Global chemical production is growing rapidly, supporting the green and digital transitions but also creating risks for health and ecosystems. According to a European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing, published today, key policy measures foreseen in the European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability offer significant potential to ensure consumer safety, cut pollution and clean up material flows.
Chemicals play a key role across economic sectors in Europe and globally, including agriculture, energy, healthcare, and manufacturing. Almost all consumer goods contain chemicals to improve product functionality. At the same time, evidence suggests that chemical pollution has exceeded safe limits at global level. Our pervasive use and release of chemicals means that today, the bodies of European citizens are contaminated with a large number of chemicals — some at levels damaging to health. Europeans are also concerned about the negative impacts of chemicals on health and the environment.
According to the EEA briefing ‘Managing the systemic use of chemicals in Europe’, the increasing production and consumption of chemicals creates challenges at global scale, ranging from negative impacts on people’s health and pollution of our environment to reinforcing our dependency on fossil fuels and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence suggests that we have now exceeded the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Chemicals in products also present a barrier to re-use or recycling, hampering resource efficiency and the transition to circular economy.
The EEA briefing highlights the importance of delivering on key actions, foreseen in the European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability, to ensure safe products for citizens, keep ecosystems clean and healthy and support the transition to a circular economy.
These include:
Promoting chemicals that aresafe and sustainable by design, harnessing the innovative capacity of the chemical industry to provide technologies, materials and products that are non-toxic, low-carbon and fit for circularity;
Phasing out uses of harmful substances that are not essential. Harmful chemicals should be used only when they are necessary for health, safety or if critical for the functioning of society and if there are no acceptable alternatives; and
Managing the risks of chemicals in groups, rather than one-by-one, to expedite protection of citizens and the environment.
The European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability is part of the European Green Deal aiming to better protect citizens and the environment and to boost innovation for safe and sustainable chemicals in Europe.
Global chemical production is growing rapidly, supporting the green and digital transitions but also creating risks for health and ecosystems. According to a European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing, published today, key policy measures foreseen in the European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability offer significant potential to ensure consumer safety, cut pollution and clean up material flows.
Chemicals play a key role across economic sectors in Europe and globally, including agriculture, energy, healthcare, and manufacturing. Almost all consumer goods contain chemicals to improve product functionality. At the same time, evidence suggests that chemical pollution has exceeded safe limits at global level. Our pervasive use and release of chemicals means that today, the bodies of European citizens are contaminated with a large number of chemicals — some at levels damaging to health. Europeans are also concerned about the negative impacts of chemicals on health and the environment.
According to the EEA briefing ‘Managing the systemic use of chemicals in Europe’, the increasing production and consumption of chemicals creates challenges at global scale, ranging from negative impacts on people’s health and pollution of our environment to reinforcing our dependency on fossil fuels and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Evidence suggests that we have now exceeded the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Chemicals in products also present a barrier to re-use or recycling, hampering resource efficiency and the transition to circular economy.
The EEA briefing highlights the importance of delivering on key actions, foreseen in the European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability, to ensure safe products for citizens, keep ecosystems clean and healthy and support the transition to a circular economy.
These include:
Promoting chemicals that aresafe and sustainable by design, harnessing the innovative capacity of the chemical industry to provide technologies, materials and products that are non-toxic, low-carbon and fit for circularity;
Phasing out uses of harmful substances that are not essential. Harmful chemicals should be used only when they are necessary for health, safety or if critical for the functioning of society and if there are no acceptable alternatives; and
Managing the risks of chemicals in groups, rather than one-by-one, to expedite protection of citizens and the environment.
The European Commission’s chemicals strategy for sustainability is part of the European Green Deal aiming to better protect citizens and the environment and to boost innovation for safe and sustainable chemicals in Europe.
Parliament’s Environment Committee agrees to an ambitious reduction of fluorinated greenhouse gases emissions, to further contribute to EU’s climate neutrality goal.
To accelerate innovation in, and the development of, more climate-friendly solutions and to provide certainty for consumers and investors, MEPs want to strengthen new requirements proposed by the Commission that prohibit the placing on the single market of products containing F-gases (Annex IV). The text also adds prohibitions on the use of F-gases for sectors where it is technologically and economically feasible to switch to alternatives that do not use F-gases, such as refrigeration, air conditioning, heat pumps and electrical switchgear.
Accelerate the transition to climate neutrality
The report introduces a steeper trajectory from 2039 onwards to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) placed on the EU market, with the goal of a zero HFC target by 2050 (Annex VII). Phasing out HFC production and consumption in the EU would align these updated rules with the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality goal.
According to MEPs, the Commission should closely monitor market developments in key sectors such as heat pumps and semiconductors. For heat pumps, the Commission needs to ensure that the HFC phase-down would not endanger the RePowerEU heat pump deployment targets as the industry has to work towards replacing HFCs with natural alternatives.
Enhance enforcement to prevent illegal trade
MEPs propose more action on illegal trade in these gases by proposing minimum administrative fines for non-compliance. They also want customs authorities to seize and confiscate F-gases imported or exported in violation of the rules, in line with the environmental crime directive.
Quote
Rapporteur Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, NL) said: “F-gases are not well known, but have major implications for our climate, as they are very powerful greenhouse gases. In most instances, natural alternatives are readily available. That’s why we voted for an ambitious position to fully phase out F-gases by 2050 and in most sectors already by the end of this decade. We are providing clarity to the market and a signal to invest in alternatives. Many European companies are already at the forefront of this development and will benefit from it, because of their market position and export opportunities.”
Next steps
The report is scheduled to be adopted during the 29-30 March 2023 plenary sitting and will constitute Parliament’s negotiating position with EU governments on the final shape of the legislation.
Background
Fluorinated greenhouse gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulphur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride, are man-made greenhouse gases (GHG) with high global warming potential. They are used in common appliances such as refrigerators, air-conditioning, heat pumps, fire protection, foams and aerosols. They are covered by the Paris Agreement together with CO2, methane and nitrous oxide and account for around 2,5% of EU’s GHG emissions.
In the City of Jerusalem, on March 1 and 2, 2023, the President of the “World Congress of Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue, A Path to Peace“, Mr Gustavo Guillermé, presented the Project 2023-2045 for peace.
The first forest of the American Continent Chapter, “A Path to Peace in Memory of the Victims of the Shoah“, was inaugurated. The place chosen was the Ben Shemen forest, 45 km from the Holy Land of Jerusalem, as it is the park of Argentine-Israeli friendship.
Guillermé, who from the beginning coordinated the project with the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael Foundation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was very happy that the first forest was planted in Israel, as the beginning of a longer project to be completed in 2045, where 6 million trees will be planted in each of the 5 continents, to commemorate the centenary of the end of the Shoah.
(c) Photo credit: Pierre Bastein CMDICIR – Aerial photo
The entire project is being carried out in collaboration with Keren Kayemet LeIsrael (KKL), one of the most important Jewish organizations that has existed for over 120 years and focuses on reforestation, education and other universal values, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Hebrew institution dedicated to documenting the victims of the Shoah and keeping records of Nazi war crimes.
For the first realization of this gigantic project, Guillermé had the support of members of the Church of Scientology from Argentina, Europe, Italy and Israel, who were enthusiastic about contributing to a project of these characteristics, since it is a positive way of remembering the victims, creating new life, which is perfectly aligned with the legacy of Ron Hubbard (founder of Dianetics and Scientology), and decided to dedicate it to him as his 112th birthday approaches on March 13.
The various events included a sapling planting, a visit to the Knesset (Israeli parliament) organized by MP Danny Danon, and a guided tour of the internationally known Yad Vashem memorial, which was crowned with the unveiling ceremony of the plaque in the forest. The delegation included Gustavo Guillermé as President of the World Congress of Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue Gustavo Libardi as President of the Church of Scientology Argentina, joined by the European Representative of the Office of Ron Hubbard, Jetmira Cremonesi, the President of the European Office of the Church of Scientology for Public Affairs and Human RightsIván Arjona, as well as local representatives of Scientology in Israel, parishioners from Argentina, Belgium, Israel, and were directly supported by the Italian Association for Tolerance and Human Rights.
(c) Photo credit: Pierre Bastein CMDICIR – Delegation at the Knesset
“Growing plants and keeping Israel green is both a science and an art,” says the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael organization’s website. “KKL’s three tree and plant nurseries, located in the southern, northern and central regions of the country, are laboratories where different species of trees and plants are grown for Israel’s forests and open spaces,” the website continues.
To learn more about one of the most successful tree-planting projects in the world, the delegation of Scientologists visited the “Eshtaol Nursery”, managed by the KKL. It is located north of Beit Shemes and near Ta’oz and Neve Shalom, south of the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem highway. Eshtaol is west of the Martyrs’ Forest and, being one of the largest forests in Israel, has become a popular recreation area with an 8-kilometre hiking trail.
The experts in charge of the area informed them that the nursery “supplies trees and shrubs for the central region of Israel, all the way to Yokne’am in the north. There are not many sites left for planting new forests in this area, so more than 350,000 seedlings are grown annually for forest renewal, replacement of burned trees, and public and urban spaces.“
Through the expert’s explanations, the philosophy, according to the Jewish vision, of the importance of planting trees was addressed.
For example, the website states that “the Bible compares trees to people and, like people, they speak, expressing their needs and general state of well-being through their size, colour, trunk density, etc.KKL-JNF nursery workers learn to communicate with trees, and they know that communication is good when they produce healthy trees that survive and thrive.” It is also a way to “improve on one’s own abilities, the imperfections that this world has, and it sets people up to be industrious and proactive” the expert stated.
“Being industrious is one of the ingredients expressed by the founder of Scientology, Ron Hubbard, in his non-religious work ‘The Way to Happiness’ for each person to have a better life” replied Arjona, who was fascinated by the parallels they found in common in both Judaism and Scientology which he “hopes will help to further increase our cooperation to help take care for the planet, because it is the home of all God’s creations, and where we can help each other to be closer to each other’s concept of Infinity, which is the main word in Scientology when we refer to God,” concluded Arjona.
“Eshtaol Plant and Tree Nursery have provided trees for special occasions, such as tree plantings by visiting heads of state at the KKL-JNF Forest of Nations, for ambassadors and others,” its website says.
In a relentless pursuit of the happiness of all humanity and a more sustainable environment in which to achieve it, the Scientologists’ delegation pledged to help raise awareness of the need to plant trees around the world, agreeing with the words of Ron Hubbard when he wrote in 1981 that:
“If others do not help safeguard and improve the environment, the way to happiness could have no roadbed to travel on at all”
Gustavo Guillermé travelled to Tel Aviv to visit the Scientology Center, as he does with every religious movement that aspires to a present and a future of peace.
The presentation ceremony took place at the “reception point” of the forest, which includes plaques to great personalities of the political and judicial world in Argentina and elsewhere. The plaques are placed on a nice set of totems, which allows to include the different people or organizations that have contributed greatly to the establishment, reforestation and maintenance of the forest.
Gioia Menascé, Representative of the Latin American section of the KKL made the introduction, thanking especially Guillermé and the delegation of Scientologists for supporting this much-needed project.
Menascé of the KKL introduced Ivan Arjona, who then thanked the KKL and Mr Gustavo Guillermé, as well as the various supporters,
“for honoring us with the possibility of contributing to such a just cause as it is remembering the victims of the Shoah, while at the same time contributing greatly to the protection of the environment in the Holy Land”.
Next, it was the turn of Ms Cremonesi, from Ron Hubbard’s office in Europe, who, joining Arjona in thanking Guillermé and the KKL, mentioned how the Founder of Scientology, Ron Hubbard,
“was passionate that each one of us should take maximum responsibility for our environment and affect it positively”.
Ms Jetmira Cremonesi
She was grateful to have been entrusted and allowed to contribute to this incredible project and even more, to do so in the name of Ron Hubbard, thus following his legacy and these words he published as early as 1981 in his book “The Way to Happiness”:
“TThere are many things one can do to help take care of the planet. They begin with the idea that one should. They progress with suggesting to others they should. Man has gotten up to the potential of destroying the planet. He must be pushed on up to the capability and actions of saving it. It is, after all, what we’re standing on.”
Ron Hubbard
Gustavo Guillermé, the visionary of the project, was in charge of closing the ceremony just before unveiling the plaque.
Among other things, he said:
“I feel honored because as I said yesterday at the Scientology headquarters in Tel Aviv… it is interesting that today I am doing something not only for the Jewish community, but also recognizing something that Hubbard already advanced to us several decades ago, about the importance of planting trees to give life. So for us it’s also very important. Thank you for joining us.”
(c) Photo credit: Pierre Bastein CMDICIR – Gustavo Guillermé at the Ben Shemen forest (Israel) presenting the first part of his project
And Guillermé concluded:
“The truth is that it is an honor that after 14 months we are here inaugurating our first forest, in this case the forest of the American Continent chapter and to be in Israel in the Holy Land, starting here this long journey that will be from 2023 to 2045, when the 100th anniversary of the aberrant Shoah will take place. I think honoring life, which is what a tree represents, for us is to humbly represent the life of each one of them. So we are very happy to be here today. And I thank Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the members of Scientology for their support to such a noble and necessary cause”.
Tibetan activists from Students for a Free Tibet (SFT), National Democratic Party of Tibet (NDPT) and Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC) staged a protest at the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi against Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang’s visit to India on Thursday. Mr. Qin will attend the G20 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in New Delhi on March 2 at the invitation of India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, a statement from the Foreign Ministry read. This will be Qin’s first visit to India after he succeeded foreign minister and State Councillor, Wang Yi in December last year.
The protesters shouted slogans, “Qin Gang Go Back!” and “G20 Protect Tibetan Children”. police detained the protestors, but were later released. The activists condemned the Chinese Communist Party’s policy of sinicization that enforced nearly 1.2 million Tibetan children in colonial boarding schools in occupied Tibet by separating them from their families at the age of just four or five. The rights group also called out G20 leaders around the world to protect the millions of Tibetan children forced into these colonial boarding schools and are stripped of their identity to learn Mandarin and the Chinese way of life.
Meanwhile, banners and posters calling out Mr. Qin and G20 leaders have been torn and taken down around the Indian capital, to which Students for a Free Tibet (SFT) responded by saying, “this shows the insecurity level of CCP China and also the suppression of freedom of speech of Tibetans in a free country,” on their social media handle. “China should be held accountable for all the atrocities and human rights violations in Tibet and other occupied countries,” they added.
Mr. Qin’s visit to the G20 meeting marks the first high-level leadership visit from China to India since March 2022. Since early 2022, bilateral exchange between the two sides was stalled following tensions along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and China’s mobilisation of troops at the friction areas.
Tibetan activist protesting Qin Gang’s India’s visit at the Chinese embassy in New Delhi (Photo/SFT)
I grew up as a Protestant Christian, so when I was first introduced to Scientology in my mid-20s, I tried to understand this exciting, fascinating, new (to me) philosophy through the lens of my own religious experience.
One of the first concepts I had to wrap my head around was what, exactly, L. Ron Hubbard meant to Scientologists and to the religion itself. I grew up worshipping Jesus and the Holy Trinity as a Christian. Was I supposed to worship L. Ron Hubbard? Or pledge some form of allegiance to him? I noticed people often thanked him when they were publicly sharing their successes in applying Scientology in their lives. Was that a requirement or something people just did—sort of a cultural practice?
My relationship to and appreciation of L. Ron Hubbard has constantly evolved in my more than 20 years of studying and applying Scientology in my life. I would never presume to speak for another Scientologist, and especially not for the group as a whole. But I can certainly speak from my experience.
Having read thousands of pages of his writings, watched him on a few precious video recordings, and listened to thousands of his lectures, what I come to again and again is a feeling of profound gratitude. Mr Hubbard himself would be the first to admit (and often reminded people) that he was simply a man. In fact, he lamented in one particularly memorable lecture, much to the amusement of the audience, that after the Scientology religion was founded, people stopped offering him a drink whenever he showed up at a dinner party.
MR. HUBBARD, ABOVE ALL ELSE, WAS GENUINELY INTERESTED IN OTHER PEOPLE—IN THEIR HAPPINESS AND SUCCESS AND ABILITY TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE BEAUTY OF LIFE.
There’s an ingrained view we have culturally of what a religion or a religious founder or leader is supposed to be. But Scientology is unique in so many ways, and this is simply one of them. We are incredibly lucky that Scientology came about at a time when audio and video recordings were possible; imagine how different the world’s major religions might be if we had actual recordings of Jesus, Abraham, Muhammad, Gautama Buddha… Scientologists are extremely fortunate to have a chronological record of the founding, evolution and development of our religion. And that’s in no small part due to Mr Hubbard’s foresight and diligence in ensuring his lectures were recorded, and his discoveries thoroughly codified in writing.
What I come away with every time I hear Mr Hubbard’s voice or read his words is gratitude that he applied his intellect, his persistence, his curiosity and his extraordinary abilities to solving the riddles of existence—and then spent the remainder of his life ensuring the systems he developed would result in genuine spiritual enlightenment and improvement for anyone choosing to study and apply them.
Every March 13, we celebrate L. Ron Hubbard’s birthday. This includes international events attended by gatherings of thousands of parishioners and then shared via video to millions more around the world. These events include personal stories of people who knew and worked with Mr Hubbard, and also stories from people who may have only met him once but were profoundly changed by that chance encounter.
What I take away from these events is that Mr Hubbard, above all else, was genuinely interested in other people—in their happiness and success and ability to know and understand and appreciate the beauty of life. There are some people who are towering intellects, or captains of industry, or sports heroes. There are others who have hearts of gold and dedicate themselves to the betterment of their communities and the world. Mr Hubbard was that rarest of combinations—an absolute titan of a man who had the intellect and experience to question every foregone conclusion about life and how best to live it, a profound kindness and empathy that made him endlessly curious to discover solutions to help his fellows succeed and do better, and the persistence to question and try and try again until those solutions became a philosophy that anyone in the world could successfully apply.
Over 100 years after his birth and nearly 40 years after his passing, I and so many others around the world are so much better because L. Ron Hubbard lived. Wherever he is now, I humbly wish him my absolute best and give my endless thanks for the truths he laid out so beautifully. My study of his philosophy has made every aspect of my life immeasurably better. So while there may be no such “requirement” in Scientology, Mr Hubbard has certainly earned my infinite devotion, admiration, loyalty and respect.
This article about the Scientology religion and Scientology Founder L. Ron Hubbard was originally published on standleague.org.
Mr. Secretary-General, High Commissioner Turk, President Bálek, fellow members of the United Nations Human Rights Council: we are marking 75 years since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
At its heart is a simple, yet revolutionary, idea: human rights are universal. Or, as the drafters of the Declaration put it, human rights belong to, “all members of the human family.” And these rights are indivisible, interdependent, and co-equal.
These principles were not shaped by any one country, region, or ideology. They were discussed, debated, and meticulously drafted by experts from countries big and small…North and South…centuries-old and newly independent. Each delegate brought to the collective enterprise ideas and perspectives that helped define the Declaration.
Charles Malik, the delegate from Lebanon, argued that human rights must be defined in terms of the individual – not the nation… or any other group.
Representing China, P.C. Chang suggested the entire framework should be built, in his words, “with a view to elevating the concept of man’s dignity.” And dignity is the first principle in the first line of the Declaration.
Hansa Mehta of India – one of three women delegates, together with Pakistan’s Begum Ikramullah and America’s Eleanor Roosevelt – insisted that rights be framed as belonging to all people, not just men.
Indeed, the fact that the Declaration was forged and agreed upon by people representing nations with such diverse backgrounds, histories, and political systems is what gave it such unimpeachable legitimacy and moral force.
That’s still true today, even as some try to cast the Declaration’s definition of human rights as reflecting the view of one region or ideology… or argue that different countries can have different conceptions of human rights…or try to put the sovereignty of states ahead of the human rights of individuals.
It’s the responsibility of this Council – and every UN Member State – to uphold the Declaration’s universal vision…and defend the human rights of everyone, everywhere.
That includes protecting the human rights of our most vulnerable populations, a central tenet of the Vienna Declaration that we adopted 30 years ago. That’s why the United States partnered with countries from around the world to renew the mandate for the UN’s Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity; and why we made a voluntary contribution to support the vital work of the Permanent Forum on People of African Descent in countering anti-Black discrimination – the only country to do so.
Upholding the Declaration’s vision also means continuing to advance economic, social, and cultural rights. The United States is committed to enabling people around the world to enjoy these rights. We invest more than any other country in the capacity of fellow Member States to provide health care and food security for their populations. And last year, we joined 160 fellow Member States in supporting a resolution that affirms the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.
Fulfilling the Declaration’s universal promise also means advancing human rights within our countries – something we have sought to do in the United States, especially over the past two years.
Since President Biden issued an open invitation in 2021 to all UN special procedures mandate holders, the United States has welcomed the Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues and the Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity. And just a few weeks ago, the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism made the first-ever visit by a UN mandate holder to the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
We do this because we believe transparency and openness are not a threat to our sovereignty, but a way to make our government better at advancing the rights, needs, and aspirations of the people we serve. We see our ability to accept critical feedback, and to strive, always, to address enduring injustices and inequities, as a sign of strength – not weakness.
Holding ourselves to the same standards as we do every other government is particularly important at a time when human rights around the world are under assault, perhaps nowhere more than in Russia’s brutal war on Ukraine.
This Council has played a crucial role in shining a spotlight on Moscow’s horrific and ongoing abuses, including through the creation of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine. The COI’s first report in October concluded that Russia has committed war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law.
As long as Russia continues to wage its war, the COI should continue to document such abuses, providing an impartial record of what’s occurring, and a foundation for national and international efforts to hold perpetrators accountable.
Governments that commit atrocities abroad are also likely to violate the rights of people at home – and that’s exactly what Russia is doing. The Russian government now holds more than 500 political prisoners. In January, it shuttered the Moscow Helsinki Group – one of the last human rights organizations still allowed to operate in the country. The government’s systematic muzzling of independent voices in Russian civil society makes the work of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in the country even more important.
The Iranian regime is also once again cracking down on citizens demanding their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since the killing of Mahsa Amini in September brought Iranians of all ages out into the streets, the regime has killed at least 500 people, and imprisoned tens of thousands more, many of whom have been tortured, according to human rights groups. In November, the Council came together to create an independent fact-finding mission to investigate Iran’s human rights violations; we must ensure the team can do its work.
We condemn the Taliban’s draconian repression of women and girls in Afghanistan, including barring them from universities and secondary schools. The Taliban’s recent edict prohibiting Afghan women from working for NGOs has closed off yet another pathway that should be open to them. And in a country where 29 million people depend on humanitarian aid for survival, the Taliban’s decision will significantly reduce the amount of food, medicine, and other life-saving assistance reaching vulnerable people. Especially women and girls.
We remain gravely concerned about the ongoing genocide and crimes against humanity that China is committing against Muslim Uyghurs and other members of minority groups in Xinjiang. The report issued last year by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights affirmed serious abuses perpetrated by the PRC in Xinjiang, including the large-scale arbitrary deprivation of liberty of members of Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities, and credible allegations of torture and sexual and gender-based violence.
Nearly a dozen years since launching its crackdown on Syrians demanding their human rights, the Assad regime continues to commit widespread abuses, which is why we urge Council members to renew the mandate of the country’s Commission of Inquiry, even as we surge humanitarian assistance to help those in Syria and Turkey impacted by the devastating earthquake.
On this Council, we have a responsibility to act in a way that’s true to the spirit of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, including treating every country equally. That’s why the United States continues to strongly oppose biased and disproportionate treatment of Israel, reflected in the Commission of Inquiry with no end date, and standing Agenda Item 7.
In the 75 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, there has rarely been a time when delivering on its commitments has been more urgent…or more consequential. To international peace and security. To development. To human dignity.
The vision the drafters set out 75 years ago is as clear today as it was then: All members of the human family are entitled to human rights. Let us continue to strive to make those words real – through the actions of the Human Rights Council, within our countries, and around the world.
Jan-Leonid Bornstein:We have heard from you about a new legislative initiative ofthe Government of Georgia concerning submitting a draft of the new Defense Code In December 2022. In case of adoption the submitted version of the Draft, the law in force, which exempts (defers) Ministers of any religion from compulsory military service, will be withdrawn. What risks do you see in this new initiative?
Archil Metreveli: To be more precise, this is not even a “risk” but an “evident fact” that will be constituted if this legislative modification is adopted. Namely, initiated regulation will nullify the possibility for Ministers of minority religions, meaning all religions but the Georgian Orthodox Church, to beneficiate from the exemption for compulsory military service.
Jan-Leonid Bornstein:Could you elaborate so our readers can understand the challenges better?
Archil Metreveli: Two norms of the Georgian legislation in force ensure the exemption of Ministers from compulsory military service. First, Article 4 of the Constitutional Agreement between the State of Georgia and the Apostle Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Georgia (exclusively the Ministers of the Orthodox Church of Georgia) and second, Article 30 of the Law of Georgia on Military Duty and Military Service (the Ministers of any religion, including the Orthodox Church of Georgia).
Article 71 of the submitted draft Defense Code, which is an alternative to Article 30 of the above-cited law in force, governing the deferment of conscription into Military Service, no longer includes the so-called Ministerial Exception. Hence, according to the new draft law, no Minister of any religion previously exempted from military service will no longer be able to have the privilege of Ministerial Exception. On the other hand, Article 4 of the Constitutional Agreement of Georgia, which exempts from military service exclusively the Ministers of the Orthodox Church of Georgia, remains in force.
It is significant that according to the Constitution of Georgia (Article 4) and the Law of Georgia on Normative Acts (Article 7) the Constitutional Agreement of Georgia takes hierarchical precedence over the Laws of Georgia and, in case of adoption, also over the Defense Code. Therefore, the Ministerial Exception (which will be withdrawn for the Ministers of all religions) will not by itself annul this privilege for to the Ministers of the Orthodox Church of Georgia as it remains to be granted by a hierarchically higher normative act – the Constitutional Agreement of Georgia.
JLB: I understand. Why do you think this legislation is proposed? How is it justified?
AM: The Explanatory Note of the submitted draft states that this modification intends to eliminate the legislative gap that allows “unscrupulous” and “false” religious organizations to help individuals avoid compulsory military service. The specified purpose corresponds to the practice set by the Church of Biblical Freedom – a religious association established by the political party Girchi. The Church of Biblical Freedom, as an instrument of the political protest of Girchi against compulsory military service, grants the status of “Minister” to those citizens who do not want to perform military duty. The practice of the Church of Biblical Freedom relies precisely on the law on Military Duty and Military Service in force.
JLB: Do you think it will have any further repercussions to the Georgian legislation or legislative practice?
AM: Yes, and it already has. The amendments also have been submitted to the Law on Georgia on Non-military, Alternative Labor Service. In particular, according to the draft amendment the ground for releasing a citizen from compulsory military service and performance of non-military, alternative labor service, along with conscientious objection, will also be the status of a “Minister”. According to the Georgian Authorities, this new “Privilege” will replace the withdrawn Ministerial Exception, as this new legal regulation will apply equally to the Ministers of all religions, including the Orthodox Church of Georgia. However, this interpretation is not honest, as the Constitutional Agreement of Georgia prohibits State from conscripting Orthodox Ministers into compulsory military service, thus, it will not be necessary to extend the “privilege” of non-military, alternative labor service to them. As a result, if the submitted draft is adopted, the Orthodox Ministers will be unconditionally exempted from compulsory military service, while the Ministers of all other religions will be subject to non-military, alternative labor service.
JLB: But is that privilege, meaning full exemption from compulsory military service, a fundamental right?
AM: Our concern relates to the fundamental Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination based on religion. Evidently, the exemption of a Minister from military service (as opposed to an exemption based on conscientious objection) is not a right protected by Freedom of Religion or Belief. This privilege has been granted to them considering the public importance of their status and by the political will of the State.
Nevertheless, the fundamental Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination based on religion implies that, when there is no objective reason for different treatment, the privileges granted by the State should be extended equally to any group or individual regardless of their religious identity or practice. The submitted regulation is obvious and blunt discrimination based on religion, as it doesn’t include any objective and sensible justification for the established different treatment.
JLB: In your opinion, what would be the proper approach of the state regarding this matter?
AM: Finding answers to such questions is not difficult. The modern experience of Freedom of Religion and Democracy clearly determines that the State should not relieve its burden at the expense of the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of individuals or groups. Thus, if the Court would find that the Church of Biblical Freedom was actually abusing the Freedom of Religion or Belief, the State should eliminate exclusively the practice of destruction and not the Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination based on religion and belief, entirely.
“The prison sentences delivered today in Belarus against four human rights defenders, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ales Bialiatski, are deeply troubling and indicative of the ongoing repression in the country,” said Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the UN human rights office, OHCHR.
UN human rights chief Volker Türk has called for an end to the persecution of human rights defenders and of people expressing dissenting views, and for an end to arbitrary detention once and for all, she said.
Authorities announced today that Mr. Bialiatski, chair of the Viasna Human Rights Center, received a 10-year prison sentence related to smuggling and extremism-related charges.
Three other Viasna members – Valiantsin Stefanovich, Uladzimir Labkovich, and Dzmitry Salauyou – were given sentences of nine, seven, and eight years respectively. Mr. Salauyou was tried in absentia.
“We remain deeply concerned that, as of today, some 1,458 people are reported to be in detention in Belarus on politically motivated charges,” she said.
Convicted for rights work
“The lack of independence of the judiciary and other violations of fair trial guarantees have resulted in human rights defenders in Belarus being criminally prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for their legitimate human rights work,” she said.
This includes recent prison sentences meted out related to charges of extremism and high treason, she added.
On 17 February, 10 members of the workers movement Rabochy Rukh, were sentenced to between 12 and 15 years, and on 8 February, journalist Andrzej Poczobut, was sentenced to eight years in prison.
A better understanding of the costs and benefits of adaptation measures to counter climate change is needed according to a European Environment Agency (EEA) briefing which assesses the main methods, challenges and constraints in taking action.
There is an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures according to the EEA briefing ‘Assessing the costs and benefits of climate change adaptation’. This is due to rising economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes across the EU.
With climate conditions rapidly changing, there is an increasing need for adaptation and social preparedness for climate change. But the resources available to government decision-makers are limited. This means that better understanding is needed about the costs and benefits of adaptive actions — and the costs of adaptation compared to the costs of failing to take action.
Understanding of the concepts involved in assessing the costs and benefits of a successful plan to counter climate extremes is still lacking. Assessing the benefits of such measures needs to take account of the reduced impact of natural hazards but also how such measures contribute to economic development or other benefits, for example, to biodiversity, air quality, water management, greenhouse gas emission reductions as well as health and well-being.
Gaining this understanding is challenging. One problem is limited access to information on adaptation expenditure at national and regional level. Another has to do with difficulties in calculating the economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change.
The briefing notes that current data do not allow for a systemic assessment of all programmes of measures affecting a given sector or area. Further, current knowledge does not allow easy comparison between the costs and benefits of adaptive actions across various economic sectors. This indicates a need for methodological improvements in benefit-cost analysis.
