The 2010 International Religious Freedom Report

Nothing for Europe to crow about.

The US State Department has just released its annual International Religious Freedom Report (you can find the Executive Summary here and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks introducing the report here).

The list of designated Countries of Particular Concern -- those that have "engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom" -- is not entirely unexpected: Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan. But Saudi was not the only US ally to come in for harsh words. The summary concludes the following about Egypt, for instance:

The status of respect for religious freedom by the government remained poor, unchanged from the previous year. Members of non-Muslim religious minorities officially recognized by the government generally worship without harassment; however, Christians and members of the Baha'i Faith, which the government does not recognize, face personal and collective discrimination, especially in government employment and their ability to build, renovate, and repair places of worship.... Government authorities often refused to provide converts with new identity documents indicating their chosen faith. The government failed to prosecute perpetrators of violence against Coptic Christians in a number of cases.... [and] continued to contribute to a climate of impunity.

A few bald facts put the other side about holiday destinations like the Maldives, where you may be surprised to learn that the "law prohibits citizens from practising any religion other than Islam". While the "good news" includes the odd statement that might raise eyebrows among some readers. Take this one about Morocco: "In positive developments, on July 28, 2009, King Mohammed VI formally acknowledged the Holocaust..." Progress of a kind, one supposes.

Just as interesting, however, is what the report has to say about the UK and our neighbours.

In Austria, the report listed 200 anti-Semitic incidents, including one where a Palestinian refugee bit off part of a rabbi's finger.

In April, Belgium's "House of Representatives adopted draft legislation prohibiting persons from appearing in public with the face fully or partially covered, if it makes identification impossible. The draft legislation was sponsored by members of the center-right Francophone Liberal Party (MR), but it received nearly unanimous support in the House of Representatives. Because of religious freedom concerns, the sponsors made no mention in the text of burqas or niqabs. However, human rights advocates and spokespersons of the country's Muslim community criticized the initiative arguing that it was racially motivated."

France: "The country is home to Europe's largest Muslim and Jewish communities. Members of these and other groups were victims of violent physical attacks, attacks on their places of worship, and discrimination..... During the reporting period, the government proposed draft legislation that would prohibit the wearing of face-covering veils in public. Some religious groups criticized the proposed legislation because if passed it would restrict religious freedom." The bill has since been passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate, although a constitutional challenge is considered likely. "The public debate on this problem intensified when President Sarkozy condemned burqas as 'not welcome on French soil' during a speech on June 22, 2009."

Germany: the list of anti-Semitic incidents, many of them involving the vandalism and desecration of synagogues and cemeteries, to which the report refers is too long to repeat, but includes this horrific example: "during a soccer match, supporters of SV Muegeln-Ablass 09, a district-league soccer club in the eastern state of Saxony, chanted 'a tree, a noose, a Jew's neck' and 'we're building a subway, from Jerusalem to Auschwitz,' until the match was stopped."

Hungary: "Extremist groups grew in size and number. These included the far right-wing political party Jobbik, which grew in popularity while taking openly anti-Semitic positions, and winning 47 parliamentary seats (12 percent of the total) in the April 25 national election." When its members took their seats in May, "Jobbik Chairman Gabor Vona wore a black vest with symbols of the party's banned paramilitary arm, the Magyar Garda."

Italy: Despite many efforts, which the report details, "no Muslim group has been able to build a mosque in the past year", while in April a 1975 anti-terror law was used to prosecute a woman for wearing a niqab. She was fined Euros 500.

Netherlands: The report mentions the electoral success of Geert Wilders and his trial on charges of inciting hatred against Muslims (which has just collapsed), anti-Semitic attacks and arson attempts on mosques. "Muslims faced societal resentment, attributable to perceptions that Islam is incompatible with Western values, that Muslim immigrants have failed to integrate, and that levels of criminal activity among Muslim youth are higher than the national average. Major incidents of violence against Muslims were rare; however, minor incidents including intimidation, brawls, vandalism, and graffiti with abusive language were common."

The list goes on, and you can find the full index for individual countries here.

But two patterns emerge: anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim attacks are far more commonplace all over the continent than we might wish to think. And, as Secretary Clinton said in her introductory speech : "Several European countries have placed harsh restrictions on religious expression." While this may not be the same as the threats to religious freedom she also mentions, from authoritarian regimes and from violent extremist groups, I would say it fits into her third category: "the quiet but persistent harm caused by intolerance and mistrust which can leave minority religious groups vulnerable and marginalized."

The headlines may be grabbed by what the report has to say about China and Saudi Arabia, but there is not so much for Europe to crow about in it, either. In fact, it's more of a stern "room for improvement".

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496