Civil society has a watchdog role in checking whether government commitments to uphold human rights are taken seriously. In Taiwan, the Tai Ji Men case is a crucial test.
by Massimo Introvigne*
*A paper presented via video at the webinar “Shadow Report on the Fourth International Review of the Two Covenants,” Taipei, November 16, 2025.
I speak today on behalf of “Bitter Winter,” a daily magazine dedicated to religious liberty and human rights. Every day, we document stories of courage and persecution, of communities fighting for dignity in the face of discrimination. Our mission is to shine a light where others look away, and to defend those whose voices are too often silenced.
This is why we chose to co-sign the shadow report on the implementation of the Two UN Covenants in Taiwan. Because this is not just a bureaucratic exercise. It is a moral imperative.
The Two Covenants—the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights—are foundational texts for human rights advocacy. They are not perfect, but they are powerful. When states ratify them, they commit to a standard. And when they fall short, civil society has the right—and the duty—to remind them of those promises.
Taiwan, though not a member of the United Nations, has voluntarily incorporated the Two Covenants into its domestic law in 2009. It submits to periodic reviews by independent experts. This was a welcome development, which includes a commitment to transparency and accountability. But it also opens the door to scrutiny—not just from governments, but from civil society.
That’s where shadow reports come in. They are not footnotes. They are counterpoints. They are the voice of the people, of NGOs, of journalists, of scholars—of those who see what official reports sometimes miss. They call attention to systemic problems, to blind spots, to injustices that hide in plain sight.
This particular shadow report focuses on taxpayers’ rights. That may sound technical. But it is anything but. Because when tax systems are weaponized against unpopular groups, it becomes a human rights issue. It becomes a matter of justice.
Some may object that taxpayers’ rights have nothing to do with religious liberty, the main focus of “Bitter Winter.” The objection, however, is ill-founded. Increasingly, taxes are weaponized to hit and discriminate against spiritual minorities.
In Taiwan, the Tai Ji Men case is an egregious example.
For decades, the Shifu (Grand Master) and dizi (disciples) of Tai Ji Men—a spiritual movement rooted in ancient Qigong traditions—have faced discrimination through the misuse of Taiwan’s tax system. Despite court rulings affirming their innocence, they have been subjected to unjust tax bills, seizures, nationalization of properties, and public stigma. This is not just about taxes. It is about the dignity of a community. It is about the right to believe, to gather, to practice—without fear of financial persecution.
At “Bitter Winter,” we have seen this pattern before. In many countries, spiritual minorities are not attacked with guns or prisons—they are attacked with tax audits. With fines. With bureaucratic harassment. It is quieter than a police raid, but no less destructive.
That is why we added our signature to this report. Because these are the kinds of abuses that risk being overlooked in official reviews. Because the language of tax law can obscure the reality of discrimination. And because it is part of our mission to call attention to these injustices—to say, clearly and publicly, that religious liberty must include tax justice.
We do not claim that Taiwan is uniquely guilty. In fact, we commend Taiwan for its openness to review. But openness must be met with honesty. And honesty requires listening to those who have been harmed.
This report is not an attack against Taiwan. It is a contribution. It is a call to do better. And it is a reminder that human rights are not abstract ideals—they are lived realities. They are the right to practice spirituality without fear, to speak without punishment, to live without discrimination.
So let us not be silent. Let us not be polite in the face of injustice. Let us be clear, firm, and compassionate. Let us remember that taxpayers’ rights are human rights, too. Let us defend the freedom of religion or belief of all—including those whose beliefs we may not share, but whose dignity we must always respect. And let us defend the rights of the Shifu and dizi of Tai Ji Men and stand with them in their righteous fight.
Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio. From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.
