A Former Sex Slave Finds Freedom As An Entrepreneur

Published by Huffington Post on 21 May 2012.

Pamela Villarreal grew up as a sheltered child in a middle class home in upstate New York. But at age 15, one act of youthful rebellion ended up with her abduction as a sex slave for three weeks and not knowing on a daily basis whether she was going to live or die. By escaping the very day she was supposed to be sent by train to her new "owner" in New York City, Villarreal got the second chance at life she prayed for.

Healing from the traumatic experience didn't come easily. Though her life was no longer in danger, Villarreal couldn't find the comfort she needed in her family, as she had been a victim of incest, nor could she find it in marriage, as she was in two abusive relationships before reaching her mid 20s. It was only by starting her own businesses that Villarreal started the recovery process.

In fact, Villarreal started two of her businesses specifically to get over what happened to her. Her industrial maintenance business, Texas Property Control, was created out of her attempt to overcome her fear of men and large crowds, and helped to instill in her a sense of empowerment as a woman entrepreneur in a male-dominated field. More recently, she decided to turn her therapeutic hobby of candle making into a business, Revelations Candle & Christian Gift Shop, as a means to give back. After moving to Texas, Villarreal found out that nearby Houston is a major hub of human trafficking, and she wants to use her candle business to help other human trafficking victims in the area to start a new life after sex slavery.

Was your childhood in Angola, N.Y., pretty typical?

We were pretty sheltered. There was a lot of control. My father was a Navy man, so a lot of our discipline was military style. My sister and I had a very difficult childhood -- we had good times, but the discipline was hard. We weren't allowed to do a lot of things with other friends.

But when you were 15, you took a bus ride with a friend, without your parents' knowledge? What was your intention?

I would never normally have done this, but this girl I met at school, who I thought was my friend, talked me into skipping school. We took a bus from Angola to Buffalo, and we were supposed to spend a couple of hours at the restaurant where her boyfriend worked and then come back. I did not know at the time that this girl was supposed to pick me up -- that was her job. Well, we missed the bus coming back, so she called her boyfriend to pick us up. I was not street wise at all. I just knew I did not want go with him. He decided to go home first and change his clothes -- they told me to come in and I would be fine. I was going to wait in the car, but I was in an unfamiliar neighborhood and didn't want to stay by myself. As I was going up to the door, I wondered why there were bars on the upper windows, but thought, "Never mind, I'll be alright." I followed them upstairs to his apartment on the second floor, and when we got inside, he locked the door, and that was the turning point of my life.

Your instincts told you something was wrong, but you ignored your instincts?

Yes, I ignored them because I was afraid to call home. My grandmother lived in Buffalo but I didn't know her number. I felt like I had no choice, nowhere to go. I just needed to follow this girl and hope to get home, but I knew something was wrong.

After he locked the door, what happened next?

They started drinking, and I was in tears. I just wanted to go home and they kept giving me excuses and saying, "We'll go in a little bit." He said, "Why don't you lie down in the spare room? We'll wake you up later and take you home?" By then I was scared to death, because I didn't think I was getting home. I woke up the next morning and asked, "What happened, why aren't we going home?" And he looked at me and said "You're not going home. You're here to stay."

What was the first thing that went through your mind?

"I'm going to die." And I fought it -- I cried, screamed, tried to get out of the door, but I couldn't. By that night, I had fallen asleep again, and when I woke up, I was tied to the bed and that's the night I was raped. I kept thinking, I'm going to die, my parents are not going to know where I'm at, they're never going to find me, I'm never going to see my family again. And I screamed and he just kept forcing himself on me. After it was done, he told me to get up and take a shower and keep my mouth shut. I was in tears and I had blood all over. And he told me if I ever got out and if I ever said anything, he would go after my family, and he would kill me. I was there for three weeks. After one week, he started bringing people in and forcing me to have sex with them as well. I had no escape so I told myself I just need to give in or he's going to kill me, and some time there will be a chance that I will be able to get out but for now I just have to give in, and that's what I did. After the second week, he started bringing people in to look at me to buy me. I never knew what was going to happen -- whether I was going to get raped, bought or taken away then and there. I was drugged and got beaten every day, and I still fought as much as I could, but there wasn't anything I could do.

Going through that, did you ever want to give up on living?

I didn't know what to think -- I had nobody to turn to, nobody to talk to. It looked like this was going to be my life, and I was never going to get out of it and had to accept it, but I didn't want to accept it. I wanted to get out. I always had that in my mind. I was pretty strong willed. I didn't want to die. I still don't know how I made it through. I prayed all the time that God would find a way to come and help me, take me, save me, show me a way out.

And then when a woman from New York City bought you, that was actually what allowed you to escape?

[The abductor's] brother found out about it, and he had a key to the apartment, which was locked from the outside. He came up when the other girl and I were alone and said he didn't know this had been going on and told me I had just been sold and I was supposed to leave on a train that evening to New York City. He asked what I wanted to do, and I said I wanted to go home. So that man saved my life. He got a taxi and paid the taxi money to take me as far as it would take me. I was able to get to my grandmother's house.

And what happened to the girl?

He set us both free but a block down the road, she got out of the taxi and said she had to go back -- she couldn't leave.

What happened? Were your family members looking for you?

Yes, they were looking for me, but they had no idea where to look.

How did you find out that this man was caught years later, on your 26th birthday?

He was arrested on several counts of rape and sodomy. I was watching the news and talking to my mother on the phone, and the man's name and picture came on the TV.

So how did you go back to life as normal?

It's been a roller coaster ride until about five or six years ago. Now that I'm older, I can look back and say that girls have to be careful of new friends -- you don't know who they are. It's just like being married to a man. You never really know somebody. You have to be careful, strong. These relationships hurt me in one way, but made me strong in another way.

Where did candle art come into play?

A local candlemaker in Angola taught me, and I loved it. The candles came at a time in my life when I started opening up and feeling more confident. Anything creative, anything I could do with my hands was therapy.

I went through a lot of different things and forced myself into situations to get to this point where I could deal with my fears and overcome them, but it was my church that opened my mind to how I could reach out to other people and give back what God has given to me, and that's where the candles come in. I wanted to be able to sell these candles and give some of this money to Home of Hope in Houston, so I've slowly been getting involved in that. Eventually I'd like to set up an organization to house victims of sex trafficking, so they can start recuperating. Until I get to that point, I'm going to do whatever I can to help these girls. I have girls coming here to the shop talking about their experiences that they've never talked to anyone about before.

So at your shop, you want to not just sell candles but keep the door open for girls who want to talk, so they know they're not alone?

Exactly. And I have compassion, but I'm not going to feel sorry for them, because I have gone through every experience you can possibly think of. So if they come to me, I'm going to tell them to be strong, there is life after this, you can turn your life around. You can even own your own business. You are still a human, and it doesn't matter what people say about you or how they look at you, you need to be proud that you made it through. You lived.

Do you think you started your businesses as a way to regain control because of this experience where you felt so out of control and powerless?

Yes. I'm in control of myself. You get to the point where you're confident in yourself and you don't want to let anyone take that away, and that's the point I'm finally at.

Entrepreneur Spotlight

Name: Pamela Villarreal
Company: Revelations Candle & Christian Gift Shop, Texas Property Control
Age: 51
Location: Port Lacava, Texas
Founded: TPC: 2007. Revelations: 2010.
Employees: TPC: Seven. Revelations: None. 
2012 Projected Revenue: For both: More than $150,000
Website: www.wix.com/texaspropertycontrol/tpc, www.wix.com/texaspropertycontrol/native-lights

Fundamental misinterpretation of the Equality Act (UK)

Published by The Telegraph on 11 May 2012. Reported by John Bingham.

The Law Society has banned a conference on family issues to be addressed by a senior High Court judge because debating gay marriage breached its “diversity policy”.

Sir Paul Coleridge, the Family Division judge who recently launched a new charity to combat marital break-up, had been lined up as the main speaker at the annual event at the Law Society’s London headquarters later this month.

But organisers were forced to cancel it at short notice after the Law Society ruled that the programme reflected “an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage”.

They accused the Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, of an “extraordinary” attempt to stifle debate on current affairs and warned that the cancellation itself could be against equality laws.

Lawyers, journalists and think tank chiefs were due to speak alongside Sir Paul at the annual conference organised by the World Congress of Families, a US-based non-religious group which promotes traditional family values.

Around 120 people were expected to attend event which this year took as its theme: “One Man. One Woman. Making the case for marriage, for the good of society.”

Sir Paul, who made headlines last week as he launched a new charity, the Marriage Foundation, was due to speak on the effects of divorce on society.

A follow-up event for MPs was being planned take place in Parliament after the conference.

Organisers said the conference had been booked for up to six months and a deposit of around £4,700 has already been paid.

But in an email on Thursday, Adam Tallis, general manager of Amper&and, the company which organises hospitality at The Law Society, informed them that the booking was being cancelled and the deposit refunded.

“We regret the need to take this step,” he wrote.

“I can assure you that it is not something we do lightly.

“However, where an event does not fit within this company’s diversity policy, it is a step we must take.

“The nature of your event has recently been drawn to our attention, and it is contrary to our diversity policy, espousing as it does an ethos which is opposed to same sex marriage.”

Same-sex marriage is not currently legal in Britain, although a consultation is under way on a possible change in the law.

Andrea Williams, director of Christian Concern, which is a member of the World Congress of Families said: “It is just extraordinary that the professional body that regulates solicitors in this country is censoring debate on a major change in the law that will inevitably have massive consequences for society.

“It does seem to be a fundamental misreading of the Equality Act.

“This was supposed to be a genuine open debate on the issues, constructing a case for marriage in the public sphere, and they seem to be closing it down.

“Of all the places in society where you might expect freedom of debate to be protected, the regulatory body of the legal profession would surely be at the top of the list.

“This statement is highly political, highly charged and wholly inappropriate.

“A lot of lawyers will be very alarmed by this and ashamed of their regulatory body.”

But Desmond Hudson, chief executive of the Law Society, said: “We are proud of our role in promoting diversity in the solicitors’ profession and felt that the content of this conference sat uncomfortably with our stance.

“Through our events and venues supplier, we have assisted the organisers in identifying an alternative, non Law Society venue.”

Should We Stop Child Placement Programs if We're Required to Work with Same-Sex Couples?

Published by Christianity Today on 9 May 2012.

Don't Quit

Paul Shrier is professor of practical theology at Azusa Pacific University and a foster parent.

Several years ago I facilitated a faith-based luncheon at Azusa Pacific University to promote foster care among faith-based organizations. We invited representatives of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups. We encouraged them to promote foster parenting, thinking that children need homes where they can safely live and grow.

A friend disagreed with the idea of inviting leaders of other faiths. He said he'd rather children bounce around between families or stay in group homes than go to stable homes with foster parents of non-Christian faiths. I suggested that since he felt so strongly, he should become a foster parent. He had no response.

The same principle applies here. There has been a lot of solid, reliable research on outcomes for children fostered or adopted by stable gay couples. The studies show that these children are no more likely to become gay than the general population, and they have a somewhat better chance of finishing high school and thriving in other ways than they do even in heterosexual foster homes. Children flourish in safe, stable environments, no matter what the sexual orientation of the parents.

It would be great if Christians would foster and adopt all of the children in need. Since they don't, the safety and welfare of the child ought to trump our theological and social beliefs. As an adoptive parent and a former foster parent who still helps other foster parents and kids, I have a firsthand understanding of children's needs. They need love and safety. The beliefs of those who provide it are secondary; the Bible shows that God can use even non-believing parents to accomplish his ends.

It is also important to consider God's leading to individual organizations rather than making a blanket judgment. Michael Klausman, president of the CBS Studio Center, once told me that when the hit TV show Will & Grace first came out, Christians sent letters condemning him for airing a TV show with a main character who was gay. He said, "I guess I could have just taken a stand if I agreed with them and said to the network, 'Either you don't air that show or I quit.'"

But he said God didn't tell him to do that, so he didn't. When you pray, what is God telling you?

Klausman also noted that if he had quit his job over Will & Grace, he would have lost his influence in the arena.

The same idea applies here: If you're helping dozens or hundreds of kids every year, why would you quit helping them because you might have to work with a couple once in a while whose lifestyle you may or may not oppose? It's your task to determine if they have a safe, healthy home for the kids. You forgo accomplishing a lot of good in the lives of children when you throw in the towel.

Providing good homes to kids is the most important outcome. You ought to pray and see what God has to say about your individual situation. Keep your eye on the goal: helping kids. If you quit helping, who else will?

Take it to Court

Lynne Marie Kohm is a professor of family law at Regent University and author of several books and articles on family and marriage.

Mandates requiring foster-care agencies to work with same-sex couples are unconstitutional, so rather than closing, foster-care agencies faced with such mandates should fight the requirements in court.

Such mandates are designed to close agencies and make them recoil and plead under political pressure; they are designed to drive faith from the public square and from children. They are bad for children and un-American.

The first adoption law in the United States, in Massachusetts in 1854, considered the needs and "best interests" of the adopted child. This innovative doctrine mandating care and protection for children above all established a new legal standard. This standard is now applied in every adoption court in the nation.

Regulations requiring same-sex couples be allowed to adopt are designed to give adults the right to adopt. They suggest that any persons should be legally qualified to be parents, particularly when children languish in foster care. These regulations, however, represent a fundamental shift away from the best interest of the child toward the interests of the adult.

Some states, building on the findings of social science research, require adoption and foster-care agencies to favor heterosexual couples as potential parents. Faith-based adoption agencies generally work under the presumption that children deserve to have both a father and a mother. They seek to place children in ideal environments where they can have the benefit of both parents.

To require any agency to place children for adoption without the benefit of both a father and a mother instantly disadvantages the child. It does not provide for the child's best interests, but places the interests of the adult above those of the child. When states move from prioritizing the best interests of the child to prioritizing adult preference, children are intentionally deprived of a parent.

This is also a question of law and ethics. When faith-based agencies are required to place children with same-sex couples, they simply cannot ethically do so. A Christian ethic requires the agency to place children with parents who provide for their best interests and to not deprive them of a father or a mother. It is not a question of whether such agencies should work with gay couples; they simply cannot. And the U.S. Constitution protects them.

Leaders of faith throughout history have held that when law demands an action contrary to conviction, that law cannot be obeyed. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement and Dietrich Bonhoeffer during the Nazi regime had to obey their faith convictions. When laws require Christians to act in a manner contrary to their faith, they cannot obey. Regulations that require agencies to provide adoptions to same-sex couples work to defy religious freedom. Christians must follow their consciences and faith.

The issue, then, is not whether Christians should stop adoption/foster-care programs if required by law to work with same-sex couples. Laws requiring faith-based adoption agencies to act contrary to their faith are laws they cannot follow and must challenge in court.

Stand firm

Ryan T. Anderson is editor of Public Discourse, an online journal of the Witherspoon Institute.

Christians should not stop their adoption and foster-care programs, but neither should they comply with laws that would force them to place children with same-sex couples. Christians should continue operating their charitable organizations according to their principles, and they should continue serving the least among us until the state coercively shuts them down.

They should do this because when Jesus commanded us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and care for the widow and orphan, he meant it. He meant it when he said we should love our neighbor, but he didn't mean that we love them according to secularist liberal values or the dictates of the state. We should love them as Christ loves them.

God created us to be loved and cared for by a mother and a father. Knowing this truth isn't peculiar to Christian revelation—it's inherent in human nature. Not surprisingly, the best social science confirms the biblical truth that children do best when reared by a mom and a dad.

This isn't to denigrate anyone, but it is to say that two people of the same sex are not the equivalent of a married mother and father. Any law that says that they are gets the family wrong. This does a great disservice to children, and the church should oppose this injustice to children. Christians should challenge such a law in court.

Christians should continue to serve children and society according to their convictions because, beyond getting the family wrong, these laws get the relationship of church and state wrong. Provided religious actors aren't harming anyone or violating others' rights, there's no compelling state interest in coercing religious charities to violate their principles. Christians aren't seeking to bar same-sex couples from adopting from other agencies. They are just asking that they not be forced to place children with same-sex couples themselves.

The truth of the matter is that long before the state of Massachusetts or Illinois existed, long before the United States existed, Christ's church was ministering to the poor. Christians should continue to stand on biblical principles in the face of laws that unjustly usurp the authority of voluntary charities and grant government power to regulate their activity even when they cause no harm.

Such a law would be deeply unjust. Christians should recognize, following Augustine as cited by Martin Luther King Jr. in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," that an unjust law is no binding law at all. As King explained, referencing Aquinas, "an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law."

To witness to the truth of Christ's commands to love and care for the least among us, to God's designs in creating the human family, to the truth that while we should render to Caesar what is Caesar's, we should render to God what is God's, the church should neither stop her charitable activities nor comply with this law—but should continue operating her charitable services and force the state to take action.

Bersih 3.0 in Johor Bahru @ Dataran Bandaraya JB

New Protest Rally Planned in Malaysia

By Celine Fernandez and Shibani Mahtani. Published by Wall Street Journal on 10 April 2012.

Last July, Malaysian activists –collectively known as the Bersih 2.0 movement– brought tens of thousands of people to the streets of Kuala Lumpur, demanding electoral transparency.

With the country’s next general election widely expected to be held this year or early next, activists are planning another rally scheduled for the end of this month, continuing their push for free and fair elections.

The “sit down” protest is planned for April 28, with Bersih (“clean” in Malay) to show the activists’ dissatisfaction with what they say is a lack of commitment by the government to implement measures for free and fair elections. Although the government is considering new rules to reform election processes in the country, the activists say the ideas floated so far don’t go far enough. The activists’ demands –ranging from the establishment of an independent body to help clean up the electoral roll and inviting election observers to monitor the vote– falls short of calling for a boycott of the upcoming election, which must be held in or before 2013, even if their aspirations are not met.

However, the decision to call a fresh rally does raise the heat on the government of Prime Minister Najib Razak as he tries to build momentum for what he hopes will be a successful re-election. Last year’s rally was more than just a quiet sit-down, turning messy after police fired tear gas and water cannons on protestors, including prominent leaders of the country’s opposition parties. Many people were injured and some 1,600 people were detained, including Bersih’s co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan. All were subsequently released, but human rights groups including Amnesty International condemned the action as the “worst campaign of repression we’ve seen in the country for years.”

Organizers of this year’s rally do not envisage a repeat of last year’s crackdown, given how unpopular the police action was. “I am assuming that sensible advisors of the Prime Minister will tell him to refrain from using the same tactic,” said Ms. Sreenevasan at a press conference announcing the rally.

After last year’s rally, an opinion poll by independent research firm Merdeka Center showed Prime Minister Najib Razak’s popularity dipping to 59% in August, compared to 65% in May. It has since bounced back to 69%, according to Merdeka Center. The rally is not for a couple of weeks, but already political leaders are warning Malaysians away from the event, arguing that the choice of location –Dataran Merdeka, the historic square where the flag of an independent Malaya was raised for the first time– is illegal.

Government minister in charge of legal matters Nazri Aziz said in Parliament last Wednesday that the square had not been gazetted as an area where assembly is allowed. Other government officials have been quoted in local press as saying the activists need not bother holding a protest because the government is already responding to their concerns.

Organizers insist the rally will go on as planned unless they get a commitment from the government that their reforms will be implemented before the next general election. After last year’s rally, Mr. Najib announced the establishment of a Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) to look into electoral reform. The committee included five members of the governing coalition, three from the opposition and one independent member. The committee drew up 22 recommendations around electoral procedures – including that the electoral roll only list eligible voters, and that election bodies function independently of the government.

Last Tuesday, their report was adopted by Parliament without debate, though the government is not obliged to implement any of the recommendations. The country’s Election Commission will discuss the report’s 22 recommendations in a meeting next week. The report failed to address one of Bersih’s sticking points, though – international observers coming to Malaysia for the general election.

Countries across Southeast Asia, including Indonesia and Thailand, are open to international and domestic observers. Malaysia sent observers to Myanmar to monitor its most recent by-elections held earlier this month. Chair of the Election Commission Abdul Aziz Mohd Yosuf, speaking to the Wall Street Journal after the announcement of this month’s Bersih rally, said that the body would be in favor of both international and domestic observers for the upcoming election since electoral authorities “have nothing to hide in [their] election systems and processes.”

Analysts, however, say that for many Malaysians the rally is about more than just elections. They say it’s also about general dissatisfaction with the state of politics in the racially-fragmented Southeast Asian nation, including concerns over corruption.

“Bersih represents opposition [broadly], not just opposition parties. These are quite separate issues,” said Professor Shamsul Amri Baharuddin of the National University Malaysia, who labels the movement as a “third-force” in Malaysian politics. He and some other analysts have said the movement’s organizers have been too hasty in calling for a protest without first exhausting other means of settling the issues they are unhappy about. “On the street [action] alone invites a certain kind of negativity, and both sides become very defensive,” said Professor Shamsul. Ultimately, demonstration organizers say it is not up to them to decide how the rally will end.

“At the end of the day, the Najib administration and the police have to decide what kind of outcome they want. The last time they arrested 1667. This time, if [they] want to go that way again, I am sure many Malaysians will come forward and turn ourselves in and say ‘put us in’,” said Mr. Wong Chin Huat, a member of the Bersih 2.0 steering committee.

Christianity’s Via Dolorosa

Published by Free Malaysia Today on 8 April 2012.

By Fiorello Provera

BRUSSELS: Recently, the human-rights activist, former Dutch politician, and Somali exile Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about a global war on Christians in Muslim countries. She discussed at length the appalling phenomenon of violent intolerance towards Christian communities, and cast blame on the international community and prominent NGOs for failing to address this problem.

In almost every part of the world, reports emerge on a daily basis of Christian communities falling victim to harassment and persecution.

In Nigeria, on Feb 26, three Christians were killed and dozens wounded after a car bomb exploded close to a church in the northern town of Jos. At least 500 people have died during the last year in attacks attributed to the violent Islamist group Boko Haram, which has called for all Christians to leave northern Nigeria.

In East African states such as Sudan, Christians have been given an April 8 deadline to leave the north. The ultimatum will affect up to 700,000 Christians who were born in South Sudan before it became independent last year. In Eritrea, it is reported that 2,000-3,000 Christians are in detention, and that many have been tortured.

But the Middle East remains the most dangerous place for Christians to live, and attacks occur with frightening regularity. Egypt’s Copts and Iraq’s dwindling Christian community feel the pressure the most.

Depending on the outcome of events in Syria, many wonder about the fate of that country’s vibrant Christian community. In Iran, members of so-called “house churches” (independent assemblies of Christians who meet in private homes because of their fear of oppression) are rounded up and imprisoned.

In 2012, the organization Open Doors, which is devoted to focusing on the plight of Christians, designated Muslim-majority countries – including Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and even the Maldives – as some of the world’s worst offenders.

In Pakistan, the country’s notorious blasphemy laws are frequently used against Christians to settle personal scores or extort financial gain. The shocking assassinations of Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan’s minister for minority affairs, and the governor of Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer, ensured that anyone who speaks out on this topic can expect swift retribution.

Top offender Yet the problem is not limited to the Muslim world. In China, according to the organization The Voice of the Martyrs, persecution of Christians rose significantly from 2010 to 2011.

Unofficial house churches are especially vulnerable to official harassment or raids by the authorities.

But the world’s top offender remains North Korea, where Christians are subject to the worst forms of abuse, with reports that at least 25% endure slave-like conditions in labor camps.

In Vietnam, the indigenous Degar people, also called Montagnards, are viewed with suspicion for their Christian faith, and the government is responsible for numerous cases of torture and abuse, while hundreds of Degar women have been subject to forced sterilization.

Even in countries that are heralded for their openness and tolerance, such as India, Christian groups have been subject to attacks. During 2011, at least 1,000 cases of anti-Christian violence were reported across the country. In January, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, Hindu fundamentalists attacked an evangelical pastor whom they accused of forcible conversions.

As bad as anti-Christian violence and intimidation is, indifference to the plight of Christian groups under threat is widespread among governments, the media, and even ordinary citizens.

A smattering of Christian NGOs works to publicize the issue, but mainstream human-rights organizations have largely neglected to highlight cases of explicit anti-Christian attacks and persecution.

Tying to trade deals There is an obvious reticence by international bodies even to acknowledge the problem. But according to the Pew Forum, at least 10% of the world’s Christians – 200 million people in 133 countries – live in societies as a minority group. Unless action is taken to address the issue, hundreds of communities that simply wish to practice their religion peacefully will face profound psychological and demographic consequences, fleeing into exile to preserve their faith.

The European Union, the United States, and the world’s other democracies have the capacity to raise the issue of religious persecution; what they lack is the will.

The EU should follow the example of the US State Department, which publishes a comprehensive annual report on religious freedom around the world.

Another possibility is to raise the issue through bilateral agreements with countries where Christians are persecuted.

That way, it would become clear that these states cannot operate with impunity when it comes to their religious minorities, whether they profess Christianity or any other faith.

- Project Syndicate Fiorello Provera is Vice-Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs [From Wikpedia: The Via Dolorosa (Latin,"Way of Grief" or "Way of Suffering") is a street, in two parts, within the Old City of Jerusalem, held to be the path that Jesus walked, carrying his cross, on the way to his crucifixion.]