Our covering letter is here.  It attaches our detailed comments, which have three enclosures: a letter from BEPA to the EHF dated 16 November 2011; an email from BEPA to the EHFdated 5 May 2011 and a letter from the EHF to BEPA dated 28 January 2008.

In our comments we point out that the discrimination against us has been reinforced even since our complaint to the Ombudsman was made:

The Commission claims that dialogue seminars are meant to address wider issues. In an email to the EHF dated 5 May 2011, the Commission said that “dialogue meetings focus exclusively on Commission policy initiatives” . . . and that “a dialogue seminar on freedom of religion and of belief is not appropriate”.

Yet on 30 March 2012 the Commission held a full-day dialogue seminar with the churches on “Freedom of Religion: A Fundamental Right in a Rapidly Changing World”. That meeting was addressed by the Director General of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers, the Director of Equality at DG Justice, the Deputy Head of the Division of Human Rights Policy Instruments and Bilateral Cooperation, and the Head of the Equality and Citizen’s Rights Unit at the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. Only one session during the Seminar addressed matters outside the EU: the major part of the programme was on exactly the subject that we had been refused. What is more, the Director General of the Bureau of European Policy Advisers actually said at the dialogue seminar “Le thème du séminaire d’aujourd’hui “La liberté de religion: un droit fondamental dans un monde en mutation rapide” est très pertinent” [The theme of today's seminar, "Freedom of Religion: A Fundamental Right in a Rapidly Changing World", is particularly pertinent].

It appears, therefore, that the Commission was indeed discriminating against the EHF: whilst the churches were offered a full-day dialogue seminar with high-ranking officials to put their case for freedom of religion, the EHF was offered a mere one hour and a half low-level meeting to make representations about the risk that freedom of religion or belief might clash with other human rights. It is most worrying to note that the Commission’s discriminatory policy is ongoing despite the EHF’s complaint to your office.

For the EHF’s complaint, see here .

For the Ombudsman’s request for comments from the Commission, see here. 

For the Commission response to the Ombudsman’s questions, see here.

The Ombudsman’s letter and the EU response may be read here.

For the EHF’s complaint, see here .

For the Ombudsman’s request for comments from the Commission, see here.

For the EHF’s comments to the Ombudsman on the Commission’s response, see here. 

We sent emails as requested to Prof. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, the General Director of Human Rights at the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, to Mr. Suryadharma Ali, the Minister of Religion Affairs; to Mr. Ifdhal Kasim, the Chairperson of KOMNAS HAM (National Human Rights Commission), and to Mr. Suwarsa Hidayat, the Head of Muaro Sijunjung District Court, as follows:

INDONESIA: An atheist on trial for religious defamation in Padang, West Sumatra

Dear . . .  ,

Name of victim: Alexander Aan
Names of alleged perpetrators: Police officers of Pulau Punjung Sub-District Police Station, prosecutors of Sijunjung District Prosecutors Office, potentially the panel of judges at the Muaro Sijunjung District Court who examines Alex’s case.
Date of incident: 18 January 2012 – present (ongoing)
Place of incident: Dharmasraya, Padang, West Sumatra

I am writing on behalf of the European Humanist Federation, which unites over 50 organisations from over 20 countries in Europe.

We wish to voice our concern regarding the case of Alexander Aan, an atheist civil servant in Dharmasraya, Padang, West Sumatra. Alex was arrested, charged and tried for posting a status on Facebook questioning the existence of God. He is also alleged to have disseminated religious hatred on the internet by posting a note and comic on Facebook entitled ‘The Prophet Muhammad was attracted to his own daughter-in-law’ and ‘The Prophet Muhammad had been sleeping with his wife’s maid.’

According to the prosecutor’s Letter of Indictment, Alex’s actions have insulted Islam as well as caused outcry in the community. His posts are also considered as persuading others to embrace atheism, which is a crime under article 156a (b) of the Indonesian Penal Code (KUHP). In addition to this, Alex is also charged with article 28 (2) of the Electronic Information and Transaction (ITE) Law for disseminating religious hatred on the internet and article 156a (a) of the KUHP on religious defamation.

We seriously regret that the KUHP criminalises activities pertaining to persuading other people to embrace atheism. Article 156a (b) of KUHP is not only open to arbitrary interpretation, but it is also contradictory with the right to freedom of religion. I would like to remind you that Indonesia is a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which guarantees freedom of religion. According to the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 22, freedom of religion also includes the freedom to have and adopt atheistic belief. Alex’s Facebook status questioning the existence of god is merely an expression of this belief, which should not be punished.

We are of the view that Alex’s posts on Facebook should be seen as an exercise of his freedom of expression. While we are aware that such freedom might be subjected to restrictions, we would like to emphasise that these restrictions only apply when it is necessary to respect the rights or reputations of others and for the protection of national security, public order, health, or morals. In this case, Alex’s action do not pose a threat to any of those; neither do they amounts to an advocacy of religious hatred, incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. His posts might have insulted Muslims and Islam yet they do not contain any statements which encourage other people to discriminate, commit violence or be hostile to the Muslims. Moreover, under human rights principles, there is no such thing as ‘the right not to be offended’ and the freedom of religion does not include the right to protection of religious feelings.

We wish to draw to your attention the Joint Declaration on Defamation of Religion which was issued in 2008 by the representatives of various human rights bodies who deal with the issue of freedom of expression (UN, OSCE, OAS and ACHPR). According to this declaration, “the concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own”. The Declaration also establishes that “restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the prediction of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones”.

Based on all of these, teh European Humanist Federation urges you to stop all legal proceedings against Alexander Aan as well as to release and provide him with adequate compensation. We strongly recommend you to withdraw any laws and provisions which are not in accordance with freedom of expression: the ITE Law as well as article 156a (a) and (b) of the KUHP. Only by so doing can the Indonesian government comply with its international obligations concerning the right to freedom of expression.

We look forward to seeing your swift action on this matter.

Yours sincerely,
David Pollock
President, European Humanist Federation

(27 April 2012)

It was as usual thoroughly well organised with two panel discussions with invited experts and some forty workshops of which thirty were conducted by NGOs and the rest by FRA staff.

In the election for Advisory Panel members, six were elected from a pool of 24 candidates.  Regrettably one of these was from the American organisation the Alliance Defence Fund (see below).

The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe ran one of the parallel sessions.  This was a rather sparsely attended presentation of its annual report.  The report repeated much of the outrageous and misguided attack it had made in a submission to the EU Religare project designed to counter our own paper “Religion in Society”, as reported here.  On behalf of the EHF I circulated a short refutation of the Observatory’s attack.  The Observatory’s director Gudrun Kugler presented a slide show of pictures showing violent, discriminatory and distasteful acts against Christians. I said that as humanists we clearly disapproved of such behaviour but that on the other side of the coin were oppressive tendencies by the Catholic church to impose their faith on others, as for instance through their monopoly in some states of religious education in schools.

The FRA website has further information and presentations.

The Observatory claims to be ”a non-governmental and not-for-profit organisation registered under Austrian law” but is run out of a commercial consultancy firm.

David Pollock, EHF President, adds that the election to the Panel of Roger Kiska, Senior Legal Counsel at the Alliance Defence Fund, marks a further step in the advance into Europe of the American religious right.

The Alliance Defence Fund says of itself:

“ADF is a legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith. Launched in 1994, ADF employs a unique combination of strategy, training, funding, and litigation to protect and preserve religious liberty, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family.”

It cites the progress made in Europe with equality and non-discrimination as an awful warning to its domestic audiences in the USA and intervenes in European affairs – for example, it claims that its legal action at the European Court of Human Rights was instrumental in persuading Spain to abandon the ethics classes mandated in Spain by the previous government  (the new right-wing government was opposed to them anyway).  It submitted a legal opinion to the Czech government trying to dissuade it from making abortions available at a reasonable cost to citizens of other EU states.

It has also been allowed by the European Court of Human Rights to intervene in the four cases from the UK that are to be decided this autumn, including two in which Christians claim a right to refuse services to gays.

Kisko’s election address was distinctly deceitful in what it did not say:

As an international human rights lawyer specialising in fundamental rights and having experience with all of the European institutions, I am well placed to serve the needs and provide the proper level of legal and policy based expertise on behalf of the FRA’s NGO constituents. Being Vienna based, I would further be available to the Advisory Panel for any and all meetings. The breadth of my legal work on behalf of the Alliance Defense Fund has included involvement in more than 20 cases dealing with fundamental rights at the European Court of Human Rights. As a human rights expert I have also testified or keynoted Committee or Inter-group meetings at the European Parliament on rights issues. I have further had the privilege of serving as an expert for other national parliaments in Europe. It would indeed be an honour to serve the Advisory Panel and the fine NGO’s it represents.

David Pollock says: “We need to raise awareness of the motivations of organisations such as ADF and the European Centre for Law and Justice (an offshoot from the American evangelist Pat Robertson) which tend to pass under the radar with names and presentations that suggest a more disinterested approach.”

Our General Assembly and conference will this year be in Utrecht, Netherlands, on 25-27 May.

Details of the General Assembly and Open Meeting on Friday 25 May are here.

In parallel with these there will be a programme for European Humanist Professionals, details of which are here.

Below are details of the conference on Humanism and Resilience, which runs from the evening of Friday May 25 to lunchtime on Sunday May 27.

Details are also available on the conference website where in addition you can register, pay any necessary fees and find links to recommended hotels.

Conference theme

Programme

Speakers

Registration

HUMANISM AND RESILIENCE

Today we are all exposed to media hype, political populism and a great variety of other such pervasive influences.  Not only that, but economic instability is creating a general sense of insecurity in Europe.  The result is widespread disenchantment with politics.

All this poses a serious threat to to vital human values, such as freedom, responsibility, solidarity, and even human dignity.  To avoid being swept away by such trends people need resilience.

Why resilience? The Dutch founding father of contemporary humanism, Jaap van Praag, had a vision of a humanism that could deliver the building blocks for a resilient lifestance. He saw it as his mission to shape humanism so that it could empower people and make them resilient against unthinking conformity and against nihilism.

To be resilient means to be able to think for yourself and to resist peer pressure.

The Dutch founding father of contemporary humanism, Jaap van Praag, had a vision of a humanism that could deliver the building blocks for a resilient lifestance. He saw it as his mission to shape humanism so that it could empower people and make them resilient against unthinking conformity and against nihilism.

Resilience comes not from cutting yourself off from such influences but from having the capacity and the freedom to respond to them – while recognizing that in fact you are always influenced by others and the culture you live in.

Starting with a keynote speech on Friday evening, 25 May and ending at lunchtime on Sunday 27 May we will explore how humanism can help us in our everyday lives as citizens.

During the conference, helped by a series of expert speakers, we will explore the importance of resilience from different angles in interactive sessions. You will interact, participate and be inspired.

PROGRAMME

Friday 25 May

9 am – 5 pm General Assembly and Open Meeting OR alternative programme for Humanist Professionals

CONFERENCE: HUMANISM AND RESILIENCE

Friday 25 May

8 – 8.20 pm Official opening of the conference
Ineke de Vries, president of the Dutch Humanist Association

8.20 – 9 pm Keynote speech by Pascal Bruckner

9 – 9.30  Questions from the audience

Saturday 26 May

9.30 am Welcome and practical information

9.45 am Intermezzo: Waking up your body and mind

10.00 am Campaigning with David Pollock
On humanism, secularism and Europe

10.30 am Intermezzo: Succumbing to peer pressure with your neighbour

10.40 am Becoming Resilient with Joachim Duyndam
On resilience, humanism and Europe

11.10 am Coffee with everybody

11.30 am Intermezzo: finding your way

11.45 am Questions for Joachim Duyndam and David Pollock

12.30 pm Having lunch with fellow humanists

2 pm Parallel sessions, round I: choose any one of the following:

A Walk with Wiel Veugelers
A session on education

Watching telly with Marc Josten
A session on medialogic by Marc Josten

Getting empowered with (CAL)
A session on emancipation

Getting involved with Hans van Ewijk
A session on civil participation

Saving the world with Caroline Suransky
A session international humanism

3 pm Tea with your new friends

3.30 pm  Parallel sessions round II: choose another from the same list of sessions as in round I

4.30 Free time

7 – 10 pm  Dining with our friends
Conference dinner at ‘De beleving’ restaurant

Sunday 27 May

10 am Breakfast with Sophie in ‘t Veld MEP

10.45 am Juice with someone you don’t know . . . yet

11.15 am Getting creative with Andrew Copson

12 pm Saying goodbye with Ineke de Vries

SPEAKERS

Pascal Bruckner (France)
Pascal Bruckner is a French writer and is part of the Cercle de l’Oratoire think tank. After studies at the university Paris I and Paris VII, and then at the École Pratique des Hautes Études, he became maître de conférences at the Institut d’Études Politiques de Paris, and collaborator at the Nouvel Observateur.

A prolific writer, Pascal Bruckner began writing in the vein of the so-called ‘nouveaux philosophes’ and counts among their best known French proponents. He published ‘Parias, ou la tentation de l’Inde’ (‘Parias, or the temptation of India’), ‘Lunes de Fiel’ (adapted to film by Roman Polanski) and ‘Les voleurs de beauté’ (The beauty stealers) (Prix Renaudot in 1997). Among essays, ‘La tentation de l’innocence’ (Temptation of innocence) (Prix Médicis in 1995) and, famously, ‘Le Sanglot de l’Homme blanc’ (‘The Cry of the White Man’), an attack against narcissistic and destructive policies in the interest for the Third World, and more recently ‘La tyrannie de la pénitence’ (2006), an essay on the West’s endless self-criticism.

Joachim Duyndam (Netherlands)
Joachim Duyndam is Socrates Professor of Philosophy at the University of Humanistics in the Netherlands. He chairs the interdisciplinary research project ‘Resilience and Humanism’ and he co-chairs the interdisciplinary research project ‘Current Fascinations of Sacrifice’.

His publications debate the legacies of, among others, Emmanuel Levinas, Martin Heidegger and René Girard, discussing such themes as mimesis, empathy, generosity, forgiveness, humiliation, and uniqueness. He is editor-in-chief of The Levinas Online Bibliography. He is member of the Colloquium on Violence and Religion since 2007. His keynote speech at COV&R 2007 is published in Contagion. Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 15/16 (2009). A list of publications is available here.

David Pollock (United Kingdom)
Elected EHF president in 2006 and ending his term of office with this General Assembly, David Pollock has been actively involved in the humanist movement since 1961. He is a member of the board of the British Humanist Association (1965-75 and 1997 to date; chair: 1970-72) and of the board of the Rationalist Association (1979 to date; chair: 1989-91). He takes a special interest in policy and campaigning on the place of religion and belief in society and on other questions of public policy. He took a degree in classics at Oxford, had a 25-year career in the coal industry, was then successively Director of Action on Smoking and Health and of the Continence Foundation, and retired in February 2001.

Hans van Ewijk (Netherlands)
From 2002, Hans van Ewijk was professor of Social Policy and Social Work at Utrecht University of Applied Sciences / Hogeschool Utrecht and also chair of the Research Centre for Social Innovation. From 2011 he left those positions. In 2009 he was appointed as endowed professor of Social Work Theory at the University for Humanistics in Utrecht. Moreover he is a visiting professor at Tartu University, Estonia.

Previously, Hans van Ewijk was executive director of the Netherlands Institute for Care and Welfare (1991-2004). He was also president of ICSW Europe and the first chair of ENSACT, a network of European social work departments, professional associations and institutions. He started his career as a teacher and youth worker and was later editor-in-chief of the journal Jeugd en samenleving (Youth and society).  Find out more here.

Caroline Suransky (Netherlands)
Dr. Caroline Suransky is director of the UvH Kosmopolis Institute and co-chair of the International Pluralism Knowledge Program with the Humanist Institute for Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos). Within the program, her responsibilities include academic exchanges between international partner organizations, the Pluralism PhD program and the annual Kosmopolis Summer School on Pluralism, Human Development and Human Rights.

In addition, she co-chairs the UvH research program on Citizenship in Intercultural Societies. Suransky studied Education and Philosophy at the University of Utrecht, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, USA and the University of Durban-Westville (currently UKZN) in South Africa.

Her own current research focuses on identity politics and higher education. Currently she is working on ‘Racism and transformation in Higher Education in South Africa’ as Research Fellow of the Institute of Studies in Race, Reconciliation and Social Justice at the University of the Free State in South Africa. Caroline Suransky is Chief Editor of the Journal of Humanistic Studies.

Marc Josten (Netherlands)
Marc Josten is editor-in-chief and vice-director at HUMAN, the Humanist broadcasting organisation. He is a cross-media journalist, and makes documentaries and philosophical programmes. He also works for other public broadcasting services. Marc Josten studied law and public administration and wrote for various Dutch news magazines, including ‘Vrij Nederland’. His work as a journalist was influential.

He is also a guest lecturer on the MA course on Research and Editing at the University of Amsterdam and publishes regularly on journalism-related topics in newspapers and blogs such as de Nieuwe Reporter and Villamedia.  Find out more here.

Wiel Veugelers (Netherlands)
Wiel Veugelers is an endowed professor of Education at the University for Humanistics in Utrecht. He also teaches at the Institute for Teacher Training at the University of Amsterdam. His researches education from a humanist perspective and has done much research on the topic of education, the role of teachers in this and the relationship between education and life stance.

He writes on youth cultures, children’s experiences in education, cooperative networks between schools, and the relationship between school and environment. He is a member of the editorial board of the International Journal of Leadership in Education and coordinator of the International Network for Democratic Education. Find out more here.

Sophie in ‘t Veld (Netherlands)
Sophie in ´t Veld is in her second term as a member of the European Parliament for the Dutch social-liberal party D66 and president of the European Parliament Platform for Secularism in Politics. Born in Vollenhove in the Netherlands, she spent three years of her early childhood in Surinam but has since lived in the Dutch cities of the Hague and Delft. After studying medieval history at university, Sophie worked as a freelance in private companies and public institutions. From 1993 she worked as assistant to former MEP Johanna Boogerd.  In ´t Veld is concerned about the growth of Euro-scepticism and believes in a Europe that is based on the values of the Age of Enlightenment. In the summer of 2011 Sophie in ‘t Veld received the International Humanist Award at the IHEU conference in Oslo. Publications by Sophie, in English, are listed here.

Andrew Copson (United Kingdom)

Andrew Copson became Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association (BHA) in January 2010 after five years coordinating the BHA’s education and public affairs work. His writing on humanist and secularist issues has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and New Statesman as well as in various journals and he has represented the BHA and Humanism extensively on television and radio.

He is a former chair of the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association and is currently a trustee of the South Place Ethical Society at Conway Hall (he chairs their Education and Arts Advisory Group and the James Hemming and Blackham Fellowships committees and serves on the advisory group for the Humanist Reference Library).

He is a former director of the European Humanist Federation and is currently a Vice President of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), where he leads on Communications. He has previously served as an IHEU delegate to the Council of Europe and has represented humanist organizations to the United Nations (UN) and Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). He has advised on Humanism for the UK Department for Children, Schools and Families, the BBC, and the Office of National Statistics among others.

He is a member of the Advisory Group for the Humanist Library at London’s Conway Hall and, in a previous post in the office of Lord Macdonald of Tradeston in the House of Lords, he provided the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group. Find out more here.

REGISTRATION

Registration is now open: go to the dedicated conference website, where you can pay the relevant fees and find links to recommended hotels.

The attendance fee for the conference is €95. This includes the keynote speech on Friday and the lectures and sessions on Saturday and Sunday. It also includes the conference dinner and lunch on Saturday.

It is also possible to attend only the Keynote speech for a fee of €12.50.

There is no fee for attending the General Assembly and Open Meeting.

The programme for European Humanist Professionals costs €3.50.

We strongly advise you to register, book your hotel and travel as soon as possible.

In the first part of the day, there will be two groups. One group will visit the University Medical Centre of Utrecht, which has between 15,000 and 19,000 visitors every day and about 11,000 employees. The visit will be to the department of ‘life-orientation and spiritual care’. The second group will visit the training centre for Humanistic Educators. Both visits will be followed by a lunch.

In the afternoon the groups will join up and there will be a visit to the Humanistic Department at the Armed Forces, where you will learn about missions and counseling in specific army situations. After the visit the Department will organize a three-course dinner which will end in time for you to attend the keynote address at the start of this year’s  conference on Humanism and Resilience.

To register and pay for this programme, go to the dedicated conference website.

He was commenting on part of an EU-financed study on Identities and Modernities in Europe, a collaboration between several universities across Europe, part of which had looked at religion in schools in Bulgaria, Croatia, France and the United Kingdom – see here. 

He said: “From the time of the Westphalian settlement, when states stopped trying to impose their religion on other states in the wars of religion and decided instead that cuius regio, eius religio*, governments have taken sides on what religion their citizens should follow and have only slowly come to concede individual liberty. . .  But no state has fully followed through the implications of individual freedom of religion or belief . . .

“Even so, European standards are, at least formally, secularist – in the sense of neutral as between different religions and beliefs. Defenders of church privilege try to depict a secular state as an atheist state. They are wrong, and sometimes cynically and consciously wrong.  A secular state, by not taking sides for or against religion or atheism, for or against one belief or another, is the best guarantor we have of freedom of religion or belief. Europe has espoused secularism, human rights and equality and non-discrimination . . .

“In this neutrality, this secularism, the European institutions reflect the views of the population. Europeans are increasingly alienated from religion and religious institutions. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in the EU’s own Eurobarometer surveys, carried out across Europe . . .

“So I believe that the contrasts brought out by today’s research are reflections less of fundamental differences between the four states studied than of the distance each has travelled towards secularism in its role as guarantor of freedom of religion or belief from their hugely different starting points. Thus their historical backgrounds, rather than any principled policy-making, has determined where each country stands on the treatment of religion in school.”

David Pollock’s full remarks are here.

 * “The religion of a state shall be that of its ruler.”

Newspapers picked up the story from these sources:  the London Daily Telegraph two days later headlined its story: “Assisted suicide should be illegal throughout Europe, human rights body rules.  Euthanasia and assisted suicide should be banned in every country in the Continent, the Council of Europe has ruled.”

What had happened?  The Parliamentary Assembly works through specialist committees that take a year or more to study a subject in detail and make considered recommendations.  Had we failed to notice a complete committee enquiry on euthanasia and assisted dying?

Not at all.  The Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee had produced a careful and welcome report on living wills: “Protecting human rights and dignity by taking into account previously expressed wishes of patients”.  It was debated on 25 January at the end of a long session after most members of the Assembly had left.  Reactionary religious delegates saw their opportunity: having perhaps already influenced the timing of the debate, they ensured they had enough support to pass by narrow majorities several small amendments irrelevant to the report. 

The main one, passed by 34 votes to 16 with six abstentions (totalling barely one in six of the 318 members), was to add a clarification that the report did not concern euthanasia.  This was, however, worded so as to condemn euthanasia in all circumstances: 

This resolution is not intended to deal with the issues of euthanasia or assisted suicide. Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited. This resolution thus limits itself to the question of advance directives, living wills and continuing powers of attorney.

The resultant resolution can be seen here.  

What are we to make of this?  It is in all essentials a repeat of the ambush of the resolution on conscientious objection in October 2010.  It is an undeniable victory for these reactionary religious forces – an unlikely alliance of the Catholic Church and evangelicals like Pat Robertson (who is behind the European Centre for Law and Justice).  But it is a hollow victory, achieved by underhand manoeuvring and manipulation of a democratic assembly.  It remains to be seen what the result would be in a fair vote in a well attended Assembly.  Could it be that our opponents recognise that in a fair debate they will most likely lose and so resort to ambushes and manoeuvres? 

Meantime, if this vote is quoted in public debates elsewhere, it will be valuable to clarify the way it was obtained.

Our General Assembly, Open Meeting and Conference this year will be held at the end of May in Utrecht, Netherlands.

The General Assembly and Open Meeting are on Friday 25 May.  The conference starts with a keynote speech on Friday evening and ends at lunchtime on Sunday 27 May. Under the title Humanism and Resilience we will explore how humanism can help us in our everyday lives as citizens.  Details of the conference are here and on the dedicated conference website, where you can also register.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

The General Assembly will be held on Friday 25 May in the usual two sessions, but this year the formal meeting will be in the morning and the informal Open Meeting in the afternoon.

9 am – 12.30 pm General Assembly

This is technically only for representatives of EHF member organisations and for individual EHF members, but in fact any member of an EHF member organisation is welcome.  It will receive the annual report and accounts, approve the budget and working plans, elect new board members and conduct other business.

Lunch break

2 pm – 5 pm Open meeting

This informal meeting is for all members of EHF and its member organisations.  There will be more detailed reports on some of the EHF’s work and short reports from member organisations on what they have been doing.  If your organisation would like to offer a report, please email us at admin@humanistfederation.eu.

Member organisations will be sent details of the meetings and all the papers through the ehffhemo Yahoo e-forum.  Please check that your representation on ehffhemo is up to date and that your representatives pass on all the details.