The subject of human rights and religious freedom is one of the most critical issues in contemporary Indonesia, as religious minorities suffer not only from discrimination but also increasingly from physical attacks because of their beliefs, and the cases of the Ahmadiyya community are a clear example.
THE-QUASI GOVERNMENTAL INDONESIAN COUNSEL OF ULEMA(MUI) HAS DECLARED AHMADI MUSLIMS AS “DEVIANT” AND HERETICAL TO ISLAM–PERPETUATING VIOLENCE AGAINST THE COMMUNITY 2008 JOINT MINISTERIAL DECREEEST ABLISHED LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM OF BELIEF FOR AHMADI MUSLIMS IN INDONESIA DESTRUCTIO OF AHMADI MUSLIM MOSQUES &P ROHIBITION ON BUILDING NEW PLACES OF WORSHIP BANS ON LITERATURE BELONGING TO THEAHMADIYYAMUSLIM COMMUNITY LACK OF ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHOSE HOMES WERE DESTROYED BY INDONESIAN MILITANTS
CAP Liberté de Conscience is a secular European created in 1995 and dedicated to protect the Right of Freedom of Religion and Belief. We combats all forms of discrimination based on religion or belief by alerting European and International bodies. We collects testimonies of discrimination and human rights violations affecting religious or belief communities in order to disseminate them to international bodies, and in order to raise awareness and inform them as well as to generate debate on the protection of Freedom of Religion and Belief. We also advocates for any religious or spiritual group facing discrimination to have their right to Freedom of Religion and Belief recognized.
On behalf of the Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience (CAP Freedom of Conscience) and International Human Rights Commissio , it is my privilege to invite you to our NGO side event highlighting the persecution faced by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in Indonesia during the 41st session of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review in Geneva.
Le gouvernement français a institué un système unique en Europe de surveillance de ces minorités qui entraîne de graves manquements de l’Etat aux principes de liberté de religion ou de croyance, d’égalité des citoyens français devant les institutions nationales et de fraternité en clivant les citoyens selon leur appartenance à une minorité religieuse ou de croyance reconnue ou non et en instaurant un climat de suspicion et parfois même de haine pour les croyances non traditionnelles et non normatives.
No society can claim to be idealisticly egalitarian as certain elements of every society always claim superiority over the others, either on ethnic, numerical, or religious basis and try to usurp some rights of the weaker segments, but the governing forces of the societies usually play positive regulatory role in order to quell the unruly advancements of the powerful groups in order to safeguard the rights of the minorities or those weaker segments. In modern world the States have promulgated and implemented laws to guarantee basic human rights for all of its citizens irrespective of their caste, creed or religion and many States have guaranteed these basic human rights by incorporating them in their Constitution or are otherwise accepted by the humanity, while assuring its citizens and international community that the guaranteed right would not be violated at any cost and in case of violation the aggrieved person would be allowed some kind of remedy by approaching the Constitutional Courts for enforcement of those rights.
The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community (“AMC”) firmly adheres to Islam. Ahmadi Muslims believe that the founder of their Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, was a subordinate non-law bearing prophet who claimed to be the same messiah and reformer foretold by Prophet Muhammad and awaited by all Muslims. An estimated 400,000 Ahmadi Muslims currently live in Indonesia
This submission outlines how Clause 9 is likely to result in an increase in citizenship deprivation orders that are incompatible with the UK’s international and domestic human rights obligations and highlights that it would allow the UK Government to retrospectively legitimise previous unlawful deprivation decisions. It recommends that Clause 9 be removed from the Bill and that the UK Government undertake not to reintroduce it in this or any other Parliamentary session.
