MINELRES: Slovenia: Ombudsman's reply to Catholic Bishops' Conference

[Felix Corley]

Human Rights Ombudsman
Matjaz Hanzek

Reply to Open Letter from the Justice and Peace Committee at the Slovene
Bishops' Conference (SSK)

The Justice and Peace Committee at the Bishops' Conference wrote an open
letter in which it protested against certain intolerant events, which had
been aimed towards the Catholic Church. According to the opinion of the
Committee, there are three key culprits for this: the Government, which is
not prepared to settle on all open questions with the RCC; the education
authorities, which do not allow religious education to be taught in schools;
and the media, whose writing apparently also raises numerous intolerances.
The Human Rights Ombudsman has been added to the list of culprits as it has
been perceived that the Ombudsman does not devote enough attention to such
intolerances.

The law defines the duties of the Human Rights Ombudsman as the protection
of the individual against the abuse of the State, its institutions and other
statutory authorities, whilst various government offices of the Republic of
Slovenia monitor the position of those social groups for which they were
established. In short: the field of work handled by the Human Ombudsman is
above all focused towards the individual (supervision of relationships
between the State and the individual), whilst the area of work focused on by
the Office for Religious Communities is the monitoring of the situation with
regards to religious groups. So it could be said - purely formally - that
the complaint is addressed to the incorrect recipient. The Government Office
for Religious Communities of the Republic of Slovenia, which is much
stronger in its staffing (six members of staff work there in this aspect; at
the Ombudsman's Office there is only one counsellor and one deputy working
on the whole problematic of constitutional rights and personal data
protection), would be in the proper position in undertaking an analysis of
examples of discrimination against religious groups, make suggestions to the
Government and keep the public informed with regards to unchanged practices.
By so doing, it would make it possible for us to discuss the problems of
intolerance in a more responsible manner, with the Human Rights Ombudsman
also being able to present reasoned arguments to the public.

Since the Office, as well as some others, does not undertake its work in a
dedicated enough manner and there is no-one handling certain types of
discrimination, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman has done the
following: firstly I personally voiced my warnings about intolerances
towards individual groups of inhabitants of Slovenia, which is actually not
prescribed in the law regarding the Ombudsman, but neither is it prohibited.
Secondly, we suggested a new independent institution be founded which would
purposefully handle the problematic of discrimination and intolerance, or at
least, reinforce the institution of the Human Rights Ombudsman with a group
of professional members of staff in this area.

The Ombudsman gave opinions on individual events, which apparently expressed
intolerance towards those who are different in various forms; most often as
an answer to questions placed by journalists. Only rarely have they been
independent statements - mostly when a State body was implicated into the
event. Such practice stimulated many people into expectations that the
Ombudsman would react to each statement, for which they were convinced
offended them in some way. Often, two opposite sides voiced the same demand,
each being certain that they were acting in the best faith with their
opponent being the intolerant one. In reality what most often happened was a
mutual lack of understanding and lack of tolerant dialogue. It is
understandable that it is not possible in such a position to satisfy both;
for this reason we have tried hard to show to both sides the urgency of a
mutual agreement. At all times we have tried to directly gain knowledge of
all facts through dialogue.

In the area of the constitutional equality of rights being assured for all r
eligious groups, the Human Rights Ombudsman recognised two bigger problems
into whose (non)solving mostly State institutions are implicated: slow
management of affairs in the construction of the Muslim place of worship;
and the lack of work at the Government Office for Religious Communities of
the Republic of Slovenia. The first problem illustrates an incomprehensive
blockade by all institutions concerned, when the third most numerous
religious community in Slovenia, for more than three decades in vain, tries
to construct a place of worship. The officers responsible in these
institutions have never actually publicly denounced the construction, but
"insurmountable obstacles" that always seemed to be cropping up clearly
illustrate their, although concealed, active opposition. The lack of work at
the Office for Religious Communities can be seen on three levels: outdated
legislation, lack of criteria for the allocation of budgetary means to
religious communities and refusals to handle applications submitted by new
religious communities. More than the failure to carry out duties defined by
law, the most problematic fact is that the Office does not show any
willingness to solve any of the existing problems. What is more: each step
forward requires big efforts and pressures, not only from the Ombudsman but
also other institutions, and also civil society and the media.

Also in handling other problems, which are not directly linked to the Human
Rights Ombudsman's areas of work specified by law, but arise from a wider
understanding of his dealing with aspects in relation to human rights (above
all expressions of intolerance towards the religious and the non-religious),
the Ombudsman has not been inactive. As in other areas of relationships
towards those who are different, we have been receiving complaints also in
this area, where the complainants have often displayed a mutual intolerance.
We have in such a way been receiving complaints that have affirmed the
intolerance towards Catholic believers, and have received still more
numerous complaints, which affirm the intolerance of the RCC representatives
towards the non-religious, or those that follow other religions or a
different way of life. In this aspect let me mention just a few: intolerance
towards atheists (For the impenitent there can be and will not be any
pity. - the theologian Dr. Joze Krasovec; If we are the victims of an
atheist upbringing, it means that we are fatefully mutilated. . being
directed towards the highest ideals of righteousness and faith bear witness
to the fact that religious faith is the only happiness/ ./ lack of religious
ideals, therefore, impudence and impenitence, lead to damnation - the
theologian Dr. Joze Krasovec; ), Christians who do not attend Church (I have
the impression that the main problem of those who call upon Christ, but
reject the establishment of the Church, lies in their own lack of personal
integrity. - the theologian Dr. Joze Krasovec, teachers, Muslims, the
Constitution and the Constitutional Court (The principle of separating the
church from the State - this article in the Constitution is "unnecessary and
unsuitable as it discriminates against a part of the country's citizens. -
the theologian Dr. Borut Kosir; In relation to the tale of the confessional
act in public education, "I say that in this case the positions of the State
and the Constitutional Court that defend this regulation, are in no way as
neutral as they should be; moreover their disposition towards religiousness
is negative and hostile. - Auxiliary Bishop, Dr. Anton Stres), individuals
that are same gender oriented, immigrants, etc. Expressions of intolerance
towards those that do not believe have been less frequent; most often they
have been directed towards the RCC as an institution or spiritual body, and
not towards the believers themselves. In the intolerance towards believers,
intolerance towards Muslim believers, which we have detected mostly in
relation to the opposition of building a mosque, prevails. This intolerance
came to the surface in different ways: signed and unsigned letters to the
Ombudsman and in letters published in newspapers. Politicians of individual
political parties are also not without responsibility here.

The reduction of any kind of intolerance is possible only by establishing a
reasonable dialogue, and for this reason the Human Rights Ombudsman has more
dealt with mediation, trying to establish a dialogue between the different
sides and a mutual recognition of one's own and others' problems, rather
than making statements on the subject. Warnings of the intolerance of others
often highlight one's own over-sensitivity and total insensitivity towards
the problems of others! In a state of mutual distrust, lack of
understanding, and above all, lack of communication, social action in
reducing mutual intolerance and increasing dialogue, and with it
understanding, is vital. For this reason, the Office of the Human Rights
Ombudsman as a whole has intensified its dialogues with various groups of
people, not least with various religious communities. (In these two actions,
which the Open Letter mentions and which could have been construed as
attacks on the Catholic faith, the Human Rights Ombudsman released a message
and so this could not be taken as a true statement on the ignorance of the
Human Rights Ombudsman towards the intolerances faced by the RCC. The Human
Rights Ombudsman is constantly making a point about the unacceptable acts
which offend members of other faiths, also those belonging to the RCC!) Two
years ago (6 September 2001) I also sent a letter to the Archbishop of
Ljubljana, Dr. France Rode with the wish to meet and discuss the problems
with which Catholic believers are faced. I have yet to receive a reply to my
letter. Even though not answering a letter is a right, however, without
communication it is not possible to sort matters out in an appropriate
manner.

In view of the problems that other religious communities experience (not
being able to gain a building for religious purposes, refusals to have their
religious community registered) it is difficult for the RCC to present
itself as a marginalized group: it is the most numerous religious community
in Slovenia; it has economic power and property; it has entered into a
special agreement with the State (not with the full content it wished for,
but still), etc. Also expressions of intolerance towards the RCC are often
made in reply to intolerant statements towards other social groups, which
are made by high-ranking representatives of the RCC. For this reason it is
vital that, more than condemning others and calling international
institutions in to help, that the RCC would try to establish a tolerant
dialogue with those that are different. In this, it could join in with the
efforts of the Human Rights Ombudsman in reducing mutual lack of
understanding, distrust and intolerance. As the strongest religious
community in Slovenia it also carries a responsibility to do so.

Human Rights Ombudsman
Matjaz Hanzek
Ljubljana, 1 September 2003