Category:The Mitchell Firm: Difference between revisions

|

|

*On behalf of 43 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of the nomination of a qualified Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom as soon as possible, and to allow Ambassador David Saperstein to stay in this post and continue his essential work until the Senate confirms a new nominee. This international religious freedom post is too vital to our national security to allow it to become vacant for any length of time. International religious freedom strengthens cultures and provides the foundation for stable democracies and their components, including civil society, economic growth, and social harmony. As such, it is also an effective counter-terrorism weapon as it pre-emptively undermines religious extremism. From Cyrus Cylinder to Roger Williams 1663 Colonial Charter, history and modern scholarship make it clear that where people are allowed to practice their faith freely, they are less likely to be alienated from the government, and more likely to be good citizens. We cannot allow the post of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom to go vacant at this critical time when assaults on religious freedom around the world are systemic and growing. In fact, the current state of international religious freedom is one of deepening crisis-according to the Pew Research Centers latest annual study on global restrictions on religion, 74% of the worlds population live in countries with a high or very high overall level of restriction on religion; and there has been a marked increase in the number of countries that experienced religion-related terrorist activities, including acts carried out by such groups as Boko Haram, al-Qaida and the Islamic State. Congress just passed the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act to strengthen U.S. law and more prominently integrate this foundational human right into U.S. foreign policy and national security strategies. In so doing, the United States just sent a clear and urgent message regarding the inherent dignity of every human being, while advancing global security in the fight against persecution, religious extremism and terrorism. Allowing Ambassador Saperstein, who helped to rebuild the International Religious Freedom Office and legitimize religious freedom as a foreign policy issue within the State Department-and earned high praise from across the political spectrum-to continue his essential work while you search for a qualified replacement will maintain our commitment to national and global security without interruption. In looking for his replacement, the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) states, The Ambassador at Large shall be a principal adviser to the President and the Secretary of State regarding matters affecting religious freedom abroad As such, we urge you to appoint a high-profile Ambassador with a demonstrated expertise in foreign policy and religious freedom.

*

*On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our continuing deep concern about rising restrictions on religion in the Republic of Kazakhstan; and to urge U.S. government leaders to engage Kazakh President Nazarbayev and leaders of his government regarding the 2011 Religion Law and related amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code, and urge them to amend the 2011 Religion Law and related articles in these Codes in order to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards, Kazakhstan's international commitments, and its own Constitution. Related to this, shared the Kazakhstan report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which recommends reforms to the 2011 Religion Law. The brief summary of this formal report on his mission to Kazakhstan stated:

*While acknowledging a general appreciation of religious diversity in the country, he noticed adverse attitudes towards some non-traditional religious communities. The State monitors religious activities strictly, with a view to preventing extremism and to combating sects deemed destructive to peoples well-being. Many of the measures adopted for this purpose are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, the mandatory registration of religious communities, in conjunction with tightly knit stipulations, largely hampers free religious practice, which takes place in an atmosphere of legal insecurity.

*Further, the Special Rapporteurs conclusions include:

*66. the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations shows restrictive features that are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. The most obvious problem concerns the mandatory status of official registration. Failure to obtain this status means that a religious community is deemed illegal, which has far-reaching negative repercussions on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, even those communities which are registered suffer to some extent from legal insecurity, inter alia due to the official confinement of permitted religious activities to certain predefined issues and territorial boundaries. In general, the 2011 Law is based on the assumption that the exercise of core aspects of freedom of religion depends on specific acts of Government approval - thereby turning the relationship between freedom and limitations, as generally understood in the framework of human rights, upside down.

*67. While Kazakhstan has broadly embraced religious pluralism, members of non-traditional small religious communities, frequently branded as sects, continue to experience suspicion, mistrust and discrimination in society. Moreover, some provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code on Administrative Offences - both the existing and the new Codes - which are aimed at combating religious hatred or religious extremism - are defined only vaguely, thus creating a climate of legal insecurity, which is further exacerbated by shortcomings in the handling of criminal procedures, long pretrial detention and related problems. Similar problems are associated with the 2005 Law on Countering Extremism.

*Finally, the Special Rapporteurs recommendations include:

*(a) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government consider amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution to bring them into line with article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

*(b) The Government should bring its constitutional provisions pertinent to freedom of religion or belief fully into line with article 18 of the Covenant and other relevant international human rights standards.

*(d) Above all, the Special Rapporteur would like to recommend far-reaching reforms of the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations based on an understanding that registration should be in the service of freedom of religion or belief which, due to its status as a universal human right, inheres in all human beings, prior to - and independent of - any specific acts of administrative approval. The most important consequence would be that registration should be an offer, not a mandatory requirement, for religious community practice. Non-registered communities must be able to operate free from discrimination and free from fear of intimidation.

*Also shared a recent UN Human Rights Committee decision that adopted views and conclusions that an individual-Viktor Yakovlevich Leven (the author)-was a victim of violations by Kazakhstan of his rights under Article 18 of the ICCPR. In the Consideration of the merits section of this decision against Kazakhstan are the following three points:

*9.2 In the present case, the Committee notes that, not having been registered as a foreign missionary on behalf of his church, the author was convicted for conducting missionary activity, which consisted of preaching and praying and conducting meetings and religious rituals among the followers of the church

*9.4 The Committee concludes that the punishment imposed on the author, and in particular its harsh consequences for the author, who is facing deportation, amount to a limitation of the authors right to manifest his religion under article 18, paragraph 1; that the limitation has not been shown to serve any legitimate purpose identified in article 18, paragraph 3; and neither has the State party shown that this sweeping limitation of the right to manifest religion is proportionate to any legitimate purpose that it might serve. The limitation therefore does not meet the requirements of article 18, paragraph 3, and the Committee accordingly finds that the authors rights under article 18, paragraph 1, have been violated.

*10.The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation by the State party of the authors rights under article 18 of the Covenant.

*Also shared the UN Human Rights Committee's second periodic report of Kazakhstan. On July 11, 2016, the Committee adopted principal matters of concern and recommendations, including:

*13.The Committee is concerned about the broad formulation of the concepts of extremism, inciting social or class hatred and religious hatred or enmity under the State partys criminal legislation and the use of such legislation on extremism to unduly restrict freedoms of religion, expression, assembly and association. It is also concerned about reports that counter-terrorism activities continue to target in particular members or presumed members of banned or unregistered Islamic groups, such as the Tabligh Jamaat.

*14.The State party should bring its counter-terrorism and counter-extremism legislation and practices into full compliance with its obligations under the Covenant, inter alia by revising the relevant legislative provisions with a view to clarifying and narrowing the broad concepts referred to above, to ensure that they comply with the principles of legal certainty and predictability and that the application of such legislation does not suppress protected conduct and speech

*47.The Committee is concerned about undue restrictions on the exercise of freedom of religious belief, including in the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, such as the mandatory registration of religious organizations, the ban on unregistered religious activities, and the restrictions on the importation and distribution of religious materials. The Committee is further concerned about the use of broadly formulated crimes and administrative offences in the Criminal Code, including of articles 174 and 404, the Administrative Code, and the legislation on combating extremism to punish individuals exercising their freedom of religion and belief with severe sanctions.

*48.The State party should guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of religion and belief and freedom to manifest a religion or belief in practice. It should consider bringing article 22 of its Constitution in line with the Covenant and revise all relevant laws and practices with a view to removing all restrictions that go beyond the narrowly construed restrictions permitted under article 18 of the Covenant.

*Also shared the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) call for Kazakhstan to make revisions to the Religion Law. The call came in its Preliminary Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Legal Framework On Countering Extremism and Terrorism in the Republic of Kazakhstan, issued on 6 October 2016:

*80. UN human rights monitoring bodies have recently reiterated their concerns about undue restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief imposed by the 2011 Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations of Kazakhstan the Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations should be revised to ensure that religious groups/organizations can be formed and operate freely even in the absence of registration or without the States prior approval.

{{Infobox USLobbyBox

| DocID=[http://disclosures.house.gov/ld/pdfform.aspx?id=300831030 300831030]

| reportYear=2016

| filingPeriod=3rd quarter

| registrantName=[[:Category:The Mitchell Firm|The Mitchell Firm, Inc.]]

| clientName=[[:Category:Church of Scientology International|Church of Scientology International]]

| lobbyist=[[:Category:Greg Mitchell|Greg Mitchell]]

| income=$20000

| agencies=[[:Category:US Commission on International Religious Freedom|US Commission on International Religious Freedom]], [[:Category:US House of Representatives|US House of Representatives]], [[:Category:US Senate|US Senate]], [[:Category:US State Department|US State Department]], [[:Category:White House|White House]]

| issue1=[[:Category:2015|2015]], [[:Category:International Religious Freedom Act Amendments|International Religious Freedom Act Amendments]], [[:Category:Office of International Religious Freedom|Office of International Religious Freedom]], [[:Category:US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom|US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom]], [[:Category:US Countries of Particular Concern List|US Countries of Particular Concern List]], [[:Category:US State Department|US State Department]]

| issue2=[[:Category:Nigeria|Nigeria]], [[:Category:Linda Thomas-Greenfield|Linda Thomas-Greenfield]], [[:Category:Boko Haram|Boko Haram]]

| issue3=[[:Category:Global repeal of blasphemy laws resolution|Global repeal of blasphemy laws resolution]], [[:Category:United Nations|United Nations]], [[:Category:Pakistan|Pakistan]], [[:Category:Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia]], [[:Category:Egypt|Egypt]]

| issue4=[[:Category:International Criminal Court|International Criminal Court]], [[:Category:Nigeria|Nigeria]], [[:Category:Boko Haram|Boko Haram]], [[:Category:US Commission on International Religious Freedom|US Commission on International Religious Freedom]], [[:Category:Iraq|Iraq]], [[:Category:Syria|Syria]], [[:Category:Libya|Libya]]

On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of inclusion of an amendment in the FY17 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would permit more robust U.S. support of International Criminal Court cases, including those involving religious persecution.

The United States has long been a champion of accountability and justice for perpetrators of atrocity crimes, including in Nazi Germany, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Cambodia. The passage of this amendment will further solidify American leadership on the rule of law and human rights, and, of particular interest to us, will allow the U.S. to promote accountability and justice in conflict situations involving religious freedom abuses.

The International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) is the worlds only permanent international tribunal mandated to investigate and prosecute atrocity crimes. The ICCs governing statute specifically includes religious persecution as a punishable offense within the three core atrocity crimes that the Court prosecutes - genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - and religiously motivated crimes are implicated in six of the nine country situations currently before the Court. In light of the ICCs mandate to prosecute perpetrators of religious persecution, and as a result of the recognition that the Court serves to protect core religious values, including justice, bearing witness, redress, protecting the vulnerable, and helping to lay the foundation for durable peace, many faith-based organizations from diverse cultural, social, and political backgrounds support the work and mission of the ICC.

Moreover, the U.S. has been broadly supportive of all of the ICCs cases, as they are consistent with U.S. national interests. For instance, the State Departments Rewards for Justice Program was created in 1984 and has been used for over 30 years to help apprehend and prosecute international criminals. In 2013, Congress passed a bipartisan expansion of this program to allow for the payment of up to $5 million to individuals who provide information that leads to the capture of ICC fugitives.

Yet, an outdated provision of U.S. law hampers Americas ability to provide the full array of professional, logistical, and other resources to ICC cases. Presently, the U.S. can only provide limited, in-kind support to the ICC on a case-by-case basis. This results in the U.S. being unable to provide the ICC with the resources needed to bring to justice perpetrators of atrocities, including the most egregious abuses of international religious freedom. Essentially, this means that the hands of the U.S. government are tied when it comes to assisting in crucial efforts to prosecute atrocity crimes, including religious persecution. The language we are supporting, a proposed Atrocity Accountability Amendment (Amendment), would make a moderate, limited, and narrowly-tailored change to U.S. law that would allow the U.S. to provide to the ICC the same type of critical support that it provided to the Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, and other international tribunals. This change would ensure that Americas options in the fight against atrocities are not artificially restricted and would give the U.S. more tools in its toolbox to counter impunity, promote accountability, and contribute to justice and peacebuilding efforts.

This change could, for instance, mean that the U.S. could offer finances for additional investigators, witness protection assistance, sophisticated law enforcement technologies, and expert scientists and other professionals to the ICCs current investigation of Boko Harams atrocities in Nigeria, religious persecution in the Central African Republic, and Joseph Kony and the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda and other areas - all cases which the United States has a principled and strategic interest in supporting, especially where national security concerns are implicated.

The limitation existing under current law should be of serious concern to the United States because, in many cases, the ICC is the only mechanism available to hold individuals accountable for their commission of religiously-motivated atrocities. Indeed, in its 2015 and 2016 Annual Reports, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommended that the U.S. push for a UN Security Council Resolution that refers atrocities committed by the so-called Islamic State to the ICC. In recent congressional testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, the then-chair of USCIRF specifically recommended the change to U.S. law that the Amendment would make.

Earlier this year, the House unanimously passed a resolution declaring the atrocities being committed against religious and ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria to be genocide and crimes against humanity, and calling for prosecution of these crimes. Passing the Amendment is one of the most concrete and readily available ways in which the House can promote the accountability sought in its resolution, as the change it makes would allow the U.S. to more meaningfully support efforts to bring Islamic State perpetrators of atrocities to justice through the ICC. These efforts would apply not only to Iraq and Syria, but also to Islamic State atrocities in Libya, where the ICC currently has jurisdiction.

| issue5=

| issue6=

| issue7=

}}