What happened to Religious Freedom in Nigeria?

Do you worship or practice your religion freely? If you do, count yourself lucky because in some parts of the world, religious freedom is a luxury many can't afford.

Roughly defined, religious freedom is the freedom of a person or community to believe in, practice and promote the religion of their choice without interference or harassment. It is a fundamental human right and ranks up there with other basic rights and liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly; enshrined in many human rights documents, including the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Article 18 of the UDHR states:

"Everyone has the right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, or freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

You'd agree that it took decades of religious wars, bloodshed and persecutions for states to realise that one of the major roles of modern governments is to protect the religious choice of people within its borders. Unfortunately, some states, including Nigeria are yet to fulfil this moral and legal obligation. The question is - what happened to religious freedom Nigeria?

Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, with a population of more than 150 million. The country is almost evenly divided between Muslims and Christians - with the former predominantly in the north and the latter in the south.

Outburst of violence between Muslims and Christians is not uncommon and the city of Jos, the capital of Plateau State happens to be a notorious battleground, recording bloodshed from religious violence since 2001. In September 2001, sectarian violence claimed more than 1,000 lives; in May 2004, more than 700 died; in 2005, up to 500 deaths were recorded; in November 2008, at least 700 people were killed in Muslim-Christian riots; in January 2010, violence between Muslims and Christians broke out in the same city. This time, at least 70 people were killed and about 600 injured. Most recently - March 7, 2010, at least 200 Christian villagers in Plateau State were brutally killed, according to Human Rights Watch.

How does this concern you? Well, I asked myself the same question before I watched the following videos. Viewer discretion is advised!

What are your thoughts? Do you think the government has done enough to guarantee religious freedom in Nigeria? It is worth mentioning that some of the atrocities are allegedly committed by government forces, but as you'd expect, the government refuses to shoulder responsibility. Below is Part 2 of the video:

I have not independently verified the allegations, but one thing is indisputable - for many people in Nigeria, religious freedom is an illusive concept.

Nigeria has a moral obligation to comply with the principles of the UDHR. Moreover, the government of Nigeria is party to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has a legal obligation to guarantee religious freedom to all individuals within its territory and to provide effective remedy to victims of violations of the rights recognized by the Covenant.

Do you think Nigeria is doing enough to curb sectarian violence? Is the government culpable? Above all, where is the international community?



Is this not massacre?

Share

Tweet

Blue-Eyed Blond-Haired Terrorists

The attempted terrorist attack by a Nigerian - Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, on Christmas Day 2009 took many Africans by surprise. Call it naivety, but the truth is prior to Umar Farouk's attempt to blow up Delta Northwest Airline flight 235, many had never envisioned the possibility of a West African suicide bomber or terrorist. The events of December 25, 2009 in Detroit raised many questions, many of which remain unanswered. Is terrorism taking on a new face? The international counter-terrorism community has not ruled out this possibility and there have been warnings of the possibility of terrorists who blend perfectly into their surroundings before attacking. It's worth mentioning that this fear is not unfounded because in September 2007, Germany arrested three terror suspects, two of whom were ethnic Germans. Did the arrest of September 2007 signal a new trend of blue-eyed blond-haired terrorists?

Earlier this week, a blue-eyed, blond-haired Pennsylvania woman was indicted for conspiracy to support terrorists and kill a person in a foreign land. The woman, Colleen LaRose, 46, now popularly known by her online name - "Jihad Jane", is being held at the Federal Detention Centre in Philadelphia.

According to the U.S. Justice Department, she recruited men to "wage violent jihad in South Asia and Europe, and recruited women on the internet who had passports and the ability to travel to and around Europe, in support of violent jihad."

Online, "JihadJane"said she wanted to become a martyr and use her European looks to "blend in with many people."

She was recruited when she posted a comment on YouTube that she is "desperate to do something" to help Muslims, according to the indictment. It's with no doubt therefore, that she agreed to kill a citizen of Sweden - Lars Vilks (the artist who angered Muslims by drawing the Prophet Mohammad with the body of a dog).

"JihadJane" actually traveled to Sweden in August to execute this mission. However, the mission was aborted when she was arrested 2 weeks after she was sent the direct order to kill Lars - in a way that would frighten "the whole Kufar [non-believer] world".

Experts have issued a dire warning that there might be more cases of "Individuals carrying American, British, French, any European passport who are indistinguishable from other citizens and who have been somehow radicalised..." (Jerrold Post, author of THE MIND OF THE TERRORIST).

You should know by now that holders of European passports do not require visas to travel to the U.S., hence do not have to visit U.S. Embassies or consulates for interviews.

Does the advent of a new trend of blue-eyed, blond-haired terrorists signal a new era in U.S.-Europe relations? Should European citizens be allowed to travel to the U.S. without visas? More importantly, do you still think only "Arab looking" people or people with Arabic names are potential terrorists?

Share

Tweet

Racism: A Taboo in the U.S. and a Celebration in Europe

Racism is a social ill that dogs every country on the planet, although it is widely condemned. Many states have recognized the fact that racism is immoral and illegal. No doubt, many have ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) - a UN human rights instrument designed to eliminate racial discrimination and foster good race relations. As a matter of fact, as of today, 173 states have ratified this convention. It goes without saying that these states have the obligation to eliminate racism within their borders. European states are committed (at least on paper) to combat and eliminate racism (and other human rights violations), evidenced by their wide ratification of international human rights conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which explicitly prohibit racism and racial discrimination. I'll save you the trouble of an international human rights law lecture, but the point is that despite Europe's firm commitment to protect human rights, racism - which is a taboo in the U.S. is a celebration in Europe. The following video elucidates this assertion.

I don't know about you, but the day I watched this video I was appalled by the level of impunity - no arrests, no charges filed, no apologies. The perpetrators are known, but they go Scot free. This is what happens in Europe, where as of today, 47 major states have ratified the ECHR - yet racism remains a celebration, within their borders.

No doubt, victims of racial abuse (soccer players, in this case) are devastated by outright racism from fans. Unfortunately what they get in the form of justice is rhetoric from the authorities on how to deal with racism in the future - by abandoning matches and stripping teams of 3 points. Is this what we now call justice? Would abandoning matches and stripping teams of 3 points deter racist fans? How many witnesses do you need in a stadium to prove racial abuse in a court of law?

Now, I want you to imagine a Super Bowl game in the U. S., where fans on the stands utter monkey chants and throw bananas to the pitch. What would be the outcome? Would the perpetrators be allowed to walk away? I bet the response would be different.

European states should fulfil their obligation under international law to guarantee the fundamental human rights of people within their borders, irrespective of ethnicity, color, race etc. Racism is immoral and illegal, hence should be treated as such.

Above all, Europe should learn from the "Free World" (United States) that racism is a taboo; not a celebration.

Don't you think?

Share

Tweet