Christian Convert From Islam Freed After Imprisonment Over Facebook Posts

  • Contributor to Facebook group for Christian converts from Islam has been freed after over three years in detention 
  • Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, father of 5, withstood severe conditions – and period of hunger strike – before being released from prison this month, with support from ADF International

CAIRO (2 February 2025) – The father of 5 imprisoned for participating in a private Facebook group about converting to Christianity from Islam has been freed from detention after 3 years – but his case remains open.

Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, originally from Yemen, was part of a Christian Facebook group that discussed Islamic theology and apologetics. In 2021, Abdo was arrested while he was living as a UNHCR-registered asylum seeker in Egypt. He had originally fled to Egypt because he faced death threats in Yemen after converting to Christianity.  

"It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

He was moved between several detention centers throughout his three years of imprisonment, even undergoing a hunger strike within his final six months in an act of desperation. The husband and father of five suffered from poor health in relation to his heart, liver, and kidneys. 

“I endured many hardships in prison. It isn’t right that a government should tear me away from my family, keep me in these awful conditions, only because of the faith in which I peacefully choose to believe. 

“I thank everyone who prayed for me while I was in prison, cared about and followed up on my case, and shared the joy of my release from prison,” commented Abdo upon his release. 

Abdo’s son, Husam Baqi, added: 

“It is hideous that individuals are not allowed to believe and express their beliefs freely and are imprisoned or killed for their faith.”

"This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age."

- Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo

Abdo continues to fight his open legal battle with support from ADF International, who helped secure his release by submitting his case to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. 

A Global Trend of Online Censorship

Commenting on the case, Kelsey Zorzi, Director of Advocacy for Religious Freedom for ADF International, said: 

“The arbitrary detention of this husband and father without a criminal trial, and the lack of an opportunity for him to defend himself against alleged offenses, constitutes a severe violation of human rights. 

“The peaceful expression of one’s religious convictions cannot be a crime – not in Egypt, nor anywhere else in the world. This case shows the extremity of unchecked government censorship in the online age. The world must take note.” 

Support from around the World

While Abdo sufered in prison, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, described his unfair treatment as “grotesque”. 

“The imprisonment of Yemeni refugee Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo at the hands of Egyptian authorities is a surreal example of censorial blasphemy policies in action,” she said.  

Previously a prominent atheist, Ali announced in November that she was converting to Christianity. Because of her outspoken rhetoric against the Muslim Brotherhood, she faces constant death threats.  

“This is the logical conclusion to a trend that empowers authorities to brutalize innocent people for free expression on social media. From China to Pakistan, from Russia to Syria, from the UK to Egypt—free speech must urgently be defended from our age’s resurgent Stalinism,” she added.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

PICTURED: Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo; Kelsey Zorzi, ADF International

European Politicians Call for Social Media Censorship and Attack X and Meta’s Free Speech Policies as ‘Threat to Democracy’

  • X-owner Elon Musk accused of being in ‘conspiracy’ with ‘populists and the far right’ during debate at the Council of Europe

  • UK Labour MP called out by MEP for criticising Mr Musk and Meta’s free speech policy and for voicing ‘support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots’

  • ADF International executive director Paul Coleman: ‘We are living in a new bipolar order of speech’ between Europe and USA

STRASBOURG (1 February 2025) – European politicians on Thursday called for social media censorship to “protect democracy” and criticised X and Meta’s free speech policies during a debate at the Council of Europe.

Politicians at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) called for censorship, in the form of tackling so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech” online, and voted in favour of a report on social media content regulation.

This follows the European Union last week doubling down on online censorship through the Digital Services Act (DSA), with the same justification of “protecting democracy”.

During Thursday night’s debate, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg were singled out as threatening democracy with their free speech policies.

Belgian politician Christophe Lacroix said: “Why is Elon Musk in the US government?… There is a conspiracy, in any case a conjunction of interests between populists and the far right and the billionaire owners of social networks to effectively interfere in the electoral process.”

UK Labour MP Cat Eccles said Mr Musk’s “rise of influence” was “something we should all be worried about” and criticised Meta for its new free speech policy, which she characterised as “abandoning fact checking”.

She also indicated support for the notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during Britain’s riots last summer, saying: “While we must value freedom of expression, we must remember that it does not protect individuals from the consequences of their actions. In the UK we saw this play out recently with the horrendous Southport murders last summer and subsequent riots, with people arrested and charged for inciting hatred and violence on all sides.”

French politician Sandra Regol said free speech online posed a threat to “our democracy” and “diversity”.

She said: “We’ve heard a lot about freedom of expression. It’s supposed to be the guarantor of this diversity, it’s supposed to be the guarantor of our democracies and, in a crazy, absolute reversal of values, it’s now the tool that’s destroying this diversity.”

Three amendments were proposed in Thursday’s debate to preserve freedom of expression and they were all rejected.

But an amendment to the report calling for collaborating “with journalists and fact-checking organisations to effectively combat disinformation” was adopted by two-thirds majority.

This puts Europe further at odds with the US regarding free speech, after President Trump last week signed an executive order to end federal government censorship. 

Luxembourg MEP Fernand Kartheiser said:

“Free speech is under serious threat in Europe. It was deeply concerning to see politicians at the Council of Europe calling for online censorship in the name of ‘protecting democracy’.

“Democracy is impossible without free speech, but for some reason, too many politicians, including from the UK, can’t seem to grasp this.

“Labour MP Cat Eccles voiced support for Britain’s notoriously heavy-handed prosecutions for social media posts during last summer’s riots in the country.

“European politicians should consider how their support for censorship and their attacks on the free speech policies of American citizens Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s platforms will affect our relationship with our vital ally the United States.

“The US has made its commitment to free speech clear and US Vice President JD Vance already threatened last year to withdraw US support for NATO if the EU censors X.

“For the sake of truly preserving European democracy and also good relations with America, all attempts to impose censorship in Europe, including through the Digital Services Act, must end.”

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to protecting fundamental freedoms, including at the European institutions, stated:

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.”

EU doubled down on social media censorship with DSA last week

Last week, the European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

On the DSA, Mr Coleman commented:

“Last week, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Donald Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

Other measures announced by Commissioner Virkkunen included making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

U.S. Reaffirms There Is No ‘Human Right’ to Abortion; Rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration

The US rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration under President Donald Trump.
  • US rejoins coalition of 40 countries standing against the creation of a “faux” international human right to abortion
  • Declaration affirms that “every human being has the inherent right to life”
The US rejoins the Geneva Consensus Declaration under President Donald Trump.

New York (27 January 2025) – A communication from the United States Mission to the United Nations has announced that the U.S. will rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a coalition of governments united around a pro-life policy stance. 

Adopted in October 2020, the coalition is comprised of now 40 signatory countries that uphold the right to life of the unborn and affirm national sovereignty with regard to pro-life laws and policies.

“Returning the U.S. to the coalition carries significant legal weight in that it prevents the emergence of a false ‘human right’ to abortion by customary international law."

- Elyssa Koren, International Human Rights Lawyer, ADF International

The U.S. was a founding member of the Geneva Consensus Declaration. The Biden Administration exited the coalition by Executive Order on 28 January 2021.

The Declaration affirms that, “every human being has the inherent right to life” and declares that there is no international obligation to promote or fund abortion. It further emphasizes holistic strategies for advancing women’s health and well-being, including maternal care, education, and economic development.

In addition, the Trump administration reinstated by Executive Order an expanded version of the Mexico City Policy, a mainstay of every Republican administration since 1984, which prohibits international non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortion from receiving federal funding.

“By rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration and reinstating the expanded Mexico City Policy, the United States is committing to advancing a pro-life stance on the world stage, making clear that there is no so-called international ‘human right’ to abortion. This is a massive shift away from the virulent abortion promotion that characterized the Biden administration’s international engagement, particularly in the developing world,” commented Elyssa Koren, an international human rights lawyer for ADF International.

“The United States is saying no to the imposition of abortion pressure on sovereign nations. Rejoining the Geneva Consensus Declaration is sure to have a profound effect on governments that are trying to uphold their pro-life laws in the midst of extreme pressure from the pro-abortion lobby. Further, returning the U.S. to the coalition carries significant legal weight in that it prevents the emergence of a false ‘human right’ to abortion by customary international law.

“Life is a human right, and how American taxpayer dollars are deployed should reflect that truth. The expanded Mexico City Policy does just that,” Koren further stated.

Valerie Huber, the architect of the Geneva Consensus Declaration from the Institute for Women’s Health, stated:

“I commend President Donald J. Trump for fulfilling his promise to rejoin the Geneva Consensus Declaration (GCD), a first-of-its-kind global coalition of nations dedicated to improving women’s health, strengthening families, affirming that abortion is not an international human right, and upholding the sovereign right of nations to govern free from ideological colonialism.”

Huber’s statement in full can be found here.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

PICTURED: Elyssa Koren, International Human Rights Lawyer, ADF International

EU doubles down on social media censorship that ‘will not be confined to Europe’ following concerns about Musk’s free speech policy on X

  • Members of the European Parliament debated controversial Digital Services Act on Tuesday, which censors free speech both within and outside the EU, and could affect America
  • EU’s censorship stance in marked contrast with US, where President Trump this week signed Executive Order to end government censorship

STRASBOURG (24 January) – The European Union this week doubled down on social media censorship to “protect democracy” from “foreign interference”, following concerns about Elon Musk’s free speech policy on X.

The Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into full force in February 2024, is an EU regulation that aims to tackle “misinformation”, “disinformation”, and “hate speech” online.

By requiring the removal of so-called “illegal content” on social media platforms, it censors free speech both within and outside the EU and could even affect the speech of US citizens online.

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) debated enforcement of the controversial act on Tuesday. 

MEP Iratxe García, leader of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, commented:

“In recent months, we have seen how Elon Musk and his social network X have become the main promoter for the far right by supporting Donald Trump and Alice Weidel’s AfD party through fake news and hate messages.

“We have also witnessed Mark Zuckerberg’s decision to remove fact-checking programs on Meta as an act of complicity with lies and manipulation… We must ensure the effective application of our rules and we must sanction those who break the rules.”

The European Commissioner in charge of enforcing the DSA, Henna Virkkunen, announced a number of measures to further crack down on speech, including doubling the number of staff working on enforcement from 100 to 200 by the end of 2025. 

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage."

- Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International

This puts the EU’s online free speech stance in stark opposition to that of the US, following President Trump this week signing an Executive Order to end government censorship.

Although Virkkunen claimed the DSA “does not censor content”, MEPs from across the political spectrum voiced well-founded concerns that, in fact, it does.

Hungarian MEP Schaller-Baross Ernő said:

“Let’s call a spade a spade! In its current form, the DSA can also serve as a tool for political censorship…

“I’m afraid that in Europe the left… is not learning again. But this DSA must be abolished in this form. We don’t need more officials in Europe who censor…

“Freedom of expression and equal conditions must be ensured. This is the foundation of our democracy. Let’s say no to political censorship!”

Polish MEP Ewa Zajączkowska-Hernik said:

“For you, democracy is when people think, write and speak directly and say what you tell them to with your leftist way of thinking.

“Right-wing and conservative views are ‘thought crime’ and today’s debate should be called ‘The need to strengthen censorship to protect the trough of those who govern the European Union’.”

In addition to institutionalising censorship, the DSA also lays the ground for shadow banning, which was highlighted in this week’s debate.

Paul Coleman, executive director of ADF International, a global organisation dedicated to the protection of fundamental freedoms, including at the EU institutions, stated:

“On Monday, President Trump signed an executive order to end the weaponisation of the US government to promote censorship.

“On Tuesday, the European Commission made clear that it will be increasing its efforts to suppress speech, arguing that the Digital Services Act is needed to ‘protect democracy’ from so-called ‘misinformation’, ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ online.

“We are living in a new bipolar order of speech. On the one hand, Europe is doubling down on censorship, while the US is recommitting to its free speech heritage.

“This will usher in an unprecedented era of tension within the West itself over this most basic of human rights, and it is the responsibility of all who value freedom to side with the protection of free speech.

“As we saw clearly from Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk this summer, warning him not to breach the DSA ahead of his interview with Trump, the DSA will be used to censor views disfavoured by those in power.

“The DSA poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to freedom of expression, guaranteed to every person under international law. It is not the place of any authority to impose a narrow view of acceptable speech on the rest of society.

“The effects of the DSA will not be confined to Europe. There are legitimate worries that the DSA could censor the speech of citizens across the world, as social media companies could regulate their content globally to comply with European standards.”

US Response to DSA

In response to former Commissioner Thierry Breton’s letter to Musk this summer, Congressman Jim Jordan, chairman of the US House Judiciary Committee, wrote a strongly worded letter to Mr Breton.

In it, he said:

“We write to reiterate our position that the EU’s burdensome regulation of online speech must not infringe on protected American speech…

“Your threats against free speech do not occur in a vacuum, and the consequences are not limited to Europe. The harms caused by EU-imposed censorship spill across international borders, as many platforms generally maintain one set of content moderation policies that they apply globally.

“Thus, the EU’s regulatory censorship regime may limit what content Americans can view in the United States. American companies also have an enormous incentive to comply with the DSA and public threats from EU commissioners like you.”

Increasing Censorship Efforts

Other measures announced by Virkkunen this week include making a previously voluntary code of conduct on “illegal hate speech online” legally binding and advancing a framework called the European Democracy Shield (EDS).

The EDS uses fact checkers and NGOs to combat so-called “foreign information manipulation, interference, and disinformation”.

Anyone, be it an individual or an entity, can flag content they believe to be illegal.

Under the DSA, social media platforms can face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for failing to remove so-called “misinformation”, “disinformation” and “hate speech”.

The concept of “hate speech” has no basis in international human rights law.

Because of their loose and vague nature, prohibitions on “hate speech” rely on the subjective perception of offended parties rather than objective harm.

Further, the definition of “hate speech” is not harmonised at the EU level, meaning that what is deemed illegal in one country may not be in another.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Brazilian legislators challenge unlawful state censorship at international body

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates
  • Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles claim violations of their free speech rights following persistent state censorship in Brazil, including 39-day ban on X (Twitter) ahead of elections. 
  • ADF International, representing legislators before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, petitions international body to condemn Brazilian censorship and uphold free speech.  
Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

WASHINGTON, DC (20 December 2024) In light of the ongoing state-driven censorship crisis in Brazil, five Brazilian legislators, including Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles, are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represented by ADF International.  

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech, including prohibitions on prior restraint (censoring expression before it has occurred) and special protections for political speech. Article 13 protects the “right to freedom of thought and expression” which includes “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds… through any other medium of one’s choice… The exercise of the right…shall not be subject to prior censorship… [and] may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls … or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 

The legislators claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression and the equal protection of the law, as a result of escalating state censorship, dating back to 2019, which recently reached a head with the X (formerly known as “Twitter”) ban.  

In their legal challenge now filed with the Commission, the legislators note that state-sponsored censorship, including the 39-day ban of X, is “disproportionate and of dubious legal basis” and “has affected the conventional rights of the Victims in a direct, particular, and serious way.” 

The petition goes on to say that the country’s X blockade “violated the rights of more than twenty million people in Brazil who are users of the platform, having prevented them from accessing the dissemination and reception of information during that time.” 

Julio Pohl, ADF International’s lead legal counsel on the case, stated: “The world watched as Brazilian authorities blatantly clamped down on the free speech rights of over 20 million Brazilians by shutting down X ahead of the national elections. While the ban was eventually lifted, the fact remains that millions of Brazilians, including the five legislators now taking their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, were subjected to unlawful censorship during a critical time in their country. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Commission to intervene and condemn the vast and ongoing violations of free speech being perpetrated by Brazilian authorities.” 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Julio Pohl & Marcel van Hattem

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:  

“What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone else who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes or others in control. This is a major violation of all Brazilians’ free speech and expression rights. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, which is why I am taking my case to the international level with the help of ADF International. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.”  

Eduardo Girao, Senator for Brazil and party to the petition, stated:  

“Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment. We must push back against censorship in our country, and it is my hope that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will fulfill its obligation to condemn the human rights violations that are taking place in our country.”  

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Julio Pohl & Eduardo Girao

State-sponsored censorship 

Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. The state has targeted conservative voices, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained views contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

On 30 August 2024, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  The ban was in effect for 39 days. 

ADF International petitioned the Commission to urgently intervene, stating, “The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.” 

Elon Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.  

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil. 

Even with the lifting of the X ban, the state of censorship in Brazil remains severe. 

Left to right: ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl, Chamber of Deputies member Marcel van Hattem, Senator Eduardo Girao, & ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America, Tomás Henríquez

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

WIN for religious freedom in Nigeria: Christian mother of 5, Rhoda Jatau, fully acquitted of charges for “blasphemy”

Sean Nelson talks with Rhoda Jatau who faces persecution as a Christian in Nigeria.
  • Following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal, judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria acquits Rhoda Jatau of “blasphemy” charges; Rhoda faced up to 5 years in prison if convicted.  
  • Jatau spent 19 months in prison before being released on bail for allegedly sharing a blasphemous video that condemned the lynching of Christian college student Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu.  
  • Jatau is now safe in an undisclosed location; ADF International supported Jatau’s legal defence, leading advocacy efforts for religious freedom and free expression rights in Nigeria.

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

BAUCHI STATE, NIGERIA (19 December 2024) Rhoda Jatau, a Christian and mother of 5 in Nigeria, has been fully acquitted of any wrongdoing following a two-and-a-half-year legal ordeal on charges of alleged blasphemy. Jatau was imprisoned in May 2022 on blasphemy charges for allegedly sharing a video on WhatsApp condemning the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu, a Nigerian university student who was murdered and set on fire by a mob of her classmates in May 2022 for sharing her Christian faith. 

Jatau was granted bail in December 2023 and remained safely in an undisclosed location while her trial continued. A judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, announced Jatau’s full acquittal last week.  

“We are thankful to God for Rhoda’s full acquittal and an end to the ordeal she has endured for far too long,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “No person should be punished for peaceful expression, and we are grateful that Rhoda Jatau has been fully acquitted. But Rhoda should never have been arrested in the first place. We will continue to seek justice for Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria who are unjustly imprisoned and plagued by the draconian blasphemy laws.”   

The Nigerian ADF International allied lawyer, serving as lead counsel on Jatau’s case, responded: “After a two-and-a-half-year ordeal, including 19 long months in prison, we are happy that Rhoda finally has been acquitted of any wrongdoing. We thank all who have been praying for Rhoda, and we ask for your continued prayers as Nigerians continue to push back against persecution.”   

Sean Nelson talks with Rhoda Jatau who faces persecution as a Christian in Nigeria.

Pictured: ADF International legal counsel Sean Nelson and Rhoda Jatau

Alleged “blasphemy” 

Jatau, a Christian and mother of five, was imprisoned from May 2022 through December 2023 for allegedly sharing a video on WhatsApp condemning the lynching of Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu, a Nigerian university student who was murdered and set on fire by a mob of her classmates in May 2022 for sharing her Christian faith.  

Jatau was charged under sections 114 (public disturbance) and 210 (religious insult) of the Bauchi State Penal Code, and if convicted, faced 5 years in prison.  

Prior to being granted bail and during her 19-month imprisonment, Jatau was repeatedly denied bail and detained incommunicado, only having intermittent access to legal counsel and family members during court appearances.  

Before granting bail, a judge in Bauchi State, Nigeria, refused to dismiss prosecutors’ case in their trial against Jatau. The decision to continue with the prosecution followed a “no case submission” filed by Jatau’s lawyers after the prosecution had rested based on serious evidentiary issues. Jatau’s lawyers raised significant legal failures in the prosecution’s case, and argued that they had not established the basic elements of their case against Jatau.  

The grant of bail and final acquittal followed international outcry over Jatau’s imprisonment. Highlighting both Jatau and Yakubu’s cases, and in response to appeals from ADF International and other religious freedom advocacy organizations, United Nations experts sent a joint allegation letter to the Nigerian government in October of 2023. The letter emphasized the danger of blasphemy laws as a violation of international human rights and called attention to Jatau’s unjust imprisonment.    

Nigeria’s Persecution of Christians   

The cases of Rhoda Jatau and Deborah Emmanuel Yakubu are but two examples of the widespread violence against religious minorities, including Christians in Northern Nigeria, prevalent in Nigeria today.     

Together with other religious minorities in Nigeria, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. Worldwide, over 5,500 Christians were killed for their faith in 2022. Of those, 90% were Nigerian.      

The criminalisation of blasphemy in Nigeria carries with it dangerous implications for the country as a whole. In a country of more than 200 million, split nearly evenly between Christians and Muslims, blasphemy laws are a significant driver of societal tensions. These laws punish the innocent for expressing their beliefs, silence people from sharing their faith, and perpetuate societal violence. Blasphemy laws throughout Nigeria encourage brutal mob violence and inflict severe harm on minority Muslims, Christian converts, and others.    

ADF International also is supporting the legal defence of Nigerian musician Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, a Sufi Muslim who was sentenced to death by hanging for sharing song lyrics that were deemed “blasphemous” on WhatsApp. With the support of ADF International, Yahaya is appealing his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the hopes of overturning the death penalty blasphemy laws in Nigeria. Yahaya remains in prison awaiting his appeal. Yahaya has been imprisoned for over four and a half years.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Religious freedom advocates congratulate Rubio on nomination to lead US State Department, call for greater focus on religious prisoners of conscience

  • 60 leaders and organizations, including ADF International, Jubilee Campaign USA, Global Christian Relief, congratulate Senator Marco Rubio on Secretary of State nomination 
  • Religious freedom advocates ask Rubio to continue his tireless advocacy for the persecuted worldwide, in particular for religious prisoners of conscience, and secure religious freedom as a foreign policy priority.  
  • ADF International supporting legal defence of the persecuted across the globe, including in Nigeria and Egypt.   

WASHINGTON, DC (19 December 2024) ADF International, along with participants of the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Roundtable, an informal coalition of organizations, religious and secular leaders, advocates, and scholars dedicated to the protection of religious freedom, today sent a letter to Senator Marco Rubio to congratulate him on his nomination to Secretary of State and press for him to prioritize advocacy for religious prisoners of conscience.  

In the letter, the religious freedom advocates thank Sen. Rubio for his work to promote religious freedom abroad and secure the release of prisoners of conscience, including those imprisoned for their faith or beliefs. The advocates ask that, if confirmed, Rubio would continue to make support for religious prisoners of conscience a priority in U.S. foreign policy: “If confirmed as Secretary of State, we ask that you use your platform to give an even greater voice to those who languish hidden away behind bars only because of their faith or beliefs. We ask that you use all available tools to ensure that those unjustly imprisoned for their faith around the world are freed. We know that advocacy for the unjustly imprisoned has been a personal priority for you, and we are confident that, through your leadership, it will be a foreign policy priority of the United States.” 

Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International and letter signatory, stated:  

“We congratulate Senator Rubio, a true friend and advocate for the voiceless across the globe, on his nomination for Secretary of State. Across the globe, many are unjustly punished for living out and expressing their faith. If confirmed, we are hopeful that under Senator Rubio’s leadership, there will be renewed pressure on religious freedom violators and justice for the persecuted.”  

ADF International coordinated the organization of the letter. A full list of signatories and text of the letter can be read HERE. ADF International also supported another letter sent today expressing gratitude for Sen. Rubio’s leadership on IRF issues throughout his career. 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Background 

The letter highlights several critical instances of religious persecution, including the cases of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu (Nigeria) and Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo and Nour Girgis (Egypt). 

In Nigeria, Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International.  

In Egypt, Nour Girgis and Abdulbaqi Saeed Abdo, both Christian, have been held in pre-trial detention for over two years. They were arrested in 2021 for their involvement with a Facebook page that is dedicated to supporting people who have converted from Islam to Christianity. Authorities arrested the men after discovering their affiliation with the page, spuriously linking their involvement with terrorism activities.    

ADF International is pursuing international action to advocate for their urgent release following a letter from Abdo to his family where he vowed to commence a hunger strike due to the injustice he has endured.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Swiss Supreme Court rules parents must facilitate daughter’s gender ‘transition’ under threat of criminal charges in ‘heartbreaking’ decision

  • Backed by ADF International, parents appealed lower court ruling which said they must hand over identity documents of now 17-year-old daughter to enable her legal ‘sex change’
  • Parents separated from daughter for over a year and a half by court order because they objected to her ‘transition’. Case has received worldwide attention
  • Appeal to European Court of Human Rights being considered

Lausanne (7 December 2024) – Switzerland’s highest court has decided parents separated from their daughter for refusing to endorse her gender “transition” must enable their child’s legal “sex change” or face the possibility of criminal charges.

Backed by ADF International, the parents, who are remaining anonymous, had appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Schweizerisches Bundesgericht) following two lower courts ruling that they had to hand over their daughter’s identity documents so her legally recorded sex could be changed.

The parents argued that both the Swiss Federal Constitution and international law protected their right to act in their daughter’s best interest by not enabling her legal “sex change”.

But the Supreme Court has now rejected their appeal on the basis that its intervening in the case would violate the principle of the separation of powers.

It issued a decision stating: “The situation complained of cannot therefore be remedied by interpretation. Nor can it be concluded that there is a loophole per se that would have to be filled by the courts.

“It would therefore be up to the federal legislature, if necessary, to amend the system as it currently stands under the Act, from which the Federal Court cannot derogate, since it is not its role to interfere in matters that are the responsibility of the federal legislature. It follows that the complaint must be dismissed.”

A further appeal to the European Court of Human Rights is being considered to protect the parents’ rights to care for their daughter without state interference.

The child’s father reacted to the ruling: “We are heartbroken. We love our daughter and only want what’s best for her. We know this decision is not in her best interest.

“That we could face criminal charges for simply trying to care for our daughter shows how deeply embedded transgender ideology is in Swiss institutions and the real harms it causes.

“We are considering our next steps.”

Dr Felix Böllmann, Director of European Advocacy for ADF International, commented: “At every juncture, these loving parents have sought to act in the best interests of their daughter, as is their right and obligation under international law.

“The court’s decision to dismiss their appeal is an intolerable violation of their rights. It has, in effect, mandated a legal ‘transition’ for the daughter against her parents’ wishes.

“Not only is this an intervention without any evidential basis of psychological benefit, but it also could pave the way for potentially irreversible physical interventions down the line.”

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Background

This is the latest juncture in a case that has already received worldwide attention.

A video of the parents explaining their harrowing story has been viewed over 66 million times and X-owner Elon Musk commented on it saying: “This is insane. This suicidal mind virus is spreading throughout Western Civilization.”

The daughter’s parents were separated from their child by court order over a year and a half ago, after they objected to their child’s so-called gender “transition”.

They were concerned their daughter was being pushed to make hasty and irreversible decisions when she first said she identified as the opposite sex following mental health struggles at the age of 13.

The Cass Review, a landmark independent report in the UK which examined the evidence around “gender affirmative care” in minors, confirmed the parents’ concerns about the risks and harms associated with this model. As does the increasing number of countries rejecting this form of so-called “treatment”—such as the UK and, recently, Chile.

The parents refused “puberty blockers” for their child and told her school to not “socially transition” her, and instead arranged private mental health care.

But the school “socially transitioned” the daughter anyway and liaised with the state child welfare agency, Service de Protection des Mineurs (SPMI) and a transgender-activist organisation.

Eventually, the daughter was separated from her parents and legal authority over her medical care was transferred from the parents to SPMI.

The daughter has lived in a government shelter since April 2023 and the parents’ access to her is regulated by the state.

The parents tried and failed to recover legal authority over their daughter’s medical care through an appeal, and a court order was issued for them to hand over her identity documents to enable a legal “sex change”.

Read more details about the case’s background here.

Federal Supreme Court case details

The parents were appealing a ruling from the Court of Justice, the highest court in the canton of Geneva, that said they must hand over their daughter’s identity documents under the threat of criminal charges.

The Federal Supreme Court cannot amend federal law, which allows gender “self-determination”, but has the power to interpret it in accordance with higher law, such as the country’s constitution and supranational or international law.

The parents’ case in the Federal Court appeal was that, on the basis of Article 11 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), they should not be forced to enable their daughter’s legal “sex change”, since it is not in the child’s best interest.

Article 11 of the Swiss Federal Constitution, on the protection of children and young people, says: “Children and young people have the right to the special protection of their integrity and to the encouragement of their development.”

Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says: “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Article 8 of the ECHR guarantees the right to a private life, which includes the right of parents to care for their children and their prior right to decide what is in the best interest of their children.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

STATEMENT: Chilean Senate protects children, takes a stand against dangerous gender ideology

  • Chile joins a growing group of countries taking steps to reject gender ideology as Senate passes critical law prohibiting the use of public funds for “gender transition” for minors.  
  • Law to be confirmed unless challenged by the Constitutional Court in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON, DC (3 December 2024) Chile has joined a growing group of countries that are taking steps to reject gender ideology. 

The following statement may be attributed to Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America:  

“The Chilean Senate has passed a critical law that prohibits the government from spending any public funds on surgical or hormonal interventions for children under the age of 18 for so-called ‘gender/sex reassignment’.  

The first of its kind in Latin America, this sets a major precedent for the protection of children not just in Chile, but also in all Latin American countries. Chile is to be commended for taking an important step in saying no to the dangers of gender ideology.  

Now, other countries must do the same. Every child is precious just as they are and has the absolute right to be safeguarded from a radical ideology that promotes dangerous drugs and surgeries with devastating consequences.” 

BACKGROUND: 

The Senate vote took place following the release of a report from a Chilean Congressional investigative committee that strongly recommended the immediate suspension of all programs related to the so-called “gender transition” of children. 

The report investigated the PAIG program, or Growing with Pride, a government policy aimed at Chileans that expressed “gender identity” confusion. 

From the report: “The PAIG is implemented in 37 hospitals in the country and the psychosocial pairs have the power to carry out family interventions, within educational spaces, referral to hormone therapies, as well as the power to take legal action against ‘resistant parents’ who oppose the gender transition of their children or seek greater prudence when advancing in the different stages of it.” 

The report revealed that a combined 4,142 children and adolescents have entered or have been treated in the PAIG program, “despite the lack of consensus in the medical-scientific community and the setback in several European countries on applying treatments.” 

The law passed in the Chilean Senate on 20 November 2024. The government had communicated it would study mounting a challenge to the amendment at the Constitutional Court, which may materialize in the coming weeks. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

40,000+ urge International Olympic Committee: “KEEP WOMEN’S SPORTS FOR WOMEN”

  • IOC receives petition demanding that women not be “forced to compete with men” in future Olympic games
  • Elite athletes speak out about importance of biological sex, as landmark challenge to law banning harmful drugs and surgeries hits US Supreme Court 

WASHINGTON, DC (4th December) – Over 40,000 people from around the world have signed a joint open letter to the International Olympic Committee, imploring them to protect “women’s sports, private spaces, and basic fairness” in light of increasing pressure to include biological males in women’s sporting categories. 

READ THE PETITION IN FULL HERE

The petition, which was hand-delivered to the IOC’s headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland by ADF International, states: “Men and women are different. Their physical differences give men athletic advantages in sports. Scientific research continues to acknowledge this reality.” 

“However, governments and organizational bodies like the IOC have adopted policies that allow males who identify as female to compete in women’s sports. These policies prioritize feelings over fairness—ideology over truth.” 

“I’m one of so many young women that have lost out on medals and opportunities - simply because I wasn’t a male. What kind of message does that send?

- Riley Gaines, swimmer & campaigner for justice in women's sports

Commenting on the petition, Riley Gaines, who campaigns for justice in women’s sports having been forced to compete against males in swimming, said:

“As a college athlete, my safety and privacy in the locker room was repeatedly jeopardized because of sports bodies which put ideology before women’s rights. I’m one of so many young women that have lost out on medals and opportunities – simply because I wasn’t a male. What kind of message does that send?

“Women have raised concerns repeatedly about safety, privacy and fairness in women’s sports. The IOC is looked upon as a leader on sports policies. It must take heed of this petition, and take a stand for women around the world in protecting our sports – not only for this generation of athletes, but the little girls who one day dream of winning the gold.” 

Lost medals and opportunities

Women have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports to males competing in women’s sports categories, according to the report of Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, which was highlighted at a recent panel event hosted by ADF International at the UN Headquarters in New York. 

Males have a larger heart, greater lung capacity, greater muscle mass, more red blood cells, and less body fat than females, among other physiological advantages – all of which result in a significant performance advantage in sport. 

Commenting on the petition, British Olympian swimmer and sports commentator Sharron Davies said: 

“Women’s sport should never have been sacrificed on the altar of virtue-signalling gender ideology, against all the peer reviewed science in the first place. 

“I’d very much hoped after the betrayal of women during the GDR era I wouldn’t see the IOC do it again, but here we are. Let’s hope common sense & prioritising fairness & safety for female athletes will return soon. The willful negligence of the boxing during the Paris 2024 Olympics was a particular low point and a total disgrace.” 

Davies lost out on winning Olympic gold in the 1980s due to an East German competitor who had been given an unfair advantage, having been supplied with testosterone as a teenager to improve her performance.  

“Women’s sport should never have been sacrificed on the altar of virtue-signalling gender ideology, against all the peer reviewed science in the first place."

- Sharron Davies, British Olympian and author of "Unfair Play"

Supreme Court to consider biological reality 

The petition was delivered to the IOC days prior to a landmark case being heard at the US Supreme Court regarding a law that bans puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and certain surgeries for children.  

The state of Tennessee is defending its law that protects children from harmful, unnecessary, and high-risk medical procedures that alter their bodies to make them look like the opposite sex.   

Systematic reviews around the world have exposed the harmful risks of puberty blockers to children’s health. Several European countries and American states have banned puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for children. 

“Gender ideology has countless victims, including children who, incapable of consenting to the harm, take toxic puberty blockers which can cause irreversible damage to their bodies – to young girls and women who suffer the consequences of the lie that men can become women.  

“Nobody is born in the wrong body – such a message is dangerous and abusive. Men and women are different and unique. We should celebrate our complementary strengths – not diminish them at the expense of the safety, privacy, and dignity of all involved,” said Elyssa Koren, Director of Legal Communications for ADF International. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Pictured:

Elyssa Koren, Director of Legal Communications for ADF International

Selina Soule, taking legal action after being forced to compete against male athletes, with support from ADF

Sharron Davies, British Olympian and author of “Unfair Play”

Felix Böllmann, legal counsel for ADF International, delivering petition to IOC HQ in Lausanne