Supplementary written evidence submitted
by Christian Solidarity Worldwide
INTRODUCTION
Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) welcomes
the recognition given in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's
2004 Annual Report on Human Rights to the severity of religious
persecution in Vietnam, and specifically, the mention of the case
of Reverend Nguyen Hong Quang, the Vietnamese Mennonite Church
leader imprisoned on 12 November 2004.
In view of the concern expressed in the report
about the plight of non-recognised Protestant groups, of which
the case of Reverend Quang is given as an important example, CSW
wishes to ask the UK Government what positive action it has taken
towards a just outcome of that case? Secondly, in view of the
three year prison sentence that has recently been imposed on Reverend
Quang, what action does the UK Government propose to take?
CASE OF
REVEREND NGUYEN
HONG QUANG
In the broad context of the repression of religious
freedom, CSW believes the case of Reverend Nguyen Hong Quang to
be of particular significance. His is the latest in a line of
arrests of those speaking out against the government's violation
of religious freedom: previous cases include Father Nguyen Van
Ly (arrested 17 May 2001) and the Buddhist Venerable Thich Quang
Do. Although his imprisonment is ostensibly on the charge of "inciting
others to resist persons doing their official duty", CSW
believes that this is a pretext for a highly cynical arrest.
Several reasons may be adduced in support of
this view.
In the first place, the government has had plenty
of reason to silence Reverend Quang: he is an extremely articulate
and high profile critic of the human rights abuses of the Vietnamese
government. He obtained a bachelor of law degree in 2000, since
which he has accumulated substantial legal files on human rights
issues. He has been an outspoken critic of the severe repression
of the rights of Christians in the Central Highlands, highlighting
arrests of religious believers and fighting for their land rights.
He successfully challenged the illegal appropriation of the land
of 340 families by the People's Committee of District 2, Ho Chi
Minh City. However, the communication of the decision made on
13 October 2003, which was ordered within 10 days, was delayed
by 10 months, until Reverend Quang had been detained, in August
2004. In 2003, he acted in defence of the relatives of Nguyen
Van Ly, who had been convicted as spies.
When Reverend Quang was arrested on 8 June 2004,
his legal files, documenting the violation of the human rights
of certain individuals, were confiscated. This would be highly
surprising if his arrest was simply a matter of "inciting
others to resist persons doing their official duty", and
suggests a quite different motivation.
Secondly, there clearly seems to be an element
of anti-religious motivation behind Reverend Quang's arrest. This
was borne out by the events experienced by Mrs Quang in the week
preceding her husband's trial. She was ordered by the authorities
to a public denunciation meeting on 10 November, which she declined
to attend. On the following day, an angry delegation of authorities
visited her house to deliver the results of the denunciation session.
She was told to immediately cease holding any worship services
on the church premises, to remove the church sign from above the
gate and to evict students living in the building. She was threatened
with being driven away from her home, with her three small children,
if she failed to comply. As to the complaint against residency,
a similar incident had occurred on 27 October: the same persons
had been summoned to "receive an announcement regarding residency"
on the following day. An order signed by the head of Binh Khanh
Ward Security Branch stated that police had inspected the property
on 27 July and had found people "living there without official
permission." In fact, all but four of the dozen sets of residence
papers were in order. A second complaint was issued against "unlawful
activities" taking place in the building, which must refer
to Christian worship. In effect, then, the authorities have striven
to close Reverend Quang's church whilst he has been detained.
Such events do not bear out the authorities'
line that the arrest of Reverend Quang is about a relatively minor
civil offence. It is paradoxical that in the act of attempting
to expose violations of religious freedom, Reverend Quang has
apparently become a victim of the same.
Concomitantly, the authorities have carried
out a systematic and acrimonious smear campaign against Reverend
Quang, undermining his credentials as a pastor and making slanderous
accusations about his character, which have not stood up under
closer investigation. Such activities discrediting him further
than is necessary for the charges brought against him must arouse
greater suspicion with respect to the real motivation behind his
arrest.
The use of the media towards this end is not
a new tactic, but one which has been used against the Hmong people.
Immediately after Reverend Quang's arrest, the Public Security
Police Ho Chi Minh newspaper (12 June 2004), the People's
Public Security newspaper (17 June 2004), the Labour
newspaper (30 June 2004), the Word Security newspaper (1
July 2004), the People's Daily (1 July 2004) and national TV Channel
3 (1 July 2004) unanimously launched a massive propaganda attack
on Reverend Quang, levelling a plethora of defamatory and trumped
up charges against him. He was described variously as a "counterfeit
pastor", a "professional gangster", a "promoter
of illegal building projects", a "propagandiser for
destroying the nation", "an inciter of people to fight
against the policies of the government to get it to give in",
"a crazy man", "an incestuous man", "a
rapist of young girls", "an abuser of religion",
an "immoral person" and a "disturber of public
peace and order."
These accusations are entirely unsubstantiated.
The allegation of rape in the People's Daily (3 July) was
strongly denied by the girl in question, who saw this as slanderous
against her own integrity. Certainly Reverend Quang has never
been charged with this, which suggests that the campaign was undertaken
solely to vilify Reverend Quang's character.
Furthermore, the genuine Christian credentials
of Reverend Quang have never been in doubt. He was officially
recognised by the Canadian Mennonite Church in 2000, and in 2003
the World Mennonite Conference sent an official letter to Prime
Minister Phan Van Kahi and to the Government Bureau of Religious
Affairs, confirming that the Vietnamese Mennonite Church was a
member of the World Mennonite Conference, and confirming the leadership
role of Reverend Quang. Indeed, it seems that the Vietnamese authorities
lacked confidence in their own campaign: immediately after the
arrest, the Evangelical Church of Vietnam (South) was requested
by members of the Bureau of Religious Affairs not to raise their
voice in support of Reverend Quang. Further, the VTV3 item (1
July) on Reverend Quang's arrest, alleged that the Reverend Thai
Phuoc Truong, General Secretary of the ECVN (South) decried the
activities of Reverend Quang as having "damaged the reputation
of the Evangelical Church." In fact, Reverend Truong denied
any such interview.
Such activities are clearly not in line with
the simple prosecution of a charge of "inciting others to
resist persons doing their official duty". In light of these
aspects, to view Reverend Quang's arrest purely as a minor charge
of "inciting others to resist persons doing their official
duty" is distinctly questionable. The EU has so far declined
to intervene in this case, suggesting it is insufficiently important.
It would be valuable to know what accrued benefit is considered
important enough to require silence in the face of harsh treatment
against a human rights activist and religious leader. CSW wishes
to suggest that this is indeed a significant case, paradigmatic
of the human rights abuses of the government of Vietnam and a
cynical attempt to silence a critic of the state. Having attempted
to uphold the law by exposing the government's violations of human
rights and religious freedoms, such as are constitutionally guaranteed,
Reverend Quang has himself become a victim of human rights violations
through abuse of the law.
In view of this, CSW urges the UK Government
to intervene for justice in this significant case, particularly
given its commitment to religious freedom issues in Vietnam. CSW
specifically requests that the UK Government gives details of
what action has been taken, given the interest expressed in this
case, and particularly what it is planning to do in view of the
recent three year sentence imposed upon Reverend Quang. The UK
Government has repeatedly declared that human rights are "at
the heart" of its foreign policy, and this case seems a clear
example of abuse of human rights.
ORDINANCE REGARDING
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
AND RELIGIOUS
ORGANISATIONS
Further, CSW wishes to ask the UK Government
what action it proposes to take concerning the Ordinance Regarding
Religious Beliefs and Religious Organisations (No 21/2004/PL-UBTVQH11),
which was due to come into effect from 15 November and is widely
regarded as a step backwards for religious freedom in Vietnam.
Recent statements issued by the Vietnam Evangelical Fellowship
(30 August 2004) and by three Catholic Priests ("Vietnam's
New Ordinance on Religion: A Method of Oppressing Religion by
Means of the Law", 15 August 2004) certainly portray it as
such.
While the Ordinance is couched in terms of the
granting of rights, these prior rights are effectively withdrawn
with the requirement of permission for them to be exercised. Article
1 contains an affirmation of the constitutional provision for
religious freedom, whilst subsequent articles qualify and offer
substantial limitations to the specific rights given. It is feared
by the churches that this will provide a more substantial legal
basis for the limiting of religious liberties in Vietnam.
This must be of grave concern in the context
of a deteriorating religious freedom commitment in Vietnam. CSW
wishes to encourage and urge the UK government to hold the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam to its self-imposed obligation to adhere to
Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.
Christian Solidarity Worldwide
10 December 2004
| 
