הצעת חוק חדשה בנושא הטיפול ב"כתות פוגעניות" הוגשה לשולחן הכנסת. אנשי האקדמיה מישראל ומחו"ל מתנגדים להצעת חוק זאת. הנה מכתב שגוף אקדמאי ישראלי לחקר דתות חדשות - 'מיד"ע' - שלח לממשלה ולכנסת:

הצעת החוק מגדירה "כת פוגענית", קובעת עבירה בגין עמידה בראש כת פוגענית ומנגנון חילוט רכוש של העומד בראש הכת. בנוסף, ההצעה מקימה מאגר מידע בעניין כתות פוגעניות ומערך טיפולי נפשי בנפגעי כתות ובני משפחותיהם. לבסוף, ההצעה מאפשרת למנות אפטרופוס לאדם הנמצא תחת השפעה של כת פוגענית. כפי שיפורט להלן, לפי עמדת מרכז מיד"ע, הצעת החוק אינה מתיישבת עם המחקר האקדמאי או עם עמדת בתי המחוקקים ובתי המשפט בארץ ובעולם, פוגעת יתר על המידה באוטונומיית הפרט ובזכויותיו ואיננה נחוצה.

ההצעה מגדירה כת פוגענית כקבוצה המשתמשת ב"שיטות של שליטה בתהליכי החשיבה ובדפוסי התנהגות". ההגדרה מתבססת על התיאוריה של שליטה מוחית, אשר אינה מקובלת במחקר האקדמאי, ונדחתה על ידי בתי מחוקקים ובתי משפט עליונים בארץ ובעולם. יתרה מכך, תפיסה זו שוללת את האמונה באוטונומיה אישית ובאחריות של בני אדם למעשיהם (בית המשפט העליון התייחס לתפיסה זו בהרחבה לאחרונה בפרשת חסידיו של אליאור חן).

סעיף 6 להצעת החוק מאפשר למנות אפטרופוס לאדם בגיר אשר נמצא תחת השפעה של כת פוגענית. מינוי אפטרופוס לאדם בגיר אשר בחר מרצונו החופשי להשתייך לקבוצה, ואפילו היא קבוצה פוגענית, פוגע באופן לא מידתי באוטונומיית הפרט, ללא ביסוס ראוי מבחינה אקדמית ופסיכולוגית.

עמדתנו היא כי החוקים הקיימים בספר החוקים כיום הנם מספקים, ואין צורך בהוראות הצעת החוק. מדינת ישראל אינה מתקשה להעמיד לדין מנהיגי כתות, ובאמתחתה מגוון עבירות פליליות מתאימות, כפי שניתן ללמוד מהפסיקה בפרשות כדוגמת גואל רצון (אשר נידון לשלושים שנות מאסר) וד.א. (אשר נידון לעשרים ושש שנות מאסר).

אשר על כן, מרכז מיד"ע ממליץ שלא לקבל את הצעת החוק במתכונתה הנוכחית.

נשמח לפרט עוד, להביא מראי מקום למצב החקיקתי בארץ ובעולם כמו גם למחקרים אקדמיים בתחום, להשתתף בדיונים בנושא, ולענות על כל שאלה.

 

בברכה,

פרופ' בועז הוס, ד"ר רחל ורצברגר, ד"ר תומר פרסיקו, ד"ר אדם קלין אורון, ד"ר מריאנה רוח-מדבר, עו"ד משואה שגיב – חברי הוועד המנהל של מרכז מיד"ע

מרכז מיד"ע במכון ון ליר בירושלים אוסף מידע מהימן ואובייקטיבי אודות קבוצות דתיות עכשוויות בישראל, במטרה להעמידו לשירות מוסדות המדינה וכלל הציבור. המרכז מופעל על ידי חוקרים מוסמכים בתחום, תוך שימוש בכלים מדעיים והקפדה על סטנדרטים אקדמיים.

לפרטים נוספים: פרופ' בועז הוס, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון שבנגב, bhuss@bgu.ac.il, 052-3757614.

To the Members of the Constituent Assembly of Nepal,

We write as a group of concerned organizations and individuals who are scholars, religious leaders, and human rights advocates to respectfully draw your attention to the issue of religious freedom in Nepal. While acknowledging the incredibly demanding and complex task that you have been given by the people of Nepal in drafting a new constitution and the great progress that has been made thus far, we must ask that you take a moment to review an alarming section of the most recent draft of the Constitution and consider the possible negative impact this section will have upon Nepalese society and its potential to violate multiple international agreements ratified by the government of Nepal.

In a recently-released preliminary constitution, section 31(3) criminalizes “any act to convert another person from one religion to another.”(1) Yet actual conversion to another religion or no religion is often impossible without the involvement of others. Therefore, this section nullifies the freedom to share, change, and choose one’s religion.

Religion is communal by its very nature, and, therefore, a person’s decision to accept a particular religion or no religion (i.e., convert) can only take place with the assistance of others from within that religious community. Very few convert to Buddhism except first by talking to Buddhists and learning about the Buddhist religion. Likewise, very few become Hindu except by being taught the ways of Hinduism by Hindus.

In short, no religious conversion is possible without several “acts to convert another person from one religion to another.” Since the proposed draft of the constitution criminalizes these acts, it, in effect, makes conversion impossible—and, thereby, it completely denies the freedom of people to choose and change their religion. In this way, Section 31(3) would severely undermine freedom of religion in Nepal.

Further, Section 31(3) violates Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship,observance, practice and teaching.(2)

If “any act to convert another person from one religion to another” is made criminal, the people of Nepal will never truly enjoy the freedoms listed in Article 18.

Nepal has also acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which explicitly provides for the right "in public or private, to manifest [one's] religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.”(3) According to the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council (HRC), “the right to manifest one's religion includes carrying out actions to persuade others to believe in a certain religion.”(4) The HRC Rapporteur noted, further, that “proselytism is itself inherent in religion.” Section 31(3) clearly criminalizes acts “to persuade others to believe in a certain religion”—and, thus, Section 31(3) violates the ICCPR.

Moreover, given that expressing one’s own religious views could result in another person's conversion and so constitute an "act to convert a person from one religion to another," Section 31(3) also violates Article 19 of the UDHR—the freedom of expression. In reference to Article 19, the HRC Rapporteur stated that “[t]he right to freedom of expression as it is protected by international standards . . . constitutes an essential aspect of the right to freedom of religion or belief.”(5) As such, by criminalizing the act of sharing one’s beliefs, Section 31(3) undermines any true freedom of expression in Nepal.

Under Section 31(3) of the preliminary constitution, even the expression of one's beliefs would be a criminal offense if it leads to the conversion of another person.

The freedom to share, choose, and change one's religion are among the fundamental rights of man, and since these freedoms always involve “acts to convert a person from one religion to another,” the preliminary constitution violates the UDHR, the ICCPR, and numerous other international human rights agreements.(6)

Furthermore, there is ample evidence to suggest that heavy restrictions imposed upon freedom of religion and expression encourages serious instability in society by empowering radical elements of dominant religious groups to marginalize and prosecute members of religious minorities. The instability caused by this marginalization results in a long list of repercussions, from negative international press to painful economic implications such as reduced foreign investment and tourism.

Members of the Constituent Assembly, please review and consider revising the language listed in Section 31(3) of the current draft of the Constitution, and ensure that all of the citizens of Nepal are free to choose any-faith or none without fear of persecution or prosecution for many generations to come.

Signatories:

ORGANIZATIONS:

21st CENTURY WILBERFORCE INITIATIVE

ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM INTERNATIONAL

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE

AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

CHRISTIAN SOLIDARITY WORLDWIDE – UK

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY NATIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICE

COORDINATION DES ASSOCIATIONS ET DES PARTICULIERS POUR LA LIBERTÉ DE CONSCIENCE – FRANCE (CAPLC)

EUROPEAN FEDERATION FOR FREEDOM OF BELIEF (FOB)

EUROPEAN INTERRELIGIOUS FORUM FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM (EIFRF)

INSTITUTE ON RELIGION AND DEMOCRACY

INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN CONCERN

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION

JUBILEE CAMPAIGN USA

GERARD NOODT FOUNDATION FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

OPEN DOORS USA

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX AUTONOMOUS CHURCH OF AMERICA

UNITED MACEDONIAN DIASPORA


Individuals:

Stephen Baskerville 
Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College

Benjamin Bull
Executive Director
Alliance Defending Freedom International

W. Cole Durham, Jr.
Director International Center for Law and Religion Studies 
Brigham Young University Law School

Dr. Joel C. Hunter
Senior Pastor
Northland , A Church Distributed

Jeff King
President
International Christian Concern

Faith J. H. McDonnell
Director, Religious Liberty Program
Institute on Religion and Democracy

Greg Mitchell 
President
The Mitchell Firm

Scott Morgan 
President
Red Eagle Enterprises

Eric Roux
President
EIFRF

Roy Speckhardt
Executive Director
American Humanist Association

William C. Walsh 
Human Rights Attorney 
Bisceglie & Walsh

Godfrey Yogarajah Executive Director 
Religious Liberty Commission
World Evangelical Alliance


1. Constitution of Nepal 2015, Preliminary Draft, section 31(3).
2. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948).
3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, S. Treaty Doc. No. 95-20, 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967), 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
4. Rapporteur’s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/RapporteursDigestFreedomReligionBelief.pdf  
5. Id.
6. Most notably is the United Nations 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, A/RES/36/55.

The European Parliament Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance welcomes the adoption of the EU Action Plan on Human Rights. The Intergroup is particularly pleased by the inclusion of specific freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) action points. The Intergroup Co-Presidents, on behalf of the Intergroup, had written to the High Representative in May expressing their concern that the draft Action Plan failed to include FoRB action points.

 

Paragraph 12 which is dedicated to freedom of religion or belief reinforces the EU's commitment to protecting religious or belief minorities in the world. It includes the Intergroup's recommendations to the EU, in its Annual Reports 2013 and 2014, to raise FoRB violations with third countries, cooperate with international partners, deepen awareness of FoRB in the EU institutions and for greater dialogue with religious or belief leaders and organisations.  Intergroup Co-President Dennis de Jong said "I am pleased that the EU included FoRB action points and has taken on board some of our recommendations. Still the inclusion of the action points is not enough. The EU must now show political will to implement the action points by taking heed of other recommendations we made in our Annual Reports such as better policy coherence and EIDHR funding for religious or belief organisations." 

 

The Intergroup also expresses its disappointment that although Paragraph 31 focuses on the implementation of EU Guidelines, the EU failed to include a specific FoRB action point on the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief. The Intergroup believes that the Guidelines are an effective tool but that the EU should ensure it undertakes the actions it committed itself to in the Guidelines. Intergroup Co-President Peter van Dalen said "At an event two years ago in the European Parliament to mark the adoption of the EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief, we spoke about how important the Guidelines are and how they would enable the EU to better promote FoRB. However the Guidelines can only be effective if they are a live document. The EU should have taken the opportunity of the Action Plan to have a specific action point on the implementation of FoRB Guidelines and a commitment that diplomats in EU delegations, in countries where FoRB is most restricted, are informed of the Guidelines."

 

Alfiaz Vaiya

Secretariat

Intergroup on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Religious Tolerance 

Tel: +32 (0) 471661381

Email: Alfiaz.VAIYA@europarl.europa.eu  

a.vaiya@religiousfreedom.eu

www.religiousfreedom.eu