|
LOBBYING REPORT |
Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Section 5) - All Filers Are Required to Complete This Page
2. Address
Address1 | 42020 Village Center Plaza |
Address2 | Suite 120-200 |
City | Stone Ridge |
State | VA |
Zip Code | 20105 |
Country | USA |
3. Principal place of business (if different than line 2)
City | Chantilly |
State | VA |
Zip Code | 20152 |
Country | USA |
|
5. Senate ID# 91650-12
|
||||||||
|
6. House ID# 368070000
|
TYPE OF REPORT | 8. Year | 2017 |
Q1 (1/1 - 3/31) | Q2 (4/1 - 6/30) | Q3 (7/1 - 9/30) | Q4 (10/1 - 12/31) |
9. Check if this filing amends a previously filed version of this report
10. Check if this is a Termination Report | Termination Date |
|
11. No Lobbying Issue Activity |
INCOME OR EXPENSES - YOU MUST complete either Line 12 or Line 13 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12. Lobbying | 13. Organizations | ||||||||
INCOME relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period was: | EXPENSE relating to lobbying activities for this reporting period were: | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
Provide a good faith estimate, rounded to the nearest $10,000, of all lobbying related income for the client (including all payments to the registrant by any other entity for lobbying activities on behalf of the client). | 14. REPORTING Check box to indicate expense accounting method. See instructions for description of options. | ||||||||
Method A.
Reporting amounts using LDA definitions only
Method B. Reporting amounts under section 6033(b)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code Method C. Reporting amounts under section 162(e) of the Internal Revenue Code |
Signature | Digitally Signed By: Greg Mitchell |
Date | 7/20/2017 10:49:58 PM |
LOBBYING ACTIVITY. Select as many codes as necessary to reflect the general issue areas in which the registrant engaged in lobbying on behalf of the client during the reporting period. Using a separate page for each code, provide information as requested. Add additional page(s) as needed.
15. General issue area code FOR
16. Specific lobbying issues
On behalf of 41 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of the implementation of recommendations contained in the Policy Brief, "U.S. Foreign Policy and International Religious Freedom: Recommendations for the Trump Administration and the U.S. Congress"; and to support the nomination of a qualified Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom as soon as possible. As stated in the Policy Brief, millions are subject to violent persecution because of their religious beliefs. While many suffer persecution around the world, the genocide practiced by ISIS against Yezidis, Christians, Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims who reject ISIS, and other minorities in Iraq and Syria constitutes the vilest contemporary case. What is happening to minorities in the Middle East represents a humanitarian catastrophe and a serious national security threat. We believe that the most effective way to address both is to uphold the principle of religious liberty for all people in the Middle East-indeed, to support religious freedom for everyone, everywhere. Congress recently passed the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act to strengthen U.S. law and more prominently integrate this foundational human right into U.S. foreign policy and national security strategies. The U.S. government now has a remarkable opportunity, at low cost, to consolidate and build upon these recent improvements, expand and further strengthen U.S. international religious freedom policy and make a major contribution to international justice and stability, fundamental human rights, economic growth, and U.S. national security. The Policy Brief outlines an agenda for enhancing the U.S. Governments capacity and practical effectiveness in advancing the global spread of religious freedom, which ought to be a national and international security imperative. We support its recommendations that the President set a clear policy priority for international religious freedom; produce a National Security Strategy and Presidential Directive on international religious freedom, and integrate it into the National Security Strategy of the United States; commit the institutional and financial resources necessary to succeed; and nominate a high-profile and widely-respected Ambassador-at-Large with a demonstrated expertise in foreign policy and religious freedom. By implementing these recommendations, the President will ensure that our international religious freedom policy will be integrated into U.S. strategies to reduce religious persecution, protect minorities, counter violent religious extremism and conflict, stabilize post-conflict societies and struggling democracies, promote economic growth, and pursue justice. In so doing, the President will send a clear and urgent message regarding the inherent dignity of every human being, while advancing global security in the fight against persecution, religious extremism and terrorism.
On behalf of 28 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts to express our continuing deep concern about rising restrictions on religion in the Republic of Kazakhstan; and to urge U.S. government leaders to engage Kazakh President Nazarbayev and leaders of his government regarding the 2011 Religion Law and related amendments to the Criminal Code and Administrative Code, and urge them to amend the 2011 Religion Law and related articles in these Codes in order to bring them into conformity with international human rights standards, Kazakhstan's international commitments, and its own Constitution. Related to this, shared the Kazakhstan report of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, which recommends reforms to the 2011 Religion Law. The brief summary of this formal report on his mission to Kazakhstan stated:
While acknowledging a general appreciation of religious diversity in the country, he noticed adverse attitudes towards some non-traditional religious communities. The State monitors religious activities strictly, with a view to preventing extremism and to combating sects deemed destructive to peoples well-being. Many of the measures adopted for this purpose are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, the mandatory registration of religious communities, in conjunction with tightly knit stipulations, largely hampers free religious practice, which takes place in an atmosphere of legal insecurity.
Further, the Special Rapporteurs conclusions include:
66. the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations shows restrictive features that are not in line with international standards of freedom of religion or belief. The most obvious problem concerns the mandatory status of official registration. Failure to obtain this status means that a religious community is deemed illegal, which has far-reaching negative repercussions on the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief. Moreover, even those communities which are registered suffer to some extent from legal insecurity, inter alia due to the official confinement of permitted religious activities to certain predefined issues and territorial boundaries. In general, the 2011 Law is based on the assumption that the exercise of core aspects of freedom of religion depends on specific acts of Government approval - thereby turning the relationship between freedom and limitations, as generally understood in the framework of human rights, upside down.
67. While Kazakhstan has broadly embraced religious pluralism, members of non-traditional small religious communities, frequently branded as sects, continue to experience suspicion, mistrust and discrimination in society. Moreover, some provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code on Administrative Offences - both the existing and the new Codes - which are aimed at combating religious hatred or religious extremism - are defined only vaguely, thus creating a climate of legal insecurity, which is further exacerbated by shortcomings in the handling of criminal procedures, long pretrial detention and related problems. Similar problems are associated with the 2005 Law on Countering Extremism.
Finally, the Special Rapporteurs recommendations include:
(a) The Special Rapporteur recommends that the Government consider amending the relevant provisions of the Constitution to bring them into line with article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(b) The Government should bring its constitutional provisions pertinent to freedom of religion or belief fully into line with article 18 of the Covenant and other relevant international human rights standards.
(d) Above all, the Special Rapporteur would like to recommend far-reaching reforms of the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations based on an understanding that registration should be in the service of freedom of religion or belief which, due to its status as a universal human right, inheres in all human beings, prior to - and independent of - any specific acts of administrative approval. The most important consequence would be that registration should be an offer, not a mandatory requirement, for religious community practice. Non-registered communities must be able to operate free from discrimination and free from fear of intimidation.
Also shared a recent UN Human Rights Committee decision that adopted views and conclusions that an individual-Viktor Yakovlevich Leven (the author)-was a victim of violations by Kazakhstan of his rights under Article 18 of the ICCPR. In the Consideration of the merits section of this decision against Kazakhstan are the following three points:
9.2 In the present case, the Committee notes that, not having been registered as a foreign missionary on behalf of his church, the author was convicted for conducting missionary activity, which consisted of preaching and praying and conducting meetings and religious rituals among the followers of the church
9.4 The Committee concludes that the punishment imposed on the author, and in particular its harsh consequences for the author, who is facing deportation, amount to a limitation of the authors right to manifest his religion under article 18, paragraph 1; that the limitation has not been shown to serve any legitimate purpose identified in article 18, paragraph 3; and neither has the State party shown that this sweeping limitation of the right to manifest religion is proportionate to any legitimate purpose that it might serve. The limitation therefore does not meet the requirements of article 18, paragraph 3, and the Committee accordingly finds that the authors rights under article 18, paragraph 1, have been violated.
10.The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it discloses a violation by the State party of the authors rights under article 18 of the Covenant.
Also shared the UN Human Rights Committee's second periodic report of Kazakhstan. On July 11, 2016, the Committee adopted principal matters of concern and recommendations, including:
13.The Committee is concerned about the broad formulation of the concepts of extremism, inciting social or class hatred and religious hatred or enmity under the State partys criminal legislation and the use of such legislation on extremism to unduly restrict freedoms of religion, expression, assembly and association. It is also concerned about reports that counter-terrorism activities continue to target in particular members or presumed members of banned or unregistered Islamic groups, such as the Tabligh Jamaat.
14.The State party should bring its counter-terrorism and counter-extremism legislation and practices into full compliance with its obligations under the Covenant, inter alia by revising the relevant legislative provisions with a view to clarifying and narrowing the broad concepts referred to above, to ensure that they comply with the principles of legal certainty and predictability and that the application of such legislation does not suppress protected conduct and speech
47.The Committee is concerned about undue restrictions on the exercise of freedom of religious belief, including in the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, such as the mandatory registration of religious organizations, the ban on unregistered religious activities, and the restrictions on the importation and distribution of religious materials. The Committee is further concerned about the use of broadly formulated crimes and administrative offences in the Criminal Code, including of articles 174 and 404, the Administrative Code, and the legislation on combating extremism to punish individuals exercising their freedom of religion and belief with severe sanctions.
48.The State party should guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of religion and belief and freedom to manifest a religion or belief in practice. It should consider bringing article 22 of its Constitution in line with the Covenant and revise all relevant laws and practices with a view to removing all restrictions that go beyond the narrowly construed restrictions permitted under article 18 of the Covenant.
Also shared the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) call for Kazakhstan to make revisions to the Religion Law. The call came in its Preliminary Opinion on the Draft Amendments to the Legal Framework On Countering Extremism and Terrorism in the Republic of Kazakhstan, issued on 6 October 2016:
80. UN human rights monitoring bodies have recently reiterated their concerns about undue restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief imposed by the 2011 Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations of Kazakhstan the Law On Religious Activities and Religious Associations should be revised to ensure that religious groups/organizations can be formed and operate freely even in the absence of registration or without the States prior approval.
On behalf of 18 organizations and individuals, including the client, who signed a multi-faith letter, made contacts in support of the partnership that exists today between India and the United States, and to urge the President to raise deep concern about the level of organized violence against Christians, Muslims and other religious minorities in India with Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his visit to Washington. India has been on USCIRFs Tier 2 list since 2009, and things are getting worse. For a country on the Tier 2 list, religious freedom conditions do not rise to the statutory level that would mandate a Country of Particular Concern designation but require close monitoring due to the nature and extent of violations of religious freedom engaged in or tolerated by governments. We agree with the USCIRF 2017 Annual Report, which stated several key findings regarding India:
In 2016, religious tolerance and religious freedom conditions continued to deteriorate in India. Hindu nationalist groups-such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Sangh Parivar, and Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)-and their sympathizers perpetrated numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment, and violence against religious minority communities and Hindu Dalits. These violations were most frequent and severe in 10 of Indias 29 states. National and state laws that restrict religious conversion, cow slaughter, and the foreign funding of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and a constitutional provision deeming Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains to be Hindus helped create the conditions enabling these violations. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke publicly about the importance of communal tolerance and religious freedom, members of the ruling party have ties to Hindu nationalist groups implicated in religious freedom violations, used religiously divisive language to inflame tensions, and called for additional laws that would restrict religious freedom. These issues, combined with longstanding problems of police and judicial bias and inadequacies, have created a pervasive climate of impunity in which religious minorities feel increasingly insecure and have no recourse when religiously motivated crimes occur. Based on these concerns, in 2017 USCIRF again places India on its Tier 2, where it has been since 2009.
Regarding religious freedom conditions, the USCIRF 2017 Annual Report states:
During the past year, there were numerous reports of harassment and violent attacks against Muslims by Hindu nationalists, including local and state BJP members Christian communities across many denominations reported numerous incidents of harassment and attacks in 2016, which they attribute to Hindu nationalist groups supported by the BJP.
We believe that it is in Indias self-interest to protect the rights of all its citizens, including religious minorities, in order to have a stable and secure society that will be able to contribute to vital U.S. interests in the region.
17. House(s) of Congress and Federal agencies Check if None
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, State - Dept of (DOS), U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, U.S. SENATE, Executive Office of the President (EOP), Natl Security Council (NSC)
18. Name of each individual who acted as a lobbyist in this issue area
First Name | Last Name | Suffix | Covered Official Position (if applicable) | New |
Greg |
Mitchell |
|
|
19. Interest of each foreign entity in the specific issues listed on line 16 above Check if None
Information Update Page - Complete ONLY where registration information has changed.
20. Client new address
Address |
|
||||||
City |
|
State |
|
Zip Code |
|
Country |
|
21. Client new principal place of business (if different than line 20)
City |
|
State |
|
Zip Code |
|
Country |
|
22. New General description of client’s business or activities
LOBBYIST UPDATE
23. Name of each previously reported individual who is no longer expected to act as a lobbyist for the client
|
|
||||||||
1 |
|
3 |
|
||||||
2 |
|
4 |
|
ISSUE UPDATE
24. General lobbying issue that no longer pertains
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFFILIATED ORGANIZATIONS
25. Add the following affiliated organization(s)
Internet Address:
Name | Address |
Principal Place of Business (city and state or country) |
||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
26. Name of each previously reported organization that is no longer affiliated with the registrant or client
1 | 2 | 3 |
FOREIGN ENTITIES
27. Add the following foreign entities:
Name | Address |
Principal place of business (city and state or country) |
Amount of contribution for lobbying activities | Ownership percentage in client | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
% |
28. Name of each previously reported foreign entity that no longer owns, or controls, or is affiliated with the registrant, client or affiliated organization
1 | 3 | 5 |
2 | 4 | 6 |