UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Foreign Affairs

  • Fiona Bruce – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    Fiona Bruce – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    The speech made by Fiona Bruce, the Conservative MP for Congleton, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    First, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I know that her interest in such subjects is profound, and I am pleased to see her in her place, as I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton)—my hon. Friend, as we call each other. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for continually shining a spotlight on freedom of religion or belief, for securing the debate and for his excellent and detailed speech.

    It is deeply concerning that in the 21st century the rights to freedom of religion, belief and expression are still severely limited in many Commonwealth countries, and that all too often blasphemy laws are used to silence people who hold minority views. I intend to focus on the use of death penalty policy in the Commonwealth. In doing so, I will be assisted by research and work undertaken recently by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which I have the privilege of chairing. The alliance has grown to 42 countries, members and friends, and we will shortly issue a statement on blasphemy and related offences. Later this month, we will call for action across the world.

    Research in Australia by Monash University examined 12 countries identified as having retained the death penalty as a lawful possibility for offences against religion. Apart from Nigeria and Pakistan, which are the two most concerning Commonwealth examples and on which I want to focus my remarks, those countries include Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, the Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. It is worth mentioning that of those 12 countries, 11 have established Islam as a state religion. The 12th country, Nigeria, has no state religion, but the 12 Nigerian states in which blasphemy is punishable by death operate a sharia law system in parallel with secular courts. In all 12 countries, sharia is cited as the basis on which the death penalty is prescribed for offences against religion, regardless of whether that penalty has been subsequently codified. We therefore have an issue, but it is one of policy and legislation as well as one of religion. That requires advocacy at different levels, including within Islam.

    I will give a few short examples from Nigeria. Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was a Sufi Islamic gospel musician from Kano state who was accused of blasphemy for sending audio messages on WhatsApp in 2020. His house was burned down, and he was arrested and sentenced to death by hanging. His conviction was overturned, but he is still in danger of being convicted. As recently as August 2022, a court of appeal upheld the constitutionality of the blasphemy law in his case. His lawyer will soon appeal to the Supreme Court to call for the blasphemy law to be ruled unconstitutional.

    There is a particularly disturbing case for me as a mother, although so many are. In 2020, 13-year-old Omar Farouq was sentenced to 10 years in prison for blasphemy after comments were made to a friend. Thankfully, his conviction was eventually overturned, although only on procedural irregularities.

    As we have heard, the impact of blasphemy laws goes beyond the courtroom and into the community—dreadfully and fatally so in the case of Deborah Samuel Yakubu, a young teenage girl who was burned to death in Sokoto after an allegation of blasphemy in 2021. She had been accused of insulting the Prophet Mohammed in a WhatsApp classroom discussion group, although apparently she had merely thanked Jesus for helping her in an exam. All of this is happening under the watch of the constitution of Nigeria, which prohibits the adoption of any religion as a state religion. The reality, though, is that the state endorses numerous anti-secular and theocratic policies. Islam is often regarded as the de facto state religion in nine of the northern states, where the majority of the population is Muslim. Blasphemy laws in those sharia states allow the death penalty, which has affected Christians, atheists, Shi’a Muslims, artists, converts and those expressing beliefs that local leaders find offensive.

    I turn now to Pakistan, which actually ratified the international covenant on freedom of religion or belief—the international covenant on civil and political rights—in 2010. However, it is ranked No. 8 in the Open Doors 2022 world watch list, and a main source of persecution comes from the strict blasphemy laws. Even though freedom of speech is guaranteed under the Pakistani constitution, it is limited by law and considerations of national security, and also by

    “the interest of the glory of Islam”.

    Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws have been in place in their present form since 1986, punishing blasphemy with death or life imprisonment for

    “deliberately or maliciously outraging the religious feelings of any class or the citizens of Pakistan—either spoken or written.”

    Over the past 30 years, nearly 2,000 people have been accused under the blasphemy laws, yet Amnesty estimates that most examples are based on false premises and lack evidence. Although the most severe punishment of execution has not been used in Pakistan to the knowledge of the international community, it is acknowledged that the laws have been used to sentence people to death and to incite harassment and violence against those accused under the law. In a judgment released by the Pakistani Supreme Court recently, the judges noted that

    “many a time false allegations are levelled to settle personal scores and cases are also registered for mischievous purposes or on account of ulterior motives.”

    I will not go into too much detail about some of the more high-profile cases; suffice to say that I was deeply saddened last year to hear of the case of Shagufta and Shafqat, a couple who were on death row for seven years for sending allegedly blasphemous text messages. Eventually their sentence was overturned in June last year, when it was found that neither of them could read or write. Stephen Masih spent three years in jail after being accused of blasphemy by his neighbour during an argument over a pigeon.

    Jim Shannon

    Surely the cases that the hon. Lady has outlined show a failing in the police investigations. For the two people who were accused of blasphemy but could neither read nor write, why did it take so long for that to be sorted out? Surely the police investigation would have sorted it out right away.

    Fiona Bruce

    One of the problems is that many countries sign up to international covenants and rights, including of freedom of religion or belief, in their constitutions, and yet the court systems and the police investigation systems often do not apply the principles in practice. That does need to be looked at.

    The social implications of Pakistan maintaining blasphemy laws cannot be underestimated in terms of mob violence, the burning of villages and the public parading of blasphemers, which are all too common. Two politicians who have advocated against blasphemy laws have been assassinated within the last 10 years. One defendant died from a gun wound after he was shot in court, when on trial in 2020.

    What can be done to better respect and protect freedom of religion or belief? One of the outcomes of our London ministerial conference on FORB in July this year—I am delighted to report that no less than 88 Governments sent delegates—is to provide funding for lawyers via an organisation called Role UK, Rule of Law Expertise, to work in countries such as Nigeria to support law reform. That is exactly the kind of issue that the hon. Member for Strangford referred to.

    We need to use the respect and expertise of UK lawyers in the Commonwealth to modify or repeal blasphemy, defamation of religion and other speech laws that allow for the persecution of individuals. Frequent concerns that have been expressed, such as the vague wording of such laws, lack of due process and arbitrary enforcement, need to be addressed. I am pleased to confirm that one of the “next steps” set of actions, which is being led by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance with the aid of our experts, is to look at how legal systems can be strengthened to better reflect FORB in practice. UK Ministers should use every opportunity, including on in-country visits, to raise FORB concerns with their counterparts, including those raised in the debate today. What assurance can the Minister give me on that?

    We should appeal to countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan to enact strong safeguards to ensure that individuals who take sharia blasphemy laws into their own hands are punished under law. This is a human rights issue. Sunni schools agree that only the ruler of a state should sentence people to death and that vigilantism on the basis of alleged apostasy should be punished, meaning no individual Muslim without state authority could execute an apostate. That is of relevance to Pakistan, where there is widespread violence at community level. There is a need for careful advocacy, supporting the position of many contemporary Islamic scholars, as articulated by the retired chief justice of Pakistan, S.A. Rahman:

    “The position that emerges, after a survey of the relevant verses of the Qur’an, may be summed up by saying that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book, but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate…He will be punished only in the Hereafter.”

    We need to urge Commonwealth countries to uphold and fiercely protect the rights of individuals to a fair trial and to ensure due process. Often the emotion of a crowd of accusers has expedited trials to the detriment of a court firmly establishing the facts. Again, careful advocacy locally led with the support of international non-governmental organisations can make an impact. We should thank organisations such as ADF, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors, CAN and Amnesty for their tireless advocacy. We should join with these NGOs in calling for the release of individuals facing the death penalty, and with the report of the UN Secretary-General on the 13 August 2020 in calling for a moratorium on the application of the death penalty for non-violent conduct such as apostasy and blasphemy, in line with the agreement of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which so many countries have signed up to, including Nigeria and Pakistan. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on Blasphemy Laws and Allegations in Commonwealth Countries

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall on 11 October 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered blasphemy laws and allegations in Commonwealth Countries.

    I would first like to express an interest, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief and as chair of the APPG for the Pakistani minorities. These issues are close to my heart, and it is a privilege to speak about them and to try to outline where we wish to be. I therefore thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this timely and important topic. As always, I am pleased to see my dear friend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), in his place. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister, and I thank her for all that she does for persecuted ethnic groups across the world.

    Blasphemy laws may sound like an archaic and outdated issue, but they are far from a thing of the past. I thought long and hard about this debate, and I wanted to bring the issue forward for discussion in a positive fashion. As of 2019, 79 countries had laws or policies banning blasphemy, which included speech or actions deemed to be insulting, contemptuous or showing lack of reverence for a God or something sacred. Unfortunately, despite the Commonwealth’s values—which we adhere to—of promoting democracy, human rights and individual liberty, its members are some of the worst offenders. Of the 79 countries that prohibit blasphemy, 26 are Commonwealth states, which equates to 46% of Commonwealth members.

    Yesterday was World Day Against the Death Penalty. A higher share of countries inside the Commonwealth than outside it have prison sentences for blasphemy and other legal restrictions. Regrettably, the Commonwealth also has a higher share of countries with the death penalty for blasphemy. Five Commonwealth countries have the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy, and many more have seen people murdered for them. A clear goal to work towards would be the abolishment of the death penalty for any blasphemy-related charges. While progress would still need to be made to ensure that people are not unjustly imprisoned on blasphemy charges, it would be a big step forward to know that the death penalty was not on the table.

    Blasphemy laws are not always in and of themselves an issue—I want to make that clear. They can often be little more than legislation that is never utilised or that lies dormant, with no impact on a country’s people. For instance, Saint Lucia and other Caribbean states have blasphemy laws, but they are not enforced and have every likelihood of never being enforced. However, the fact that they are in place means that, sometime, they could be enacted and enforced and could become a stringent part of the law. Therefore, it is the abuse and misuse of blasphemy laws that is the issue; indeed, it is social attitudes towards blasphemy and the lack of the tolerance for other faiths and beliefs, not blasphemy laws on their own, that leads to violations of freedom of religion or belief.

    I recall a visit that the APPG organised to Pakistan in 2018. It was around the time that Asia Bibi had been charged with blasphemy and given the death penalty. That deputation consisted of my colleague, the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer), and Lord Alton, from the other place. We decided that if we were going to do something about Asia Bibi it was probably better not to go in with all guns blazing and say, “Blasphemy is wrong, and your constitution is wrong,” because we would get nothing. Instead, we showed how the blasphemy laws in Pakistan at that time were being used in an erroneous, vindictive and malicious way. They were also being used in an untrue and dishonest way, because the allegations were never factually or evidentially proven to be true.

    We met two of the three judges—at this stage, I am not breaking any confidences, because the thing is past and over—who told us that they did not see an evidential base for the allegations that were made and were therefore of a mind to free Asia Bibi. We never said that when we came home—I talked to the then Minister and assured him that we did not intend to say anything—because we thought it was more important to have Asia Bibi released. Eventually, she was released to her family and now lives in Canada.

    However, there may be other Asia Bibis in Pakistan and across the world in a similar situation, and I will refer to a couple of them. I know that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who speaks for the Scottish National party, will also speak about some of them, because we have been on many deputations together, including one to Nigeria recently—I will refer to one case in Nigeria and I know he will do the same.

    However, before highlighting cases where blasphemy laws pose a serious threat to ordinary people’s lives and are weaponised as tools for persecution, I would like to bring to Members’ attention the fact that a blanket repeal of blasphemy laws would be ill advised and that I am not seeking one. In some circumstances, calls for a blanket repeal would have the unintended consequence of removing certain protections, such as prohibiting the vandalism of places of worship. Far from advancing the fight for freedom of religion or belief, such consequences would simply create new challenges. Instead, it is vital to stress the problems with blasphemy laws and how to counter those challenges. Therefore, a blanket repeal is not the solution, but something must be done, and I hope to make some suggestions during the debate.

    Unfortunately, misuse of blasphemy laws or accusations of blasphemy are one of the tools most commonly used to target religious or belief minorities around the world. They are often used as a pretext for land seizures, extrajudicial violence or discriminatory legislation. Blasphemy allegations can make a mockery of a justice system and can often fuel mob violence. They can also be utilised to settle personal vendettas, and they can be invoked more generally to target and drive out religious or belief minorities in a given country or region. There are many examples of such activities, and I have referred to some of them. The susceptibility of some blasphemy laws to such abuses is a grave challenge to freedom of religion or belief for all, with those of many different religions or belief backgrounds falling victim to the misuse of blasphemy laws, particularly in certain states of the Commonwealth.

    In recent months, there have been a number of high-profile blasphemy cases, with blasphemy charges filed against Imran Khan, Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, and the murder of Deborah Samuel, a student in Nigeria. I was in Nigeria in May—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others were on that trip—and we had a chance to discuss many issues, and the case of that young Christian girl, who I will refer to again later, was one of those we looked at. Such cases illustrate how blasphemy laws are used to restrict freedom of speech, discredit political opponents and attack religious minorities, and they also draw attention to the rule of mob violence in blasphemy allegations and how that determines the legal frameworks that are in place.

    A report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom on the use of blasphemy laws found that extrajudicial violence was particularly prevalent in Pakistan, with more than half of the recorded cases of such violence happening in that country. The other significant contributor from the Commonwealth was Nigeria, which we visited just a few months ago, and I will touch on that later, as will the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. The USCIRF report noted that extrajudicial violence is more likely to happen when persons accused of blasphemy are acquitted through the legal system or police choose not to file charges. That shows that a solution cannot be found through legislation alone but by changing attitudes in a country. I think we have to do that as well, but it has to be done in a gentle way, and I hope that we may just do that very thing through this debate.

    Given the high levels of extrajudicial violence, many victims and their families receive death threats and must live in hiding, in fear of their lives, even if they are found innocent—I have referred to one such case already. In these cases, victims are unable to access asylum pathways, as they are stuck in their country of origin and cannot make a claim until they leave. One case that illustrates that scenario and sheds light on Pakistan’s blasphemy laws more broadly is that of Sawan Masih. I have raised this case in the past, as have other colleagues present today, but it is worthy of renewed attention, given that last week marked two years since Sawan’s acquittal but there has been little improvement in the situation. The Minister is always responsive to us—we all appreciate that—and I ask her to give us an update on the case today if she can. If not, I am happy for us to be notified afterwards.

    Sawan Masih was a Christian street sweeper, a father of three from the city of Lahore in Pakistan. He was imprisoned in March 2013 and sentenced to death for blasphemy in March 2014. Sawan’s appeal hearing was adjourned at least 16 times, but on 5 October 2020 he was finally acquitted in Lahore High Court. He was released 10 days later, with the delay due to security concerns for his life. His father lived to hear news of the acquittal, but died before Sawan could see him. Sadly, earlier this year, his mother also passed away without seeing her son. Sawan and his family now live in a secret location, as they would most likely be murdered if their location was known.

    Sawan Masih’s arrest happened only after mob violence—it was not the rule of law that led to his dire circumstances, but the abuse of the law. Local factory workers went on strike for Sawan’s arrest. More than 3,000 Muslims attacked his home village, torching 180 Christian homes, 75 shops and two churches. Sawan believes that the charge against him was part of a plot by local businessmen to seize land previously held by Christians. The fact that blasphemy laws can be manipulated in such a way is at the heart of this debate. Spurious accusations should not be a vehicle for settling personal disputes or targeting minorities who have little recourse to justice.

    Sawan’s life has been irreversibly damaged by the malicious levelling of blasphemy allegations. Pakistan’s justice system has been undermined by mob rule provoked by malicious and vindictive allegations. Our asylum process has also been shown to be further flawed, owing to the fact that Sawan is still in hiding, with an ever-diminishing hope of a safe and full future for himself, his wife and his family. Regrettably, Sawan is just one of many people in Pakistan who faces such a situation. According to the National Commission for Justice and Peace, 84 individuals were charged with blasphemy in 2021, and many others remain imprisoned or on death row.

    How do we prevent cases such as that of Sawan Masih? One solution, which is key to this debate, is for blasphemy laws to be amended to include reference to intentionality. In essence, blasphemy laws that stress intentionality would mean that intention to cause insult would need to be established before someone was convicted for this offence. The absence of a reference to intent in article 295C of Pakistan’s blasphemy law means that the prosecutor does not carry the burden of proving that the accused had the intention of blasphemy. Such a problem is not unique to Pakistan, but Pakistan’s more active enforcement of blasphemy laws makes an amendment ever more relevant. Moreover, a general promotion of amending laws to introduce an intentionality clause in countries where blasphemy laws are misused could dramatically improve the situation for religious and belief groups, not to mention the vigour of the law as a whole. Given that the UK is a significant giver of aid to Pakistan, the UK Government should not be backwards at coming forwards—that is a bit of an Irishism—in recommending such a change in the law, laying the groundwork for other members of the Commonwealth to do similarly. There should be no toleration of low standards of evidence for convicting somebody of blasphemy in any country, let alone one with which the UK has such close ties.

    My final point about Pakistan, which is also relevant to other countries, is that cyber-laws, for example, should not be used as a back door for blasphemy laws. In November 2020, Pakistan enacted an amendment to the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 that empowered the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority to block or remove online content if it considers it necessary

    “in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan”

    or public order, decency or morality. Unfortunately, such a law enables the targeting of minorities for blasphemy-related charges. Since its enactment, six Ahmadi Muslims have been arrested owing to those laws, and 17 named in police reports.

    We have made overtures to Pakistan in the past about the Ahmadi, and we will do it again. The Ahmadis are a small Muslim sect who are persecuted by other Muslims in Pakistan. Such digital persecution exacerbates the difficulties for Ahmadis and other religious groups in Pakistan, with even the online sphere no longer being a forum where they can speak or learn about their faith. With the rise in digital persecution globally, our policymakers must not be ignorant of the challenges that cyber poses and how it compounds human rights challenges around the world, particularly pertaining to freedom of religious belief.

    Another country I would like to draw attention to is Nigeria. As I said, I was in Nigeria with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute and others. It was a chance for us to seek answers on freedom of religious belief and to highlight cases, and I want to highlight one in particular. Nigeria’s legal system arguably allows for some of the most punitive sentences in any Commonwealth member state for blasphemy allegations, if cases even reach the courts to start with.

    Horrifically, in May this year, a student called Deborah Samuel was stoned to death. This young Christian girl was set on fire by a mob over an alleged blasphemous comment in a WhatsApp group. Just a few weeks later, Ahmad Usman was burned to death by a mob of 200 people after he was accused of making a blasphemous comment against a cleric. Undeniably, it is not even the misuse of blasphemy laws that leads to persecution in such cases, but the devastating hostility towards those of other religious beliefs—it is mob rule and mob violence, irrespective of the issue, with allegations mostly unproven and with no evidential base whatever. Neglectful law enforcement and a culture of impunity permit such murderous acts to prevail, and only two people have been arrested so far in connection with Deborah Samuel’s murder, despite the prevalence of social media footage depicting it.

    Apparently, young Deborah Samuel’s crime was to express frustration with members of the group chat for posting religious articles and to ask them to focus on the coursework at hand. Those are very gentle words, and not confrontational or difficult in any way. Some reports indicate that Deborah Samuel had rejected the advances of a Muslim student and that he made the allegations against her in retaliation. Undeniably, in such a case, it is not even about the misuse of laws, but the devastating hostility.

    There should be no place for mob rule in any country. When such unlawful behaviour emerges, it should be met with repercussions. Yet, neglectful law enforcement and a culture of impunity permit such murderous acts to prevail and let mob rule and violence take prominence. Only two people have been arrested so far in connection with Deborah Samuel’s murder, despite the prevalence of social media footage. There is an abundant evidential base depicting her brutal murder.

    Worse still, the two students who were arrested were charged only with criminal conspiracy and disturbing the peace—both bailable offences—rather than facing the more fitting charge of culpable homicide, which is what it should have been and what the evidential base proves. They are receiving legal representation from a team of 34 lawyers led by a professor of law. While a fair trial is a necessity—I am always for fair trials—one cannot help but wish that such legal support was provided to those falsely accused of blasphemy and facing trial in sharia courts.

    While we were in Nigeria, we were very aware of how sharia law seems on many occasions to supersede the law of the land. Although the sentence stipulated for blasphemy under Nigeria’s criminal code is two years, Nigeria’s dual legal system of customary and sharia law enables sharia courts to trump federal law and impose extreme sentences for blasphemy. Rather than two years, sharia law permits the death penalty.

    The religious make-up of Nigeria is split down the middle. I understand—I hope the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will back me up—that Christians are 50% of the population of Nigeria and Muslims are 50%. It is very much a 50:50 split, so it is important that people get on with their neighbours and embrace what they say.

    The sharia law penal codes in those states, coupled with the retention of blasphemy punishments in the criminal code, have served to embolden religious extremists to take matters into their own hands and misuse blasphemy laws to serve selfish and manipulative ends. One of the highest profile cases of a recent blasphemy allegation reaching the courts in Nigeria is that of Mubarak Bala, which the hon. Gentleman will refer to. We met the Nigerian Humanist Association and had discussions with the Minister responsible, and we were quite encouraged by their response. Mubarak Bala was sentenced to 24 years in prison following accusations that he insulted the Prophet Mohammed in a Facebook post. He was penalised under sections 114 and 210 of Kano state’s penal code, which aims to implement parts of sharia legislation into the civil code and merge the penal codes of other sharia states. It is very important that the law of the land is not used detrimentally, as it has been in this case. The hon. Gentleman will refer more to that.

    The fact that sharia law can take precedence over the criminal code should give cause for concern, but it has not. Hon. Members and others outside this Chamber have not realised that they need to focus on that issue. Whether we agree with the person’s views or comments, I hope we all agree that 24 years in prison for a Facebook post is disproportionate, no matter who is alleged to have been insulted.

    The implementation of sharia-based blasphemy laws curtails the liberty of all in Nigeria. Everyone is subject to an interpretation of the law—not necessarily the law of the land—that stands in stark contradiction to Nigeria’s constitution, which protects freedom of religion or belief and states:

    “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.”

    Well, that is what it says, but the reality is different. That concerns us greatly, and more so since our deputation to Nigeria. Sharia-based blasphemy laws are contrary to that statement and affect those of other minority religious beliefs—Christians, other small ethic minority religious groups and humanists, in particular. Reasserting a rule of law that is not sharia-based should be one of the Government’s key priorities when working with Nigeria so that freedom of religion or belief can become a reality for all. What discussions have the Minister and our Government had with the Nigerian Government on that case? Have we had an update yet?

    The Nigerian people are lovely, and we were welcomed royally when we were there back in May. We found them to be incredibly helpful, and we cherish and wish to hold on to our relationship with Nigeria, but as friends we also have to highlight issues that concern us, and this is one.

    I want to draw out the importance of focusing on blasphemy allegations and the misuse of blasphemy laws in Commonwealth countries. Although the scale of the abuse can in some countries be significant, our role as the UK is vital. As a friend and ally, we should encourage higher standards and greater accord with human rights, with freedom of religion or belief serving as a cornerstone human right. When such states attempt to justify their blasphemy laws by pointing to dead-letter laws in the west, they are being intellectually dishonest, as the differences in the enforcement of those laws could not be further apart.

    I am glad that the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2018 affirmed that freedom of religion or belief is

    “essential for democracy and sustainable development”,

    and that our Government and the Minister adhered to that. It would be lovely if they did more than just talk about it and instead acted as though they actually believed in it. I remind the Minister that when we trade with those countries, or give them aid, we should bear in mind that commitment and that principle, which are welcome, and repeatedly focus on human rights conditions on the ground and the true equal treatment of all religions and beliefs before the law.

    I am mindful of the good work that many Commonwealth states do to promote freedom of religion or belief for all, and there is no denying the leading work done by countries such as Canada, New Zealand and others with respect to blasphemy laws, as well as their encouragement of other states to implement fair law. I believe that by working together we can make freedom of religion or belief a reality. That starts with working with those countries with which we have well-established links and a reciprocal honest relationship.

    I would like to share the words of the apostle Paul, which I often use on such occasions, and which are close to my beliefs. The words from Ephesians are very clear that we should act

    “with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love”.

    We live in a diverse and culturally vibrant world, and it is good to have that. While it brings many joys, as it does, it sometimes means that we do not always see eye to eye, but by heeding words of patience and humility, and translating those guiding principles into law, we can grow our tolerance for one another and deepen our respect for difference. That is what the debate is all about: how we can look at the blasphemy laws and focus on those words of patience and humility, and on translating those guiding principles into law. With that comes the tolerance we have for others, and others have for us.

  • G7 – 2022 Joint Statement on Ukraine

    G7 – 2022 Joint Statement on Ukraine

    The joint statement issued by G7 leaders on 11 October 2022.

    G7 Statement on Ukraine, 11 October 2022

    1. We, the leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), convened today with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Our meeting took place against the backdrop of the most recent missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine, leading to the death of innocent civilians. We condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms and recall that indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilian populations constitute a war crime. We will hold President Putin and those responsible to account.
    2. The G7 firmly condemn and unequivocally reject the illegal attempted annexation by Russia of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhya and Kherson regions in addition to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol. We solemnly reiterate that we will never recognise this illegal annexation or the sham referenda that Russia uses to justify it.
    3. Russia has blatantly violated the principles enshrined in the UN Charter. They cannot and do not give Russia a legitimate basis to change Ukraine’s borders. We call upon all countries to unequivocally reject these violations of international law and demand that Russia cease all hostilities and immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its troops and military equipment from Ukraine.
    4. We have imposed and will continue to impose further economic costs on Russia, including on individuals and entities – inside and outside of Russia – providing political or economic support for Russia’s illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory.
    5. We deplore deliberate Russian escalatory steps, including the partial mobilisation of reservists and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, which is putting global peace and security at risk. We reaffirm that any use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons by Russia would be met with severe consequences.
    6. We condemn Russia’s actions at Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and the pressure exerted on the personnel of the facility. This is a further irresponsible escalation and we will hold Russia responsible for any incident caused by their actions. The safety, security and safeguards of the nuclear facility are paramount and we support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts in this regard.
    7. We reiterate our call on the Belarusian authorities to stop enabling the Russian war of aggression by permitting Russian armed forces to use Belarusian territory and by providing support to the Russian military. The announcement of a joint military group with Russia constitutes the most recent example of the Belarusian regime’s complicity with Russia. We renew our call on the Lukashenko regime to fully abide by its obligations under international law.
    8. We reaffirm our full support to Ukraine’s independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty in its internationally recognised borders. In line with international law, in particular the UN Charter, Ukraine has the legitimate right to defend itself against Russian aggression and to regain full control of its territory within its internationally recognised borders.
    9. We reassured President Zelenskyy that we are undeterred and steadfast in our commitment to providing the support Ukraine needs to uphold its sovereignty and territorial integrity. We will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military, diplomatic and legal support and will stand firmly with Ukraine for as long as it takes. We are committed to supporting Ukraine in meeting its winter preparedness needs.
    10. With a view to a viable post-war peace settlement, we remain ready to reach arrangements together with interested countries and institutions and Ukraine on sustained security and other commitments to help Ukraine defend itself, secure its free and democratic future, and deter future Russian aggression. We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defense equipment. We look forward to the outcomes of the International Expert Conference on the Recovery, Reconstruction and Modernisation of Ukraine on October 25.
    11. No country wants peace more than Ukraine, whose people have suffered death, displacement and countless atrocities as the result of Russian aggression. In solidarity with Ukraine, the G7 Leaders welcome President Zelenskyy’s readiness for a just peace. This should include the following elements: respecting the UN Charter’s protection of territorial integrity and sovereignty; safeguarding Ukraine’s ability to defend itself in the future; ensuring Ukraine’s recovery and reconstruction, including exploring avenues to do so with funds from Russia; pursuing accountability for Russian crimes committed during the war.
    12. We are deeply troubled by the deliberate damage to the Nordstream pipelines in international waters in the Baltic Sea and strongly condemn any deliberate disruption of critical infrastructure. We welcome ongoing investigations.
    13. We will act in solidarity and close coordination to address the negative impact of Russia’s aggression for global economic stability, including by continuing to cooperate to ensure energy security and affordability across the G7 and beyond.
  • Jane Hutt – 2022 Statement on the Welsh Government and the Pakistan Floods Appeal

    Jane Hutt – 2022 Statement on the Welsh Government and the Pakistan Floods Appeal

    The statement made by Jane Hutt, the Welsh Minister for Social Justice, on 3 October 2022.

    Following the devastating flooding that recently hit Pakistan, the Welsh Government has made a £100K donation to the Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) Pakistan Floods Appeal.

    The torrential floods submerged vast areas of land, leaving over 6 million people in need of urgent help. According to the government of Pakistan, a third of the country – equivalent to an area the size of the UK – is underwater, in what the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres has called a “climate catastrophe”. Whole villages have been cut off, with rescuers struggling to reach them. At least 1,400 people have been killed and approximately 13,000 injured.

    Huge areas of agricultural land have been affected, with crops swept away and three quarters of a million livestock killed, which will mean many people going hungry in the longer term. There is also a high risk from water-borne diseases spreading in affected areas.

    The Welsh Government funds the Disasters Emergency Committee Cymru to help coordinate fundraising efforts in Wales and the Pakistan Floods Appeal was launched in September.  The Disasters Emergency Committee brings together leading organisations in the UK to raise funds for overseas emergencies, coordinating an effective humanitarian response, getting aid quickly to people who need it in the most cost effective manner possible.

    Mobile teams have been deployed to screen children for malnutrition and provide treatment. Cash grants are helping people buy stoves and a three-month supply of firewood and agencies are supplying winter clothing for families to stay warm. This £100K donation from the Welsh Government will support that activity.

  • Vicky Ford – 2022 Comments on Ethiopia

    Vicky Ford – 2022 Comments on Ethiopia

    The comments made by Vicky Ford, the Minister of State for Development in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, on Twitter on 5 October 2022.

    Just met with Ambassador Teferi.

    Very disappointed that the Ethiopian Govt has asked me to postpone my visit this week to raise profile of terrible regional drought.

    But encouraged at commitment to peace talks and urge all parties to seize chance to end the conflict.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    James Cleverly – 2022 Speech to Conservative Party Conference

    The speech made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in Birmingham on 4 October 2022.

    Thank you Conference.

    It’s great be back together,

    As a party.

    As a family.

    Big thank you to Jake Berry our chairman

    Organising conference is a mammoth task.

    And a big thank you our party staff, our volunteers,

    And you, the members.

    I loved being party chairman,

    working with you all, with Ben my co-chairman,

    And working alongside Boris.

    And if I remember rightly we did alright.

    an 80-seat majority –

    A great team of new MPs from all over our great country –

    And Boris’s leadership:

    …Delivered Brexit…

    …Got us through the Covid…

    …And he led the world in support for Ukraine.

    It’s a legacy that we should be proud of.

    And I was proud to serve under him.

    It’s a legacy that Liz Truss will build on.

    I’ve seen her take bold action as Foreign Secretary:

    …her steadfast support for Ukraine and standing up to Russia…

    …her passionate defence of our Union…

    …her determination to promote democracy and freedom around the world.

    As Prime Minister she is also being bold.

    …helping with energy bills…

    …ensuring you can see your doctor promptly…

    Reducing the taxes paid by ordinary, hardworking people across the country.

    I backed her from the start:

    And I know I made the right choice.

    I’m the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

    Wow, that still sounds strange!

    It is an honour to be the face and voice of our country overseas.

    I’m the UK’s sales guy.

    I’m pretty good at sales, it was how I paid my bills.

    But I know that the greatest salesperson that the UK ever had was her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

    Our greatest diplomat

    Our greatest advocate

    Our greatest champion

    Elizabeth the Great.

    I’ve had the honour of meeting King Charles,

    and I know he will work tirelessly and to continue her work…

    and be our new chief ambassador.

    During the funeral week of her late Majesty

    I was reminded of the standing that our country has in the world.

    When I travel on behalf of our country,

    I am lucky enough to see the UK as others see us.

    And I can tell you the view of here, from over there is really, really good.

    It’s not a terribly fashionable thing…

    To be proud of your country…

    But I am –

    So sue me!!!

    My mother chose to make this country her home.

    She was a young woman from Sierra Leone who adored this country then,

    Just as I adore this country now.

    In fact,

    I am from immigrant stock on both sides of my family:

    My mum came here from West Africa in 1966

    And my dad’s family came here from Normandy in 1066.

    There will always be people that talk our country down…

    Belittle our achievements…

    Underestimate our standing…

    Those self-loathing keyboard warriors…

    Who hate our country’s every success…

    And pray for bad news.

    Those people who aren’t happy until they’re unhappy:

    They want to stand on the side-lines,

    Never contributing,

    Only moaning and bleating.

    But that isn’t us;

    That isn’t this party;

    That isn’t this government;

    That isn’t this country.

    We aren’t commentators watching the match,

    And saying “Ohhhhh I wouldn’t have done that”.

    We are players on the pitch…

    Making a difference…

    Promoting our values…

    Competing on the world stage for what we believe is right.

    And we believe in freedom.

    We believe in the rule of law.

    We believe that an aggressor cannot invade its neighbour with impunity.

    This is why we stand shoulder to shoulder with those brave Ukrainians defending their homeland.

    And Britain has the strategic endurance to see this through to their victory.

    Back in February this year, at the United Nations I said that if Putin was foolish enough to attempt to invade Ukraine,

    The Ukrainians would defend their country ferociously.

    And they have done just that.

    Their bravery and passion has been amplified by the arms and training that we, the UK, have supplied.

    We will support them until this war is won.

    We will support them until their sovereignty is restored.

    We will support them until the last Russian tank is dragged away by a Ukrainian tractor.

    We need to have the strategic endurance to see this through to the end.

    Because, if we don’t…

    we send a message to every potential aggressor that our resolve is fragile.

    We cannot, must not, will not send that message to the world.

    And if you happen to be listening to this speech, Mr Putin, Mr Lavrov:

    Let me be clear:

    We will never recognise the annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, or Crimea.

    They are Ukraine.

    And when Ukraine has won this war,

    – And it will –

    then we will support them as they rebuild their homes, their economy, and their society.

    We will work with our friends and allies around the world to hold the perpetrators to account.

    To punish those who use rape as a weapon of war;

    To punish those who knowingly target civilian infrastructure;

    To punish those who murder women and children

    We do not do this alone.

    We are a member of many international groups:

    The commonwealth, NATO, UN Security Council, AUKAS, the G7, the G20.

    We intend to build more alliances, friendships and partnerships around the globe.

    It’s why we have ambassadors, high commissioners, and diplomats in hundreds of locations.

    It’s why I and my fantastic team of ministers travel the world.

    Trust me, it isn’t to stock up on those giant Toblerones.

    When there is war, our work on the international stage is visible and obvious:

    Building coalitions of condemnation at the UN for example,

    Coordinating sanctions against those who facilitate the war,

    Working to ensure the exports of food and fertiliser from the Black Sea ports.

    But much of what the FCDO does is less visible,

    But no less important

    I have just returned from a series of meetings in East and South East Asia.

    I paid my respects at the funeral of Japan’s former prime minister Shinzo Abe.

    Then I went to the Republic of Korea;

    And then to Singapore;

    In each country I met with senior ministers;

    met a number of international business people…

    I set out the details of our Indo-Pacific tilt.

    It’s a part of the world which is growing fast.

    And through trade agreements, cooperation agreements, and our ASEAN dialogue partner status,

    We are shrinking the distance between us.

    I spoke about the opportunities that at available to us all.

    And, of course, I spoke about the role that China plays in the region and globally.

    I made our position clear:

    That China could and should take a different path;

    That it should adhere to the rules and norms of the international community;

    And it should stop persecuting its people at home and stop sanctioning my friends and colleagues in parliament.

    And while I was on the other side of the world,

    FCDO ministers were in the USA, in European capitals, in Africa,

    And a number of my ministers are overseas as I speak.

    Because we have to invest in our international relationships.

    Patient, but effective diplomacy:

    We invest time,

    We invest energy,

    And yes, we invest money.

    Because that’s how we generate influence on the world stage

    And that’s how we drive improvements in the lives of people overseas,

    And how we improve the lives of people here in the UK.

    The development money that we spend,

    Our overseas development assistance or “ODA”:

    It helps women and children brutalised by conflict,

    It helps prevent starvation,

    We use our expertise in financial services through British Investment Partnerships to amplify the money that we provide to part-fund projects that generate green energy,

    And increase trade…

    And stimulate economic growth in some of the least developed countries.

    We don’t just stand idly by and watch problems happen:

    We step in to improve things,

    Not passive, but active.

    It is the right thing to do, it helps people that need our help.

    And it also helps us at home.

    Because safe, secure and prosperous countries don’t generate refugees or hundreds of thousands of economic migrants;

    Safe, secure and prosperous countries don’t export terrorism;

    Safe, secure and prosperous countries are good trade partners for us;

    So obviously we want to see more safe, secure and prosperous countries.

    That is the active role that our ODA plays.

    But just because we look to build peace and prosperity in distant places,

    we mustn’t forget the need to build prosperity closer to home.

    A good diplomatic and economic relationship with the EU and its member states is good for us all:

    we’ve worked closely on sanctions against Russians who have enabled the war in Ukraine.

    I want to see more cooperation across the channel and across the Irish Sea,

    And addressing the current problems with the Northern Ireland Protocol is key to that.

    I want to ensure that we restore the integrity of the UK internal market,

    I want to protect North/South trade,

    and restore the balance of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement, which has been disrupted by the protocol.

    I want to see all the communities in Northern Ireland represented again in the Stormont executive,

    So that devolved government is re-established.

    I will work hard to get that.

    Last week I spoke to the EU’s lead negotiator Vice President Maroš Šefčovič.

    We agreed on our desire to reach a solution that works for all parts of the UK, especially the people of Northern Ireland;

    We have the Northern Ireland Protocol bill working its way through parliament.

    In the meantime, we continue to pursue a negotiated settlement which respects the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom and our single market,

    and supports the institutions of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement.

    As you can see my great ministers Vicky Ford, Jesse Norman, Leo Doherty, Zac Goldsmith, Tariq Ahmad, and Gillian Keegan and I have plenty to keep us busy.

    But it is a job worth doing.

    Promoting global Britain on the world stage

    And I speak for the ministers and the civil servants and diplomats in the FCDO when I say:

    It is an honour to represent the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

    It is a great country

    A country I am proud of

    A country I love

    Thank you.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Peace in Yemen

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Peace in Yemen

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 1 October 2022.

    Yemen must not return to conflict. The truce expires tomorrow, but the Houthis continue to endanger the talks and deny Yemenis a peaceful future.

    The truce has brought tangible benefits to both Yemenis and regional security and we welcome the Government of Yemen’s commitment to extend it further if an extension can be agreed.

    We call on the Houthis to engage constructively with UN Special Envoy Hans Grundberg’s efforts to broker an extension to the truce, so that serious dialogue about achieving a peaceful, inclusive and Yemeni-led future can take place.

  • Joe Biden – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attempt to Annex Ukrainian Territory

    Joe Biden – 2022 Statement on Russia’s Attempt to Annex Ukrainian Territory

    The statement made by Joe Biden, the President of the United States, on 30 September 2022.

    The United States condemns Russia’s fraudulent attempt today to annex sovereign Ukrainian territory. Russia is violating international law, trampling on the United Nations Charter, and showing its contempt for peaceful nations everywhere.

    Make no mistake: these actions have no legitimacy. The United States will always honor Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders. We will continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to regain control of its territory by strengthening its hand militarily and diplomatically, including through the $1.1 billion in additional security assistance the United States announced this week.

    In response to Russia’s phony claims of annexation, the United States, together with our Allies and partners, are announcing new sanctions today. These sanctions will impose costs on individuals and entities — inside and outside of Russia — that provide political or economic support to illegal attempts to change the status of Ukrainian territory. We will rally the international community to both denounce these moves and to hold Russia accountable. We will continue to provide Ukraine with the equipment it needs to defend itself, undeterred by Russia’s brazen effort to redraw the borders of its neighbor. And I look forward to signing legislation from Congress that will provide an additional $12 billion to support Ukraine.

    I urge all members of the international community to reject Russia’s illegal attempts at annexation and to stand with the people of Ukraine for as long as it takes.

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Comments on Latest Sanctions Against Russia

    James Cleverly – 2022 Comments on Latest Sanctions Against Russia

    The comments made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, on 30 September 2022.

    The UK utterly condemns Putin’s announcement of the illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory. We will never recognise the results of these sham referendums or any annexation of Ukrainian territory.

    The Russian regime must be held to account for this abhorrent violation of international law. That’s why we are working with our international partners to ramp up the economic pressure through new targeted services bans.

    What happens in Ukraine matters to us all, and the UK will do everything possible to assist their fight for freedom.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech at the Atlantic Future Forum

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech at the Atlantic Future Forum

    The speech made by Jesse Norman, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in New York on 29 September 2022.

    National and Economic Security Policy in a Geopolitical Age: the UK’s approach

    Thank you very much indeed, Samira, who can follow that extraordinary exchange we had just had between Eric Schmidt and General Sir Patrick Sanders. What an education that was in itself and what a delight it is to listen to and speak to you on this fascinating topic.

    I am responsible in the British government for the diplomatic interface with the technology of the kind we are talking about, it could be defence and security, or it could be other kinds and I will touch upon them a little bit later in my talk. Ladies and gentlemen, as you have heard and know this is not a world or a time for a grand strategy. We face a strained international order, characterised by state competition and mounting security threats as well as the kinds of non-state actors we have seen in recent years. As societies and economies have become more complex and more interconnected, new vulnerabilities have emerged and been exploited and they in turn damage the integrity of the open economic system which has underpinned our prosperity since the 1990s. We should think not in terms of two geographies, Europe and the Far East but also a third in the Middle East and that it going to impose new stresses and strains on that system.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought that reality into the sharpest relief as we have just been hearing. This weaponisation of connectivity – whether grain or gas – has driven soaring global energy prices and plunged millions of the world’s most vulnerable into hunger and famine. Many miles from the theatre of war potentially into hunger and famine . As Eric said this is the first broadband war, this is not just in technologies but in mind-set and leadership. Technology has been central to the response. But this comes in both directions, but the unity and resolve in Great Britain and United States, European Allies and others in responding to such an act of aggression has been very striking. We have imposed major macro-economic cost on President Putin, frustrated his war machine and strengthened Ukrainian leverage and power. And we know it caught Russia off-guard: our sanctions have already seen Russia facing its first external debt default potentially for a century. Above all, it demonstrated that the ‘political west’ has the economic weight to defend global stability and promote the values we cherish – openness, sovereignty and freedom.

    Now this systematic competition that we have described is intensifying, and is growing in complexity. The geopolitical order is being superseded or placed within a wider new global order of opinion and connectivity and narrative. Our mission on economic security is clear and crystallising – at home and with partners, and I propose to touch on three aspects of that mission.

    The first is learning from our Russia/Ukraine experience in order to do more to resist aggression and coercion. That means for us focusing on deepening co-operation with G7 allies to build a new economic security mechanism; what the Prime Minster has called an ‘Economic NATO’ that will improve our collective ability to assess, deter, and respond to threats from aggressive powers, including economic coercion. In the simplest terms if the economy of one partner is being targeted by an aggressive regime we should be prepared and we will be prepared through this new mechanism to support them.
    Having such defensive economic measures alongside traditional measures of resistance in a state of readiness builds credible asymmetric deterrence to aggression including threats of military force. It underscores our commitment to a world in which respect for international rules and sovereignty is the bedrock of good relations, good business and healthy society.

    Secondly, we must build our own resilience to shocks – this has been a big theme of the last 24 hours – whether they are organic or come from outside. The most urgent part of this task is to build redundancies and to end our dependence on authoritarian states who would weaponise our very openness and integration and connectivity to hurt us. We have shown unprecedented resolve in this respect – divesting away from Russian energy supply is a signal of upmost importance in showing our willingness to bear short term economic costs in defending a sovereign free state from unprovoked aggression.

    We are also getting ahead in other possible areas of strategic dependence. Whether it is vital new technologies or the critical minerals that will power those technologies and support then. We are working to strengthen trusted supply chains that can be relied on whatever the geopolitical weather. Supply chains that can operate on a cost basis that allows them to be effective, wide spread and support our wider aims. That will mean helping allies pursue and consolidate strategic advantage – a practice of “friend shoring” across key sectors. And as we think to our friends, there is no closer or more trusted bond than that between our two countries the United Kingdom and United States of America. It is often said that democracies are slower to respond to threats but more resilient over time. We must change that, we must be quicker to respond and more resilient. We must be highly rapid in our response in a highly changing environment as Eric Schmit has pointed out.

    Finally, we must learn in this new world to “play offence” even better than we are at the moment. That means not to abandon but to practice and exemplify the values we are defending. That is to promote the liberal international trading order, whose transformative benefits we have seen for many decades across the world. And to be a dynamic, reliable and a trustworthy partner. This applies to the terms of trade. We are at a globally high standard. The free trade agreements we are developing are of the highest quality when it comes to transparency and trust. And our new independent trade policy allows us to do more for emerging economies including through the Developing Countries Trading Scheme – a scheme that will offer 65 developing countries greater opportunities from exporting to the UK.

    It also means extending our collective economic offer to the world – in the sectors that matter most to them, and without the strings of coercion we have seen our adversaries use. At the highest level, the G7 Partnership for Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) is an important leap forward. PGII will mobilise $600bn of reliable finance for infrastructure investment in low and middle-income countries over the next five years. What it shows is that combating future adversaries is not just liberties as a value itself but it is something we must turn our strength to and our capacity to innovate in support for the global good – in a whole range of sectors from vaccines to the next generation of energy production and many others. And these are sectors I will be focusing my team on within government in the coming months.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the war of the future is the war of hearts and minds as well as weapons. If it was ever thus, it is more so now than it ever before. But we need to build and maintain that trust. And we will. Thank you very much indeed.