NEPAL
|
FORBES Magazine Feb 7, 2018 article
Ewelina U. Ochab World Affairs contributor |
URGENT UPDATE |
Nepal's Protection Of Religious Freedom On Downward Spiral
In early 2015, Nepal became subject of hot debate as the country considered a draft Constitution that enshrined several controversial provisions, The provisions in question had the effect of limiting the right to Nepalese citizenship, diminishing protection of the rights of minorities, and reducing protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief alongside several other critically condemned provisions. Over the subsequent months, the Nepalese Constituent Assembly conducted a public consultation on the draft Constitution, having invited contributions from civil societies and individuals. Despite the public consultation, the serious concerns have not been addressed.
The Constitution was ultimately adopted on September 20, 2015. The approved wording of the Constitution, despite having undergone some amendments, falls significantly short of international human rights standards and is not aligned with Nepal’s international obligations, for example, obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
One of the most controversial provisions is the right to freedom of religion or belief in Section 26 of the Constitution. Extra scrutiny is urgently required as the provision has given rise to subsequent criminal law amendments to enforce the constitutional protection (or lack thereof) of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Why is Section 26 of the Nepalese Constitution so concerning?
Section 26 of the Nepalese Constitution states that:
(1) Each person shall be free to profess, practice, and preserve his/her religion according to his/her faith.
(2) Every religious denomination shall, maintaining its independent existence, have the right to manage and protect its religious places and religious trusts in accordance with law.
(3) While exercising the right as provided for by this Article, no person shall act or make others act in a manner which is contrary to public health, decency and morality, or behave or act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation, or convert a person of one religion to another religion, or disturb the religion of other people. Such an act shall be punishable by law.
The provision is problematic for several reasons. First, the scope of the right is narrower than currently accepted international standard as it does not incorporate and protect the right to choose and change religion, or not to have a belief. Second, despite the fact that religious profession is safeguarded in Section 26.1, Section 26.3 places significant limits on the practice and manifestation of religion or belief. Indeed, section 26.3 prohibits anyone to act in a manner ‘which is contrary to public health, decency and morality or behave or act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation.’ The reference to acts contrary to public decency or morality are very vague and are left open to broad interpretation, leaving the potential for restrictions upon religious practices that are not accepted or welcomed by the religious majority. Furthermore, Section 26.3 prohibits religious conversion or even the act of ‘disturbing’ the religion of other. This leaves open potential prohibitions on trying to convert others and curtails an individual’s ability to speak about their religion to others. This limitation potentially creates two crimes in one sentence; blasphemy and ban on proselytising.
Blasphemy and bans on proselytising are severe limitations to place on the right to freedom of religion or belief. They are always considered to be excessive and are contrary to the spirit of the right of freedom of religion or belief. Countries who have such prohibitions in their law cannot claim to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief, certainly not to international human rights standards. Unfortunately, such limitations do still exist. At least thirteen countries still have the death penalty for blasphemy laws: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. One such example of a prisoner awaiting her death sentence for blasphemy is Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman who has been on death row since 2010 for ‘drinking a cup of water from a well.’
Analysing cases of blasphemy from any part of the world, it is clear that the provisions, even if allegedly intended to further a legitimate aim, have always been abused. The victims are always minority religious groups. The minority groups’ right to freedom of religion or belief and its manifestation will always give way whenever it clashes, disagrees, offends, upsets a member of the majority religion. The current situation in Nepal seems to push the country in this dangerous direction.
Despite the fact that, at the time of debating the Constitution in 2015, Nepal confirmed that it would uphold its international human rights obligations, stories of religious minorities being adversely affected by the law have started to circulate the media. For example, in mid-2016, Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that eight Christians in Charikot, eastern Nepal were arrested and were accused of trying to convert children ‘after sharing a comic book on the story of Jesus.’
The provision on the right to freedom of religion or belief in the Nepalese Constitution was not an end in itself, and criminal code amendments followed to give teeth to the section 26 constitutional provision. Whilst criminal code amendments were introduced as early as 2014, the 2015 Constitution provisions legitimised them.
On August 8, 2017, the Nepalese Parliament passed a new criminal code bill to incorporate the section 26 constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or belief and to outline penalties for offenders. Section 9.156 of the new criminal code bill criminalises the ‘hurting of religious sentiment’ and section 9.158 prohibits religious conversion and undermining or jeopardising religions or faiths. The offence triggers a punishment of up to 5 years’ in custody and a fine of up to 50,000 rupees (the equivalent of $488). The offence also carries other consequences, for example, deportation if the offender is a foreigner.
The Constitution was ultimately adopted on September 20, 2015. The approved wording of the Constitution, despite having undergone some amendments, falls significantly short of international human rights standards and is not aligned with Nepal’s international obligations, for example, obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
One of the most controversial provisions is the right to freedom of religion or belief in Section 26 of the Constitution. Extra scrutiny is urgently required as the provision has given rise to subsequent criminal law amendments to enforce the constitutional protection (or lack thereof) of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
Why is Section 26 of the Nepalese Constitution so concerning?
Section 26 of the Nepalese Constitution states that:
(1) Each person shall be free to profess, practice, and preserve his/her religion according to his/her faith.
(2) Every religious denomination shall, maintaining its independent existence, have the right to manage and protect its religious places and religious trusts in accordance with law.
(3) While exercising the right as provided for by this Article, no person shall act or make others act in a manner which is contrary to public health, decency and morality, or behave or act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation, or convert a person of one religion to another religion, or disturb the religion of other people. Such an act shall be punishable by law.
The provision is problematic for several reasons. First, the scope of the right is narrower than currently accepted international standard as it does not incorporate and protect the right to choose and change religion, or not to have a belief. Second, despite the fact that religious profession is safeguarded in Section 26.1, Section 26.3 places significant limits on the practice and manifestation of religion or belief. Indeed, section 26.3 prohibits anyone to act in a manner ‘which is contrary to public health, decency and morality or behave or act or make others act to disturb public law and order situation.’ The reference to acts contrary to public decency or morality are very vague and are left open to broad interpretation, leaving the potential for restrictions upon religious practices that are not accepted or welcomed by the religious majority. Furthermore, Section 26.3 prohibits religious conversion or even the act of ‘disturbing’ the religion of other. This leaves open potential prohibitions on trying to convert others and curtails an individual’s ability to speak about their religion to others. This limitation potentially creates two crimes in one sentence; blasphemy and ban on proselytising.
Blasphemy and bans on proselytising are severe limitations to place on the right to freedom of religion or belief. They are always considered to be excessive and are contrary to the spirit of the right of freedom of religion or belief. Countries who have such prohibitions in their law cannot claim to protect the right to freedom of religion or belief, certainly not to international human rights standards. Unfortunately, such limitations do still exist. At least thirteen countries still have the death penalty for blasphemy laws: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. One such example of a prisoner awaiting her death sentence for blasphemy is Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman who has been on death row since 2010 for ‘drinking a cup of water from a well.’
Analysing cases of blasphemy from any part of the world, it is clear that the provisions, even if allegedly intended to further a legitimate aim, have always been abused. The victims are always minority religious groups. The minority groups’ right to freedom of religion or belief and its manifestation will always give way whenever it clashes, disagrees, offends, upsets a member of the majority religion. The current situation in Nepal seems to push the country in this dangerous direction.
Despite the fact that, at the time of debating the Constitution in 2015, Nepal confirmed that it would uphold its international human rights obligations, stories of religious minorities being adversely affected by the law have started to circulate the media. For example, in mid-2016, Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported that eight Christians in Charikot, eastern Nepal were arrested and were accused of trying to convert children ‘after sharing a comic book on the story of Jesus.’
The provision on the right to freedom of religion or belief in the Nepalese Constitution was not an end in itself, and criminal code amendments followed to give teeth to the section 26 constitutional provision. Whilst criminal code amendments were introduced as early as 2014, the 2015 Constitution provisions legitimised them.
On August 8, 2017, the Nepalese Parliament passed a new criminal code bill to incorporate the section 26 constitutional restrictions on the right to freedom of religion or belief and to outline penalties for offenders. Section 9.156 of the new criminal code bill criminalises the ‘hurting of religious sentiment’ and section 9.158 prohibits religious conversion and undermining or jeopardising religions or faiths. The offence triggers a punishment of up to 5 years’ in custody and a fine of up to 50,000 rupees (the equivalent of $488). The offence also carries other consequences, for example, deportation if the offender is a foreigner.
The Story of the Messiah
Ministry outreach on radio
The life of Jesus Christ the Messiah as told by a Nepalese father to his adopted son is a series of 56 ~ 15 minute radio programs. On local radio in Nepal they are popular, especially during Christmas and Easter seasons .
Local radio stations provide information to residents during times of tragedy and this is the new norm now. Locally operated Christian format stations are operational in Nepal. They give direction and guidance for help and offer hope to all in need during the trying times.
Listeners write . . .
|
Hi, your program is very good, I listen to Story of the Messiah when it is on radio, and haven’t had chance to hear it lately. I work in radio company and with my network we have over 20 FM radio stations covering throughout Nepal. I would like to have the Story of the Messiah programs go on air through all those radio stations. Please let me know how to contact you for more details.
|
|
|
|
Story Of the Messiah (SOM) production was translated and produced in studios in Nepal. It was recorded and mixed and tested in 56 episodes. Then it was released for broadcast on many FM stations.
TestimonialHi my name is Anita, I am a young girl from Brahmin family, I came from Traditional religion, but I truly trust in God. I have the Bible with me and read it. I have not been baptized yet but have received Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I have not been able to go to Church but I hate worshiping idols. God has fulfilled my heart. Some times I struggle being a girl from Brahmin family because when I share the good news of Jesus to others, they ridicule me, it hurts me. I would love to use my time doing God’s work, please pray for me.
|
|
How it started . . .It was produced using a Nepali family to tell the story. They did this story so that the churches of Nepal and Nepalese around the world would be able to listen to the whole story of Jesus Christ. The Story of the Messiah doesn’t talk just about what Jesus did, it also answers questions like, “Why did Jesus do that?” All of the writing of the dialogue in the Nepalese family was completed and it resulted in a 56 series audio that is played on local radio stations in Nepal.
|
