Reply to a recent letter from Tom Levitt:
Reply to a recent letter from Tom Levitt, Labour MP for the High Peak constituency, to a supporter in relation to the recent legislation in Algeria
Mr Levitt says: “Thank you for your recent letter expressing concern about a law which has been brought into force in Algeria. By sheer coincidence I have just returned from a few days’ work in Algeria establishing the first links between our two parliaments. I raised the question of the new law with senior members of the Algerian Government face to face.”
Unfortunately it is clear that although Mr Levitt might have met with senior members of the Algerian Government he seems confused about the new regulations and has relied on what he has been told by those who are clearly not apprising him of the full facts.
Mr Levitt goes on to say: “Before I tell you what answer I got, I must say that I was impressed by the openness and tolerance of Algerian society. You will be aware that the country is 99% Muslim although the Government operates on secular and democratic principles. Algeria has had a very difficult 15 years; we were told in no uncertain terms that our visit would not have been safe five years earlier. We witnessed a Christian church engaged in an act of worship and even saw a synagogue in the city of Oran.”
Algeria has made great advances over the last 5-10 years and things are easier for religious minorities than they were before. However Mr Levitt was probably only shown what the authorities wanted him to see and he should be aware that there are many underground churches that meet secretly for fear of official and unofficial attention. Moreover this recent progress makes the introduction of repressive legislation such a disappointment for the Christians of Algeria. It is difficult to see how a country that introduces such laws can be deemed to be tolerant.
Mr Levitt then says: “The new law was not designed to prevent people changing religion. There was a problem of some small sects using threats and violence to “persuade” people to change their allegiance from one Muslim sect to another. The legislation was designed to restrict the spread of Islamic fundamentalism by banning this practice.”
The first sentence does not address the issue. While Article 11 does not forbid conversion it makes any debate likely to lead to a change of religion extremely difficult. It may make it illegal for a Christian to explain his faith to a Muslim as under Article 11 he risks up to five years in prison under very vague regulations against anyone who “incites, constrains or utilises means of seduction tending to convert a Muslim to another religion”. Possession of materials likely to “shake the faith of a Muslim” also becomes illegal. Having a Bible could be ruled illegal as material likely to shake the faith of a Muslim. This essentially strikes at all testimony, witness, outreach material or answering questions that might lead a Muslim to convert.
The remaining explanation is not borne out by the evidence. Article 1 says “The present ruling has as its objective to fix the conditions and rules of exercise of religious worship other than Muslim.” So it is clearly not designed to regulate the activities of small Muslim sects. The Algerian Ambassador in Australia gives a completely different reason for the legislation, so are different people being given a different story by Algerian authorities?
Mr Levitt goes on to say “Christian groups within Algeria have not, as far as I am aware, raised concerns about this matter: they can see why it is important in a democracy to keep fundamentalism at bay.”
It is simply not the case that Christian groups within Algeria are not concerned about this legislation. The reason Barnabas Fund and others became involved in campaigning against the regulations was because we were asked to do so by a number of such groups. And again the legislation is explicitly not directed at keeping Islamic “fundamentalism at bay”.
Mr Levitt continues,“However, one American church organisation claims that its somewhat aggressive methods of conversion may be the target of the legislation. I am assured this is not the case. No action has been taken or is being contemplated against Christian groups under this legislation.”
Again, although no action may have been taken against Christians as yet, Article 11 and other articles make it clear that action is possible. In any event, if no action is contemplated against Christian groups, why bother to legislate?
Mr Levitt: “I am sure you will agree that religious conversion is a very sensitive and personal matter and is probably rare.
Again, the facts do not bear this out. Twenty-five years ago there were only a few hundred national Algerian Christians. Today there are tens of thousands. There have been numerous public calls from Muslims at all levels for the government to legislate against the growth of indigenous Algerian Christianity, and these new regulations appear to be the clear result.
Mr Levitt goes on to say: “Nevertheless, conversion should be a matter of personal choice and although debate and argument are healthy and necessary, intimidation and coercion should never be used for this purpose.”
This is true. But intimidation and coercion should not be used against healthy debate and argument and this is the real issue with the Algerian legislation. The right to freedom of speech, to express opinions and possess materials “likely to shake the faith of a Muslim” is enshrined in Article 41 of the Algerian Constitution and in Article 19 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (signed by Algeria). The Algerian regulations are clearly contrary to any accepted international norms of freedom of association and speech. The US State Department annual review of religious liberty around the world recently made the same point.
We do not expect the Christians in Algeria to be doing what we in the West would consider to be intimidation or coercion, but, if shaking the faith of a Muslim means that such Christians cannot induce any doubts in the mind of a Muslim, that would effectively silence any discussions about Christianity.
Finally, Mr Levitt says; “I found Algeria a country which was learning many lessons from its recent very sad history and improving its record on human rights. It is anxious to build constructive links with the west on economic and social matters and as a Muslim country committed to defeating terrorism it has the potential to be a very valuable ally.”
It is true to say that since the year 2000 Algeria has been making steady progress in developing a more democratic and open civil society. That it is why it is a pity the government has introduced restrictive laws against a small religious minority.
Mr Levitt must surely know that Christians in Muslim-majority contexts usually live under significant pressure both officially and from society. They are often regarded as dhimmi or second-class citizens. Regulations are routinely used to obstruct worship and church activity. With these regulations the Algerian government is seeking to closely regulate Christian groups, their activity, where Christians can meet, who can speak, who can teach, who can collect funds for Christian work and so on. The penalties are draconian, rising to three years imprisonment for organising a private meeting. A Bible study or a prayer meeting in your own home would seem to fall clearly under the activities prohibited by these regulations.
It is worth noting that Muslims who convert to Christianity or any other faith are usually treated harshly. For the convert there is serious risk of persecution and the adult male apostate risks the official death penalty in a number of Muslim countries, although not in Algeria. Attempting to convert Muslims is often made illegal, as effectively here in Algeria with penalties of up to five years in prison. Conversely, in Muslim societies, trying to convert Christians to Islam is actively encouraged.
Regulations on Muslim religious activities are not the same in Algeria. The Algerian law is clearly discriminatory.
