The problem with wanting to stick to a consistent and balanced secular and humanist outlook is that it is often a lonely road to walk on. Sure, when I want to criticise American foreign policy in the middle-east or express my disdain for the Indian right-wing, I find it pretty easy to garner support. However, the minute I start talking about freedom of expression and freedom of religion in, say, China, I find that most of my left-liberal friends, even the ones who won’t ever stop talking about minority rights in India, couldn't care less. And if I happen to talk about freedom of religion, or the lack thereof, in the middle-east, my Muslim friends treat me like I just agreed with a Subramanian Swamy editorial. I wonder what sort of a reaction I would be able to get out of all of you this time, if any.
A man is facing possible execution in Iran. His name is Yousef Nadarkhani. He has a wife and two young sons. His crime is that he converted from Islam to Christianity when he was 19. He subsequently went on to become a Christian priest, a pastor, which I am guessing is what provoked the Islamic authorities in Iran more than anything else.
And before you start thinking that the reason why Malcolm George is so concerned about Yousef Nadarkhani is because he is a Christian, let me make something clear. I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, with no religious affiliations or spiritual inclinations. I do not agree with Nadarkhani’s religion or with any other religion. However, I believe in the freedom of expression and religion, and vehemently oppose any attempt to force people into changing their beliefs or religion, particularly through violent means. Like Voltaire said, ‘I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it’.
Death for apostasy, or renouncing one’s religion, is the most serious violation of this right to choose and practice one’s religion. Sadly, even in the 21st century, we have countries like Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, amongst others, where if you are a Muslim, you are forbidden by law to change your religion. If you do, you face a possible judicial execution, just like Yousef Nadarkhani. Then there are countries like Greece, China, Myanmar, Vietnam and Malaysia, which are a step below this and either have a state religion, or certain state sanctioned religions. One can practice other religions in private but public promotion of those other religions might get you into trouble. Fine, you don’t get executed but it is still in clear violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is an international treaty which, in its Article 18, guarantees that, ‘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’. And yes, Iran has signed and ratified this treaty, so it does put the authorities there in a bit of a pickle. So what do the Iranian authorities do? They now say that Nadarkhani’s crime is a curious mixture of being a Zionist, a threat to national security, rape, running a brothel and extortion. Quite convenient isn’t it? Especially when copies of the court brief from last year clearly show that Nadarkhani was being tried for apostasy.
What I find shocking is the almost complete absence of this story in mainstream media. BBC is absolutely silent on this. Al Jazeera, the same. Before this I had the greatest respect for Al Jazeera but this has just left me more than a little disappointed. Just goes to show that a multiplicity of views is still no guarantee for a balanced viewpoint.
Even the big human rights organisations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, only got around to giving importance to this story a week back. Of course, when liberal media and organisations fail to take up such issues, it gives the religious right a ‘god-given’ opportunity to justify its existence. In this case, it is the Christian Solidarity Worldwide which has been fighting for Yousef Nadarkhani. Christian Solidarity Worldwide is ostensibly a human rights organisation ‘working for religious freedom through advocacy and human rights, in the pursuit of justice’. But hey, make no mistake; it is called Christian Solidarity for a reason.
I absolutely hate it when I find that an issue that I am passionate about is the same issue that organisations like CSW and Fox News are passionate about as well. But I don’t have a choice since the liberals of this world are mostly silent.
C’mon liberal, secular people – break your silence. Or is this issue not fashionably left enough for you?
