of the world a number of Springs that have not ended as we had expected, and that are shrinking into attitudes that we cannot call acceptable.

Minorities that have a different philosophical organization, who are also monotheists but express their faith in a different way, should be able to be protected by the state in which they sometimes have lived their religion for centuries. I think for example of the Coptic Christians in Egypt.

Many of these religions existed for a very long time at the time when Islam took up its part of people’s beliefs in the religious field.

I find it normal for the Chamber to try to defend these principles of tolerance and civilization with great unanimity.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I wanted us to express our opinion on this proposal for a resolution. Indeed, as my eminent colleague Herman De Croo said, it is a carrier of values and the meaning it gives is also as an indicator of the conception of political life and of life in society. So it seems to me extremely important.

I would also like to express the reasons for our vote just recently and the fact that we have chosen not to co-sign this text.

In the preamble, I will recall that my group has always emphasized one of the absolute priorities of Belgian diplomacy, namely freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, more generally, respect for fundamental freedoms, priorities inalienable and non-negotiable, whether it is to address the situation in Belgium, in Europe or around the world.

This sacro-holy freedom of expression, which, however, has almost passed to the trap of the final text that is submitted to us today, by the introduction of an amendment No. 4; fortunately, it has been withdrawn. A freedom of expression that, however, de facto condemns most firmly any attempt to incriminate freedom of expression, especially in religious matters, such as blasphemy laws. A freedom of expression that de facto guarantees the freedom to believe or not believe elsewhere.

It is in this sense that with my group, we have always preferred to talk about "freedom of expression and religion" and "fight against all forms of discrimination" rather than to highlight one or another group of the population, to stigmatize it, or to oppose it to another group, such as a Huntington Civilization Shock.

Similar work was initiated by the Senate in 2011. They have already called for the unreserved condemnation of all forms of discrimination and intolerance based on religion and philosophical conceptions that are and will in the future be observed everywhere.

I have to say that this text much better corresponded to our philosophical conceptions as it had a more general approach, while the N-VA and MR texts had an essentially Christian approach that could strengthen communitarianism and make it seem that Europe is a Christian club, what Europe is not and what it should not be.

Now, the future of many of the countries discussed in the resolution lies precisely in the post-communitarianism where a real society can emerge politically and socially and organize itself precisely beyond belonging to this or that group. This is how I intervened in the committee and submitted many amendments to working groups that have been incorporated into a third compromise text that you have before you today.

These amendments were based on two questions, two simple but obvious findings. On the one hand, in the face of the dramatic situation that prevails in this region of the world and which illustrates the powerlessness of the international community, and in the face of the thousands of dead only in Syria, can one really be content to condemn only the deaths of Christians? Isn’t every civilian death, regardless of religion or non-religion, a death of too much? On the other hand, can we really imagine making only freedom of religion a priority in our foreign policy? The answer to these questions is clearly “no”!

There are in this region of the world many ethnic and religious communities wholly silenced, all entitled to our indignation and protection. Recall that atheists, peaceful protesters and citizens returning from abroad have recently been hit by new so-called anti-terror laws passed by Saudi Arabia.

Don’t let me say what I haven’t said. It is a matter of acknowledging that it is unacceptable that the Christian communities of the countries mentioned in the text are intimidated, chased out or killed, but the attacks on freedom of religion or non-religion go far beyond this mere region. If the situation of the Copts in Egypt, for example, must obviously be denounced, a political and non-religious approach to conflicts must be preferred because, as we know, religion is often only a pretext for seizing or justifying decisions that are, in fact, political.

I will conclude by saying that the protection of minorities is a problem that deserves all attention, but it must be understood in the broader concept of defence of human rights, and not be confined to a region. For a crisis region where suffering extends beyond a community or group, it is best for Belgium and the European Union to adopt a position of concern for all victims. Human rights are universal regardless of religion.

The text that is presented to us today meets in part all of these considerations and the nuances I have just expressed. That is why my group will ultimately support this text. We will support it while emphasizing that if, in the substance, we share the demands of this text, in the form, this type of approach is not, for us, the appropriate approach to addressing the regional situation that it tends to describe and condemn.

I thank you for your attention.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we have been able to examine after, indeed, a fairly nourished debate, a compromise that has not always been easy in relation to this text and this comprehensive amendment.

We are pleased that this discussion was able to take place on the basis of a proposal we had submitted. We look forward to a ⁇ unanimous vote on this issue. Even if, as you said, Mrs. Vienne, you have not co-signed it, it seems that you will fully express your support for this text that attracts the attention of the government to the fate of religious and philosophical minorities. In fact, you are right: Europe is not a Christian club. I also want to reassure you: Mr. President is not a Christian club.

At first, we had the ambition to draw attention to a real, concrete, violent, cruel situation encountered by a minority, it’s true, specific. More than 2,000 Christians were killed in 2013 because of their religious beliefs. Fifty churches were burned in Egypt.

Without wanting to establish a scale of horror value, it was important that we could designate these facts as a reality to fight, to denounce. We, as politicians, do not have to deal with religion unless, ⁇ , the free exercise of a religion is compromised or some of it is instrumentalized for political purposes.

I will not return to the whole of the international legislation on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, which must consecrate, throughout the world, freedom for the exercise of worship.

We are sensitive to this in Belgium in view of a number of cases. We must, if we assume our values, also be beyond our state borders.

In this sense, I would like to thank our Minister of Foreign Affairs for the steps he has taken and for the responses he has been able to give on this issue in the committee. Yes, this text, which will be voted by Parliament today, is intended, beyond our Executive, to draw more attention from the national and international community, from the European Union, to the serious persecution of Christian minorities and other philosophical minorities.

We are satisfied. It was not easy. Sometimes we have lively debates. But I am extremely satisfied, after submitting this proposal, to be able to meet a praiseworthy goal, which brings together humanists to defend each in his freedom of belief and of the exercise of his religion.

The Flemish Interest will approve this resolution with conviction.

It is indeed a weakened version of my own interpellation and motion from a few months ago, where the political correctness and the cordon sanitary precepts that no one should vote for.

The fate of the persecuted Christian minorities and the attacks on them in predominantly Islamic countries is too vengeant and, for us, clearly planned.

Indeed, it is not said in so many words in the resolution, but it is indeed about practices in – unfortunately – mostly Islamic countries, by the way very often with the knowledge and approval of the highest religious and political bodies. One must dare to call a cat a cat.

Mr. De Croo, Christianity has indeed also known internal and external bloody periods, but that was in the Middle Ages. You will not claim that Islam is in the Middle Ages today.

In this resolution...

I don’t want to interrupt you, but the great religious war dates back to after the Middle Ages. However, the 127 years of struggles between Protestants and Catholics and the Bartholomew Night did not take place in the Middle Ages.

There are the early and late Middle Ages, Mr. De Croo. Islam is in the late Middle Ages.

Nothing in this resolution calls for linking the further release of funds from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to respect for human rights. Apparently, this is the concession that had to be made in order to get a Chamber Breed agreement. It is a pity, because it makes the whole very non-binding, a little “stop me, or I do an accident”.

For the same reason of non-bindingness, a Belgian responsibility is also not included anywhere by linking the observance of human rights and the rights of religious – in this case Christian minorities – to their own development aid. This is a missed opportunity.

Europe is clearly no longer a Christian western country. It does not even want to be remembered anymore.

This resolution would be a perfect opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past. In the spring and summer of 2013, these sins were repeated by extending the scope of the funds of the European Development Bank to Egypt and Tunisia.

In order to correct these mistakes, one had to make a link, at least as a stick behind the door, between compliance with rights and obtaining financial assistance. It should not have been. As I said, a missed opportunity.

That being said, our position is clear and we will nevertheless approve this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I have already had the opportunity several times to speak, whether in a committee or in a plenary session, on this question of Eastern Christians. I am delighted that today the attention is much greater than it was a few years ago. I remember asking a question to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2008. It is mr. Chesterton answered me. I asked him in particular about Christian minorities; and he managed not to pronounce the word "Christian" in his answer. This shows how much the climate of the time was not oriented towards this problem. I had seen a form of “pudeur” about Christian minorities. I fought a lot for the defense of Muslim and Jewish minorities and against anti-Semitism. Now, when it comes to the question of Christian minorities, suddenly a kind of “pudor” was observed.

We are no longer there. Several actions have been carried out by our diplomacy and by the European Union. Guidelines have been drawn on issues of minorities, beliefs, freedom of religion and thought. Despite this attention, the hemorrhage continues. These communities continue to flee the places where, however, they were born two thousand years ago. This is, of course, not only dramatic for them and for the countries concerned, as they constitute a real social, cultural and economic wealth for them, but it is also for the entire international community. In fact, we know that religious minorities are being attacked all over the world today. Just see the Rohingya in Burma and remember what is happening in Central Africa.

This question is therefore not only dramatic for these minorities, but it also threatens the way we can conceive, on the level of humanist values, the coexistence of convictions. I also think of people who do not have a religious belief. That is why this issue should concern us twice.

Furthermore, it is important to implement the lines of action contained in the texts. I recently talked with a senior European official who explained to me that we had funded a large education program in Egypt worth 140 million, but that we could not get the question of religious freedom inscribed in it. This is something we should no longer tolerate. When we participate in programs and support education, these issues must be on the agenda. That is why I consider that this resolution is relevant and that it remains important, because this problem remains worrying not only for these populations and for these countries, but also for the values of tolerance and mutual respect that we Europeans live.

I will be brief. I would like to thank the various groups for their participation in the discussions on this draft resolution. Indeed, the protection of minorities is at the heart of the action of not only Belgian but also European diplomacy.

This debate on the protection of religious minorities and in particular Christian minorities in certain current conflicts or tensions, in what has been called the “Arab Spring”, to explain it in a more concrete way, is a theme that returns regularly to the Council on Foreign Affairs at the level of the European Union.

I believe it will be interesting for our diplomats, as for the next government, to take into account the debate that has taken place in the committee and in this assembly on these proposals for resolutions, but, I repeat, in a framework that will have to be ever broader.

We are concerned with all minorities. However, many have rightly recalled that we must be especially attentive to a specific situation in a region of the world, which concerns Christian minorities.